Turo cars are typically owned by private individuals, are they not? (It's like Airbnb for cars.) Gotta suck to be the owner of one of those trucks. Both from an insurance standpoint (are terrorist acts covered?) and also as a "this one time I rented out my car on Turo" story... especially the New Orleans truck owner :/
There's also a lot of small business type operations on there that have a dozen or so cars. Like Airbnb, many folks are buying assets just to rent them out.
There’s quite a bit of competition actually. I was going to rent one on a recent trip and there were about 20 cyber trucks available as low as $100 per day.
I used Turo to test a bunch of EVs a while back - I just priced in the Turo added insurance since mine didn't cover Turo (apparently Progressive does).
We had a bunch of tough requirements so the deep investigation panned out nicely - only spent a couple of thousand and got to road trip with several nice vehicles and family had a strong favorite which we bought (used).
I'm fairly sure people who rent the cars on Turo need a specific insurance program but not sure if they cover these kinds of events.
Recently saw a news piece where insurance companies are dramatically jacking up the insurance rates for Cybertrucks. If so, they're really getting screwed.
I'm sure you were making a joke, but I'll answer anyway: probably not, since insurance is regulated on a state level. Although it might be better in the long term, federal regulation governing vehicle insurance would probably be unconstitutional as well as opposed by the states as well as the insurance companies themselves.
Ryder rented both vehicles used in Oklahoma City and '93 WTC. This is a meaningless grasping at straws unless we want to forbid rental vehicles entirely because of what 1:10 million outliers might do with them. Maybe we ought to figure out what's wrong with us, people at home, and the conditions of people elsewhere in the world who are going on suicidal rampages, and then help, reform, or reset in multiple-point, holistic approach to put peoples on-track as viable, healthy civilizations without as much violence?
It’s not meaningless, it’s an interesting coincidence.
These acts are done for notoriety and taking a gun into a school or a market has become so normalized we are seeing more attacks like this that can be done anywhere at anytime with easily available items like trucks.
I agree that we need to figure out how to solve this, but our consumption of media is a key part of it. The very thing that uses fear and anger to keep us all engaged is the vehicle these attackers rely on to attain notoriety.
If we all turned off the feed, would so many sick people be plotting to make headlines in the worst ways possible?
> It’s not meaningless, it’s an interesting coincidence.
> I agree that we need to figure out how to solve this, but our consumption of media is a key part of it. The very thing that uses fear and anger to keep us all engaged is the vehicle these attackers rely on to attain notoriety.
Bikeshedding about trivial details doesn't accomplish that.
I wonder why so many articles continue to say "exploded" and "caught fire" when by now it's clear that it was a deliberate act. I mean, it's not wrong, but it seems to insinuate that there's something wrong with the vehicle that caused the explosion, rather than someone intentionally stuffing it full of fireworks and explosives.
The early, easily confirmed facts were that the car exploded and caught fire. Same with New Orleans, the headlines said “car struck pedestrians” rather than attributing it to a deliberate act.
I don’t know if the police themselves have actually called this a deliberate act yet. Yes, the evidence looks pretty overwhelming but it might be that media orgs don’t want to jump the gun on a highly sensitive topic.
I would say all of the most popular media. Both sides do it but I sure notice it a lot more on the left. Maybe that's not fair because 80% of the media leans hard left.
As for examples, this is the most obviously damning one I can remember: a pregnant nurse (white of course) was accused of stealing an e-bike from a black man standing in a group of several other black men. The NATIONAL media wasted zero time going to her employer, talking to her neighbors, basically putting her in danger over what was at worst a misunderstanding. The pundits were out there talking smack about "weaponized white tears" and that kind of horrible hateful rant against white people and especially white women. Here's one of the updates where she tried to get people off her back: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12100201/Pregnant-N...
Re: Daily Mail, that link is one of the ones that was fair to the woman. If you do a modicum of research about that (which ought to be interesting to a normal person!) you can find plenty of information, including video of some major network interviewing her neighbors. I know you don't care though, you just want to downvote my insightful comments. Go find something better to do.
>You know fox news represents more than half of the TV news audience, right?
I'm not talking about market share, I'm talking about representation in these institutions. You should know better.
I didn't just make that up about the media being biased toward the left either. It has been proven in multiple surveys and polls. Individual journalists themselves tend to lean left, and so do their agencies overall. Look at how the staff of Washington Post freaked out in response to Bezos telling them to be less biased: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/washingt...
If you think more than half of all people prefer Fox News to the rest, that ought to tell you how insufferably biased they are. These used to be well-respected institutions but they have destroyed any semblance of impartiality in writing and good will toward the masses.
I don't recall a single headline of the form Starving mentally ill minority person eats cat as last resort
The usual media outlets jumped straight on the illegal immigrants eating cats narrative with nary a shred of solid evidence.
If you're not seeing headlines vilifying non white and non christian suspects on the slightest whiff of wrongdoing then you're either fully acclimatized or commenting in bad faith.
The 22 day old nom de guerre strongly suggests the latter.
From the reports I've read, the combustible materials consisted of large fireworks and some unpressurized fuel canisters. I'm not an expert in this field, but it seems that these materials, in this configuration, wouldn't create a large explosion outside of a Michael Bay movie. If placed correctly, they could have damaged the facade of the building via heat. If they had put them in a common 50 gal. steel drum with no lid, I suspect the results would have been much the same.
Why did he post it? Why did the attacker choose a CyberTruck?
If we are going to open up on speculation, then it seems reasonable to suspect that the attacker chose a CyberTruck because of Elon's relationship to the incoming administration. In response it makes sense that Elon would highlight the inept execution.
Some partisan responses to the health insurer's assassination have been positive. Even comments on this site seem to be rationalizing the violence. Typically, decent people would condemn terrorist violence as irrational escalation.
Highlighting the inept execution and poor planning illustrates the irrationality of the attacker. If Elon can subtly parlay it into some of the safety marketing or durability of his vehicle, that's an extra win on top.
Compare the narratives:
"Luigi was a smart guy and master planner who read books. Let's plug the author."
Trump, Musk, the Speaker, and Fox News are running with both Vegas and New Orleans events being the result of open borders, despite both perpetrators being American citizens.
Is it fair to say this kind of distortion is typical MAGA? Typical Republican? Is it decent? Why lie?
Fox initially ran with a story the NOLA truck illegally crossed the border with Mexico. This disinformation is intentional, no one is this incompetent. They know their demographic wants to be lied to. Disinformation is the product they're selling. Same with the politicians.
This is a bit of a tangent. I haven't reviewed all of the claims you outlined.
Turtles all the way down. I would say it typifies media across the board. There's also the meta-distortion where partisan sources misrepresent the statements of opposing partisans to present them as dishonest.
It depends on what you mean by 'media', but I think among top-level news media, Fox and ideological fellow travelers embrace disinformation and produce it at orders of magnitude higher volumes, while others make occasional errors.
Apply Hanlon's razor. There was zero shrapnel and most of the force blew upwards. It definitely could've been a really poor use of judgement of storing flammable gasoline and fireworks in a confined space that then found an ignition source in the piss-poor-designed back of the CT.
have you seen the photos? this wasn't a box of basic fireworks and a can of gas. the bed was loaded with a huge amount of camp fuel and large fireworks mortars.
considering that it was rented in Colorado, parked right in front of the trump hotel lobby with the trump hotel sign right above it, and exploded right after, the simplest explanation seems to be that it was intentional and that causing a scene was more important to them than killing.
> What about the "detonation system controlled by the driver in the Tesla Cybertruck" as reported by the FBI?
That's not a fact. I just watched a reputable report the morning after that also reiterated the FBI's position that there was still uncertainty if it was intentional or not.
Do you remember when, for hours and days, CNN and other news sources refused to acknowledge the assassination attempt, saying that he was hit by something not directed at him?
No, I don't remember that. Maybe you should cite your source. I seem to remember every major news outlet labeling the event as an assassination attempt, some noted that the shooter mentioned Epstein on social media.
Maybe you weren't paying attention and didn't see the "Trump led away after loud noises at rally" crap. The headlines and Google searches eventually aligned with obvious reality but it took a couple of days. This information is not terribly easy to find for most people so I'll help you out: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2024/07/13/media-rea...
Yes, in fact I think it took a week. I was being generous. I assume the site is citing their own tweet to generate views and to make people aware of their Twitter presence. So what? The info is there as requested. You're welcome.
Yeah yeah they edit these headlines and articles in real time. Even Archive.org cannot keep up with news, and they do nothing for search results which is what I was talking about. By the way, the Internet Archive was mysteriously down for several weeks during election season after Trump's multiple assassination attempts, and I don't buy their story either.
>The info is not there. Misinformation, sure.
You only provided one CNN link, which was likely modified in real time. The memory hole is real.
The mainsteam denial went on for quite a while. They first questioned whether he was shot, then they questioned the obvious motive of the assassin with stupid crap like "It is unclear what the shooter's motive was, or if it was political." To be fair a high-ranking FBI official was muddying the water and the media is practically obligated to take that seriously ( https://nypost.com/2024/07/25/us-news/fbi-director-christoph... for example). But take your lame apologetics elsewhere. I saw this unfold in real time by the hour, as a case study in propaganda and gaslighting.
Edit: Your trolling is testing the rate limit. Here's your reply, jerk:
>Nope, the article headline was not modified in real time. But you don't care because you are only interested in information that confirms your delusion.
You are arguing with me about stuff I watched very carefully with my own eyes only a few months ago. Take your snotty attitude and gaslighting elsewhere. Do not reply to me again on anything political, ever.
Nope, the article headline was not modified in real time. But you don't care because you are only interested in information that confirms your delusion.
> refused to acknowledge the assassination attempt, saying that he was hit by something not directed at him?
That’s usually what happens when news orgs only report confirmed information, e.g. “Trump hit by projectile”. It feels misleading but it’s accurate at the time.
If you’re literally saying they were specifically stating he was hit by something “not directed at him” (as opposed to “not confirmed whether it was directed at him”) I’d be fascinated to see some examples.
In the absence of a manifesto it's possible the driver intended a celebration of Trump and Musk by launching fireworks from a CyberTruck in front of a Trump property.
That would make it a deliberate act of r/FloridaMan stupidity.
>Big, global, uncensored megaphones are the problem I think.
No, anti-populist political agitation psyops backed by pervasive censorship campaigns are the problem. People who blame that problem on free and open channels of communication might be an even bigger problem.
Bang per buck is an EV a better improvised munitions? Fuel energy of petrol/distillate is high but the un-putoutable nature of the battery might Trump.
It's certainly harder to extinguish but the explosive component of it is too unpredictable. It could fizzle, it could pop, and it could take anywhere from a few minutes to several hours to go up.
A. It didn’t explode at all. AT BEST it deflagrated. But really, it was set on fire to make a ham fisted political point. The car didn’t do anything on its own.
B. BusinessInsider isn’t a real site. It’s a political blog pretending to be legitimate on zero earned merit.
C. Why does it matter that it was rented? And how is this some stunning reveal of a Turo business flaw that the NOLA murderer also used the popular rental service?
> C. Why does it matter that it was rented? And how is this some stunning reveal of a Turo business flaw that the NOLA murderer also used the popular rental service?
Both were EV trucks rented through Turo and had explosives placed in them on the same day. Hell of a coincidence if not related.
Since (A) the Las Vegas vehicle did not explode - at all - I’m waiting for a reputable source to say the Vegas one had “explosives”. At best, the video sounds like possible fireworks, also deflagration, not explosion.
I think they are pointing out that the actual battery pack didn't burn, just the flammable cargo. When you say an EV exploded, the implication is a lithium fire, which would be a LOT bigger and harder to put out.
Can you respond to this at the object level rather than trying to meta-analyze why people are saying things? I'm still not following why anyone thinks this is inaccurate.
Hardly: how many rental car companies are there? What is the relative price of them in those areas? Is the distribution of outlets higher in those areas or available rental stock higher?
There aren't that many rental car companies: this is the birthday paradox in action.
If price was a factor, why rent a Cybertruck, or any truck at all? Or an EV? A small traditional car would be much cheaper.
Does Turo make it easier to rent a car anonymously or with false identity? I've never heard of them or used them just wondering if that might be more the reason. I see they are "Car rentals, reimagined" and they sound something like an AirBNB for cars so it would be unsurprising to me if they played fast and loose with things like customer identification.
It’s not like there are strict rules governing who is allowed to rent a car (you pretty much just need to be old enough and have a driver’s license). Turo makes you take a selfie with your driver’s license within 24 hours of picking up the car. If you find a legal driver with a similar appearance and a copy of their driver’s license, maybe you could engage in identity theft and get away with renting a car from Turo even if you’re unlicensed. But you could do the same thing at an old school rental counter! It’s not like they’re fingerprinting you or scanning your retinas.
The reason I use Turo is that they offer a wide variety of vehicles, and you get to pick out what exact car you’re going to rent when you book it. I’ve used it to rent models that I’m considering buying. I’ve also used it just to avoid repeating the miserable experience of waiting in line at the rental counter for an hour after my flight lands at 1 AM. I can rent something nice, and pick it up from the parking garage next to the terminal.
Anyway, if I wanted to rent a Cybertruck, or any other specific model, Turo is certainly how I’d do it.
> It’s not like there are strict rules governing who is allowed to rent a car
Perhaps there might be some stricter rules coming, as rented vehicles seem to play into a lot of terrorist plans. On the other hand, I guess if all the past events didn't prompt that, why would these latest two?
there are a lot of rentacar companies I can name, because I've heard of them. Then there is this one I have never heard of involved in two weird incidents this week.
