A full three decades ago, as Bill Clinton turned 50 in the midst of his successful 1996 reelection campaign, he was sounding even then in an autumnal mood.

“I have more yesterdays than tomorrows” he used to say often that year, a wistfulness that caused those of us who covered him to puzzle. What’s with this misty nostalgia? It was literally true, unless he expected to live 100, that he probably had more yesterdays than tomorrows. But fifty is typically the point when people realize they are no longer exactly young. It is hardly an age that merits a self-conception as old. Clinton’s perspective, however, doubtless left him with an appreciation of the fragility of life. He never met his biological father — a traveling salesman who married five times and died at age 28 in a car accident, three months before the future president was born.

Yet Clinton himself has proved reasonably durable, especially for a man who had serious heart surgery at age 58. The 42nd president turns 80 today — at last at an age that amply justifies a more searching look back on life.

Rest assured that no one in 1996 was contemplating the possibility that the president 30 years later would be a man who is actually two months older than Clinton — much less that this man would be President Donald Trump, who at that time had already been famous as a real estate magnate and professional self-promoter for 15 years or so.

Above all, I think few people then were imagining that the country in 2026 would itself be feeling so old — or, at a minimum, so surly and so bereft of a unifying vision of the future. The very essence of the most powerful and divisive political movement since former President Ronald Reagan’s is expressly backward-looking — Make America Great Again.

Many of the habits that today infuse American politics — the ones that make it so remorseless and infused with indignation and disdain — were present in nascent form in Clinton’s presidency. At the time, those developments seemed exotic — there was scant notion that they represented a shabby new norm.

In the early days, this brand of contempt-driven politics often revolved around arguments about Bill Clinton’s public and private character. This was a theme of his 1992 election against George H.W. Bush, his 1996 election against Bob Dole, and it even shadowed the 2004 dedication of his presidential library in Little Rock, Ark.

I am hardly a Clinton intimate. I haven’t been in his company in a decade. At one time, however, I probably knew as much about his presidency — its animating ideas, its decisive moments, its distinctive personalities — as anyone who had not actually served in it. This came from six years covering his White House for the Washington Post, and another two working on a book that aimed to synthesize his years in office and take a preliminary cut at assessing their historical weight. In both journalistic and historical terms, much of this time was devoted to thinking about competing appraisals of Clinton’s character.

It is an argument without end in part because the positive and negative elements of Clinton’s character, the light and the shadows, seemingly flow from the same source: an intense need to win, to matter, to seduce, to prove himself in the world. Imagine if people around Bill Clinton in 1974, the year he ran unsuccessfully for Congress — Hillary Rodham, then a girlfriend but not yet a spouse, showed up in Arkansas to help — had been given a crystal ball to peer into the future. These people would not be surprised to learn that a future president was in their midst; His talent, ambition, and idealism were that obvious. Nor would they be surprised to learn how his campaigns and presidency would at various turns be nearly derailed. As early biographer David Maraniss documented, even then Clinton had a reputation for sexual vagrancy, and the patterns of heedlessness, deception, and hypocrisy such a lifestyle inevitably requires.

He’s been out of political office for more than a quarter-century — as long as he was ever in it, beginning with his first victory as Arkansas attorney general in 1976. By my lights, the years since he yielded the Oval Office to George W. Bush (who turned 80 last month) in January 2001 have abundantly ratified the proposition that the country could do worse — at key junctures plainly has done worse–than Clinton’s character or his record, the strengths and infirmities alike.

As he turns 80, and the country contemplates a post-Trump future two years from now, it seems to me there are at least four ways in which Clinton has prevailed in the great character argument woven throughout his life.

Responsibility

This is a place where my views have not changed much from what I thought at the time and what I think now. A paradox of Clinton’s presidency is that, however reckless he was in his personal life — culminating in the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal and Republicans’ unsuccessful attempt to evict him from office through impeachment — he was supremely responsible in his use of power and his willingness to take sober risks for what he thought was right. Yes, he would over-agonize on hard choices — on issues from trade to welfare to war in the Balkans. But at the end of the day — sometimes it could be a very long day — on big subjects there was rarely much variance between what Clinton genuinely thought was the right decision and what he did.

A good many of his policies are out of favor now within his own party. But the political and policy landscape he was navigating was much different than today. Clinton was a thoroughly political creature, but he was not an unduly cynical one — he was willing frequently to risk his political self-interest on behalf of what he conceived of as the public interest.

Persuasion

One reason Bill Clinton and his brand of centrist politics can seem antiquated is that the past generation has been defined by a whole different emphasis: the politics of mobilization. Under this later school of politics, elections are won principally by sharpening divisions and elevating the moral stakes. The aim is not to win over skeptics through the power of reasoned argument. It is to convince your own side that the other side is so repugnant in its character and aims that they should rally behind you and turn out in the biggest possible numbers.

Clinton would in most of his campaigns give a nod to trying to explain what the other side believed, and why he believed his approach is better. “I think one of the ways you win elections is by talking straight with people and giving them permission to vote against you,” Clinton said a few years ago on a podcast. What he meant was that effective arguments don’t hector audiences or assert moral superiority, or the other side’s moral iniquity. They invite or even inspire people to think about an issue differently.

In short, the politics of mobilization harnesses the power of contempt; the politics of persuasion employs the language of respect. Mobilization politics tends to deal in ideological and cultural abstractions like free markets versus socialism, or “traditional values” versus sexual freedom — the kind of debates that are especially potent at pushing people to decide “which side are you on?” Persuasion politics is more likely to center on the concrete human dimensions of policy choices — here’s what an expansion of childcare tax credits might mean for you.

You could argue which brand of politics is more effective, and for the most part advocates of mobilization politics in recent years on left and right have been prevailing. But it’s hard to see how the politics of persuasion is not a more inspiring expression of American character, and also more likely to resolve serious long-term debates.

The fight for power

When Clinton opened his presidential library in Little Rock in 2004, the late Peter Jennings of ABC News in an interview baited Clinton about a recent survey of historians that rated his presidency reasonably well overall, but second to last (ahead only of Richard Nixon) in “moral authority.” Clinton said curtly that the historians were wrong, adding, “I don’t really care what they think.” Jennings replied: “Excuse me, Mr. President. I can feel it across the room. You care very deeply.”

Clinton then snapped: “You don’t want to go here, Peter. You don’t want to go here. Not after what you people did. And the way you — your network — what you did with [Whitewater prosecutor] Kenneth Starr. The way your people repeated every little sleazy thing he leaked. No one has any idea of what that’s like.”

The new library had an alcove about Clinton’s 1998 impeachment and subsequent acquittal called, “The Fight for Power.” The scandal, the exhibit argued, was simply the Republicans’ effort to overturn an election they lost.

At the time, I believed this was mostly Clinton’s tortured rationalization for his own mistakes. Events since then, however, have swung the historical argument irrefutably in his favor. In the 1990s we spent months and even years covering such inane issues as whether the newly elected Clinton acted properly to fire long-term employees of the office that booked White House charter flights and hotels for the media. Now, Trump asserts the right to eliminate cabinet departments and agencies without congressional approval — and the stories often get lost in the rush of other news. There is not a credible argument that says Bill and Hillary Clinton’s Whitewater land investments in the 1970s were a worthy subject for ethics inquiries and criminal probes but the Trump family’s crypto investments and overseas deals while the company founder is in the Oval Office are no big deal.

Clinton was right that the attacks on his character were often simply not on the level—but a proxy for other agendas.

Perseverance

In 2000, as Bill Clinton’s presidency was winding down and Hillary Clinton was waging a successful campaign for New York Senate, there was a political skull session at the White House involving a trusted roster of aides and strategists. As one of them described it to me later, Bill Clinton brought up the elephant in the room. Female voters in particular, he noted, wanted to understand why Hillary had stayed with Bill during the sex scandal. The mood was briefly awkward until Hillary Clinton said good-naturedly that she wanted to know the answer too.

“Because you’re a sticker!” the president replied, jabbing the air for emphasis.

Actually, it seems to me, both Clintons are. Across many decades, they have stayed married, and stayed in the fight over the issues they care about—amid plenty of victories and setbacks alike. That is a kind of character, too.

These days, Bill Clinton’s public appearances are fewer. At times he looks frail. His skeptics include many people in his own party. Yet, on his 80th birthday, the main question seems to be less about his character than the country’s: Is there a pathway to a destination in which more people believed with him that politics can illuminate the best and most generous and inspiring parts of national identity? Clinton may be getting old, but that idea should be made young again.

A deal between the U.S. and Canada to stave off new tariffs on Canadian goods is now on President Donald Trump’s desk, according to three people familiar with the discussions who were granted anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks.

Now it’s up to Trump whether the 50 percent duty goes into effect, as scheduled, at midnight.

U.S. and Canadian officials have been in wall-to-wall talks for several days, with the administration pressing Canada to drop retaliatory measures it took against Trump’s tariffs last year — including provincial bans on U.S. liquor and tariffs on U.S. automobiles — and Ottawa looking to lower U.S. duties on autos, among other goods. The potential deal taking shape also includes Canadian concessions on its tariff-rate quota on dairy — an issue that has frequently come up in Trump’s missives against Canadian trade policy, according to two of the three people.

Negotiators hope a small deal on these issues can unlock broader talks between the two countries on a North American trade agreement that is up for review this year. But automobiles remained a major sticking point in negotiations Monday as U.S. and Canadian officials huddled in the afternoon, according to three other people familiar with the status of the talks, granted anonymity to discuss them. While the duties set to go into effect Wednesday only hit a small percentage of trade between the two countries, they could poison the broader negotiation on nearly $1 trillion worth of goods and services trade between the two countries.

“You can think of it as effectively trying to come up with an early harvest, an interim deal, a smaller package of what ultimately will land as part of the USMCA talks,” said Kelly Ann Shaw, who served as deputy assistant for international economic affairs during Trump’s first term.

The political stakes are high on both sides of the border. After repurposing a hockey fighting slogan to describe his approach to the U.S. during last year’s campaign, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is now confronted with U.S. officials who are adamant that Canada will have to drop longstanding trade protections, like loosening its supply management program that protects the dairy and lumber industries.

“There’s going to be a political cost for Carney on any type of concession with some portion of the public,” said an industry figure, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the trade discussions. “I cannot understate how upset the average Canadian is with the United States, and really specifically with Trump.”

If the tariffs go into effect, the Trump administration risks creating more economic pain ahead of midterm elections — particularly in Maine and Michigan, two states that could help determine the control of the Senate.

“At the end of the day, [U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson] Greer cannot bring something to the president that doesn’t address some of the president’s personal core concerns,” Shaw said. “And I think Carney recognizes he’s got to bring something back where he can say, ‘Look, not only are we just at the table, but we actually got something for it.’”

The White House did not respond to a request for comment. Gabriel Brunet, the spokesman for Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc, said the Canadians were “in a holding pattern at this time.”

Trump sparked the frenzied negotiations last month after he used a Great Depression-era tariff law to impose tariffs on a wide swath of Canadian goods, like hockey equipment and Canadian bacon, if Canada did not remove its tariffs on U.S. automobiles, eliminate provincial bans on U.S. alcohol and make changes to its dairy supply management laws. But his proclamation included a one-month lag before the duties to kick in, to allow more more talks. The tariffs officially take effect at midnight Aug. 19.

At the time, trade experts saw the tariffs as a way for Trump to force Canada to the negotiating table after struggling for months to make progress — to U.S. officials’ growing frustration.

“I think these three issues must be resolved before Canada can get into the room on USMCA with the United States,” said a former USTR official, shortly after Trump unveiled the new tariffs on Canada last month. “And the U.S. side is wanting a situation where Canada is in the room and so they’re trying to help prompt fixes to these three.”

Of the three issues, auto tariffs have emerged as a key sticking point. Canada is looking for reductions in the 25 percent auto tariffs Trump imposed last year on countries around the world and wants the duty to apply only to vehicle content produced outside North America, according to one of the people.

Automobiles could also be key to unlocking progress on U.S. demands. The United States has made clear that getting American wine and spirits back on Canadian shelves is a red line in the negotiations. But that issue is up to the individual provinces maintaining the bans, which will mean winning over premiers like Doug Ford of Ontario — a car-making hub.

Whether Ford caves will “come down to where we land on autos,” one of the people said, calling the automobile piece of the talks a “domino” in the discussions.

Ford exerted his control over his province’s liquor stores in March 2025, removing U.S. alcohol from shelves in the country’s most populous province. Other premieres soon followed, delivering a nearly $150 million blow to the U.S. distilled spirits industry, alone. While Alberta and Saskatchewan lifted their bans after just a few months, the two provinces account for less than 20 percent of the Canadian population.

Even if the premieres do end their boycott, there’s no guarantee that Canadians — who are also upset by Trump’s jabs that Canada should become the 51st U.S. state — will be quick to resume purchases.

“I would be surprised, even if the liquor goes back on the shelves, if Canadians buy it,” said the industry figure.

While Trump officials have repeatedly faulted Canada for being one of two countries that retaliated against the president’s tariffs — along with China — Trump is also attempting to get the country to drop longstanding protectionist measures for its dairy industry, a source of tension between the two neighbors for decades.

On the Canadian side, negotiators LeBlanc and Janice Charette have been pushing for reductions to U.S. national security tariffs imposed on automobiles and steel and aluminum. But the Trump administration has held firm on the 50 percent steel tariffs, according to three people familiar with the status of the metals discussions.

“That’s probably going to be something that is much more of a longer term” discussion, one of the people said, “if at all.”

Greer stressed to reporters last week that he has been satisfied with the steel tariffs and their impact on the domestic steel industry.

“This is working,” he argued, pointing to rising domestic steel production. Through mid-August, U.S. steelmaking was up more than 5 percent year-to-date on the same period last year, according to the American Iron and Steel Institute, and capacity utilization was up two percentage points.

“We’re seeing huge success in the American steel industry, which is exactly what President Trump wanted,” Greer said during a trip to Iowa Thursday.

Mike Blanchfield contributed to this report from Ottawa.

The Tesla Cybercab, that golden two-seater central to Elon Musk's robo-supremacist ambitions, is finally nearing its public launch. Whether or not the no-steering wheel and no-pedal vehicle is actually ready for public roads, let alone customers, remains very much in doubt.

According to The Information, Tesla is planning a public launch of the Cybercab in Austin, Texas, as soon as this month. The driverless vehicle has been popping up around the country, although often with a steering wheel and pedals, as employees are continuing to gather data. Tesla employees have been testing the fully driverless version on private roads around the compa …

Read the full story at The Verge.

A lot of automakers talk about wanting to minimize or eliminate driver distractions so as to make the experience of driving more rewarding and safer overall. Lamborghini has a different strategy; it wants the driver to become one with their vehicle. This helps explain the storied super car maker's tagline for the new Revuelto SV: the quantum of driving.

"For us, quantum of driving is the moment when you get into the car, you start driving the car, and the car and you become one piece," said Alessandro Farmeschi, product line director for the Revuelto, the Italian brand's top V12 powered model. "And you start just thinking about your drive, …

Read the full story at The Verge.

Ford said today that its next-generation electric vehicle - recently dubbed Fathom - will go into production at the automaker's recently overhauled Louisville Assembly Plant in the first quarter of 2027.

The first Fathoms will be prototypes, with Ford's team in Louisville already in the production-level pre-tooling phase at the recently converted facility. Factory workers are working alongside team's at Ford's New Model Product Development Center in Dearborn, Michigan, hand-building the Fathom prototypes - and the same operators who helped design the high-stakes EV will also be involved in its production.

The factory is over 70 years old …

Read the full story at The Verge.

My drive of the 2027 Corvette Grand Sport X began under oily black clouds, a torrential weather front releasing its grip on Manhattan - an inauspicious start for any mega-powered sports car. Rain pelted the waterlogged pavement, as I set course for the mountain-man roads of the Catskills, then on to Long Island and New England over three days. Fortunately, this Grand Sport, a name synonymous with value among Corvette fans, was the first of its kind: A 721-horsepower super-hybrid with a brainy, confidence-boosting AWD system. I popped the Corvette into Sport mode, Wet mode be damned. Finding tire grip galore on the Palisades Parkway, I realiz …

Read the full story at The Verge.

Rivian R1S owners, rejoice. Rivian has heard your pleas for second-row captain's chairs.

For years, Rivian owners have lamented the absence of captain's chairs in the R1S, noting that the three-row SUV would be much improved with standalone seats instead of a bench in the second row. Parents groused that loading and unloading kids in the R1S could be a headache, especially with a child's seat in the second row. And some owners have even contemplated going so far as to rip out the second-row bench seat and replace it with aftermarket chairs - so desperate were they for an accessible path to the third row.

Fortunately for them, Rivian annou …

Read the full story at The Verge.

In an Oscars season rife with controversies, shutouts and disappointments, the one seemingly surefire, feel-good figure this year has been Brad Pitt. Nearly 30 years into his Hollywood career, the hardworking leading man has created some of our most iconic movie moments and developed an uncanny instinct for creative, audience-pleasing parts. Now, he seems a lock to take home his first acting Academy Award (he has one under his belt as a producer on “12 Years a Slave”) for his supporting role as good-natured, possibly wife-killing, history-changing stunt double and righthand man Cliff Booth. But if ever there were a classic case of someone being the odds-on favorite based on overall industry goodwill than a singular performance, Pitt would be our greatest recent example. If merit alone earned awards, would Pitt really take it this year? Or to put it another way, can Brad Pitt act?

At 56, the Oklahoma native has entered a career stage where he seems at last to be forgiven for being so really, really, really, ridiculously good looking. Yet perhaps his best trick all along has been making his critics feel they shouldn’t dismiss him as a so-so performer just because he’s handsome, when in fact he might actually be just a so-so performer.

From the beginning, Pitt’s always been clever about how he leverages his physical appeal, using it as an instrument to create his characters rather than a diversion from his efforts. Even in his breakout role, as a smooth talking grifter in 1991’s “Thelma & Louise,” Pitt seemed in on the joke that as long as he kept his shirt off, he could tell a woman point blank that he was a robber — and then effortlessly rob her.

His rise was instantaneous after that. It was as if the factory that had created ruggedly beautiful stars like Gary Cooper and Gregory Peck had suddenly spit out one special new edition just for the ’90s. Campy starring roles followed in forgettable films like “Johnny Suede” and “Cool World,” parts that played off Pitt’s throwback appeal. Yet he also played the long game shrewdly, refusing to settle as simply agreeable beefcake. He sought out darker work in movies like “Kalifornia” (a film I still have to remind myself is not “Natural Born Killers”), “A River Runs Through It” and “Interview with a Vampire.” He appeared in his first Tarantino-penned film, “True Romance,” where he played a blissfully clueless stoner. And he had a knack for picking instant cult classics  like “Se7en” and “Fight Club,” a movie that should have inspired a special Oscar category for Best Performance By a Pelvis just so Pitt could have won.

Yet when I think of the Brad Pitt of that era — the actor, not the celebrity he was in the World’s Sexiest Man, Mr. Jennifer Anniston, name-checked in a Shania Twain song years — I remember his performance in the lesser known “The Devil’s Own,” in which he plays an IRA member and says things like, “Oi need dat mooney, Tum.” He may not yet have an acting Oscar, but for this role, Pitt is widely regarded as delivering one of the worst Northern Irish accents ever committed in cinema. A few years later, in Guy Ritchie’s “Snatch,” Pitt played an Irish Traveller, and while he memorably delivered a comically unintelligible performance, it was not exactly a method actor’s one. Ritchie reportedly made the character a Traveller because Pitt couldn’t pull off a London accent, and Pitt recently revealed he based his character’s dialect on a minor character on “Father Ted.” Then there’s his unfortunate “Everyting gwarn be iree” moment in “Meet Joe Black,” an attempt that I assure you was cringeworthy two decades ago, and has since aged like milk. Even as he’s filled up his IMDb page, his technical abilities have remained limited. 

Admirably, Pitt could have spent his career doing the big superhero parts, instead of skewering that image in “Megamind” and “Deadpool 2.” He could have done some lucrative spy series and be 20 years into the role by now. That’s what movie stars do, right? He’s consistently gravitated toward odder, more challenging work like “Burn After Reading.” His previous acting nominations have all been for more idiosyncratic films — “Twelve Monkeys,” “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” and “Moneyball.” Yet the impression he gives is not that of some weird, English arteeeste who disappears into his characters. He’s just a hard-working regular guy who gets the job done. This is not without appeal. 

And then there are those Tarantino movies. In “Inglorious Basterds” he carves up Nazis and helps rewrite a history where Hitler doesn’t weasel out in a bunker suicide. (Surely there’s a Tarantino-Pitt collaboration on the Jeffrey Epstein story somewhere in our collective future.) He also delivers another accent that gets a little shaky. Now, in his Oscar-nominated performance in “Once Upon a Time . . .  in Hollywood,” Pitt plays a man who is seasoned, heroic, a little sinister, and still looks insanely good shirtless. In other words, he’s a Hollywood executive’s wet dream of himself.

Is “Once Upon a Time . . . in Hollywood” any good? I side with my colleague Matt Rozsa and say, it decidedly is not. It’s a meandering mess, from a filmmaker whose works increasingly play into the classic “If I was there, things would have gone a lot differently, let me tell you” fantasy. (Take that, hippies.)

Though there is not much to see in Pitt’s performance that he hasn’t already delivered in at least a dozen other eccentric-and-manly-but-the-ladies-like-him-too performances, critics loved it. The New York Times praised Pitt’s “down-to-the-bone minimalism” and the star has already picked up a shelf of prizes, earning goodwill at each stop on the road to Oscar for his charming acceptance speeches.

Though the Oscar is only supposed to be for one performance, Pitt’s awards trajectory this year has no doubt been boosted by “Ad Astra,” another acclaimed movie with an appeal that entirely eluded me. As astronaut Roy McBride, Pitt is a middle-aged man searching the solar system for his daddy. It’s desperately tedious and doesn’t make sense, and I would like a refund for those hours of my life. Pitt’s stoic performance doesn’t help matters, but he does get to well up with emotion at times, which does technically constitute acting.

Writing in the New York Times recently, critic Manohla Dargis observed that earlier in Pitt’s career, “It became a favorite cliché to write that he was a character actor trapped in the body of a star . . .  Some of this, I think, stems from a suspicion of beauty, that it can’t be trusted.” Yet the “character actor in a movie star’s body” designation seems more fitting for Pitt’s costar and fellow Oscar nominee Leonardo DiCaprio, who from his earliest roles in “This Boy’s Life” and “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape” has always displayed serious native talent. Or look at another of his “Once Upon a Time . . . ” costars, Oscar nominee (for “Bombshell”) Margot Robbie, who in the last six months skillfully has played Sharon Tate, Harley Quinn, and an ambitious Fox News employee, and among other laudable elements, delivered a different (and believable) accent for each.

In contrast, Pitt seems to dazzle by sticking to similar characters in very different movies, a neat bit of acting sleight-of-hand. If he is indeed a character actor, he sure likes to stick to the same character — unselfconsciously virile, easy to imagine chewing on a toothpick.   

I happen to enjoy plenty of Pitt’s movies and even his performances. I could watch him eat his way through “Ocean’s 11” all day, and I can’t imagine any other actor delivering the immortal line, “What’s in the box?” But his seemingly locked-down Oscars juggernaut is not a reward for a meticulous performance in a stellar movie. That is absolutely not what is happening here. It’s a prize for consistency, charm and charisma over several decades.

This shining moment also happens to come at one when the industry is still clearly not ready to fully reckon with itself. It’s been only two years since the real Sharon Tate’s famed widower, Roman Polanski, was removed from the Academy. And this year’s crop of Oscar nominees once again conspicuously fell short on honoring more diverse and deserving contenders. That’s not Brad Pitt’s fault. But it’s easy to see how his role represents a certain nostalgia for a certain era, when being a movie star didn’t mean you had to be an actor too.

The post Should Brad Pitt really win an Oscar for acting? appeared first on Salon.com.

Ford is rolling out a new AI-powered assistant that can answer questions about your Ford or Lincoln vehicle, such as how much fuel you'll need for your next road trip or whether your truck can tow that new motor boat.

The app is rolling out first to the Ford and Lincoln mobile apps, where it will work as a chatbot that can answer questions about the vehicle's capabilities or future service needs. Since the app is linked to the customer's vehicle, the assistant knows many of the details about the particular make and model, including fuel levels, cargo capacity, and towing capabilities. Ford plans on rolling out a voice-powered assistant that …

Read the full story at The Verge.

Four weeks ago, San Francisco 49ers coach Kyle Shanahan was involved in an accident near downtown Palo Alto. At the time, Shanahan said only that the accident was his fault. But during a recent press conference, he shared more details about the incident, including the fact that he had his Tesla's Autopilot engaged at the time. Shanahan was not passing the buck, however, saying it was his fault regardless of whether or not Autopilot was engaged.

"I've had Autopilot for nine years, so I'm pretty comfortable with it and, you know, who knows what happened when I turned around? Whether it malfunctioned or whether I knocked it off? That's someth …

Read the full story at The Verge.

Tesla told federal regulators that the headlights on 19,900 Model 3 and Model Y cars were up to nearly twice as bright as the law allows, then argued it shouldn't have to fix them because the defect was "inconsequential" to safety. — Read the rest

The post Tesla headlights were twice as bright as legal appeared first on Boing Boing.

For nearly a year now, Ford has been teasing big things at low prices from its next generation of EVs, a "Model T moment" built atop a new platform assembled in an innovative way. Today, we know the name and price of the first product to take advantage of that supposed moment: a midsize electric truck called Fathom that starts at just $28,350.

That's not exactly great news for fans of the Slate Truck, the new electric upstart that's leaning hard into its feature-free nature by painting itself as the ultimate DIY machine. Paint, though, is among the long line of modern niceties omitted to help the Slate Truck reach its starting price of $24, …

Read the full story at The Verge.

Late-model BMW owners are starting up their cars to find a commercial for Spider-Man: Brand New Day.

Responding to a request for information about the ad from The Autopian, BMW confirmed the animation is part of a broader partnership with the film:

"A few of our vehicles – including the BMW iX3 – were in the film, and a special edition iX3 was featured on the red carpet during last night's premiere in Los Angeles."

— Read the rest

The post BMWs are showing a commercial at startup appeared first on Boing Boing.

Brussels is bracing for an unusual fight between the EU’s smallest country and a British ex-footballing legend.

Peter Shilton, the England goalkeeper who conceded the “Hand of God” goal from Diego Armando Maradona in 1986, has started a new life as an anti-gambling advocate after overcoming a decades-long addiction.

Despite being a diehard Brexit supporter, he’s become the poster boy of the European Parliament’s push to tax online betting in a bid to raise some much-needed funds to finance the bloc’s next €2 trillion budget.

But the campaign has run into strong opposition from Malta. The tiny island in the Mediterranean Sea, with a population of just over half a million people, is home to a burgeoning betting sector. It says that higher taxes will cripple its gambling industry, boost illegal operators and drive firms outside the bloc.

“[Malta] will not accept the introduction of any EU-level taxes designed to sustain the bloc’s spending,” the country’s Prime Minister, Robert Abela, told the Maltese Parliament in June.

But Shilton, who lost more than £1 million in betting on horse racing over 45 years and now runs his own gambling addiction charity, dismisses the arguments by Malta and the gambling lobbies as “window dressing.” He’s in favor of higher taxes as he wants to shrink advertising revenue that is used to lure in new gamblers.

“Deep down they’re after everybody’s money. Simple as that,” he told POLITICO during a visit to Brussels in June.

The topic has split the EU’s 27 governments, pitting gambling-heavy Southern European countries against their more supportive Western European peers, led by France. Capitals are already fighting even though the Commission hasn’t yet issued a formal proposal for the possible tax, which would ultimately need to be unanimously approved by governments.

It’s one of numerous budget battle lines being drawn, with Ireland — which is steering the talks as chair of the rotating Council presidency — set to restart negotiations to facilitate an overall deal on the EU budget before the end of the year.

That’s no mean feat given Dublin’s task to mesh competing spending priorities into a single budget — financing everything from farmers’ subsidies to foreign aid — that is acceptable for each of the EU’s 27 governments.

National capitals will have to unanimously approve new EU-wide taxes — known as own resources — to pay for soaring defense spending and post-Covid debt repayments if they want to avoid drastically increasing national contributions to Brussels.

Supporters of the gambling levy point to the fact that it would rake in over €13 billion throughout the next budget cycle and — for some, more importantly — address a serious public health issue. An estimated 80 million adults globally have experienced a gambling addiction, according to experts.

“We look on it [gambling] as an illness. It’s something that’s inborn in you and that can be ignited,” Shilton said.

Malta’s game plan

Malta has invested heavily in the gambling industry — including lotteries, betting and casinos increasingly operating online — which now accounts for around 12 percent of its gross domestic product.

These firms have relocated to Malta because of its light-touch licensing regime, business-friendly tax regime and balmy weather.

The country is “as dependent on the online gambling industry as Germany is on cars,” said an EU diplomat, granted anonymity to speak freely.

While gambling firms need local authorization to operate in most other European countries, securing the Maltese license is crucial to access banking services and gain a foothold in the EU market.

Malta-based firms dominated the German and Austrian online gambling markets before national regulators cracked down. This has prompted the Maltese government to refuse to recognize some court rulings and sanctions issued by other EU countries against its gambling firms.

Given its influence, it is hardly surprising that the gambling industry has found a friendly ear among Malta’s politicians in Brussels.

The Maltese president of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, last year gave the opening speech at an international gambling conference in Rome that also featured Italian Foreign Affairs Minister Antonio Tajani.

“I’m more than a little proud that it started in my island home of Malta,” she said, referring to SiGMA, a Maltese events company that focuses on online gambling founded by Eman Pulis, a university friend of Metsola.

Betting lobbies say they oppose higher gambling rates on the grounds that they will fuel appetite for the illegal market, away from the grasp of EU rules.

“A higher tax would lead to worse odds for the customers … and it is relevant because access to the illegal markets in Europe is, obviously, one click away,” said secretary general of the European Gaming and Betting Association, Maarten Haijer.

Nicola Matteucci, an economist at the Università Politecnica delle Marche in Italy who has undertaken extensive research on the gambling sector, argued there is a “point where prices exceed a certain level and the demand [for gambling] diminishes. But it’s not as immediate as suggested by the industry.”

Matteucci said that most gamblers will be undeterred by slightly higher taxes and worse odds as they are not fully rational consumers.

Anti-gambling groups reason instead that higher taxes will reduce the sector’s spending on commercials, preventing would-be punters from getting sucked in to gambling in the first place.

“Higher taxes will therefore mean less gambling advertising overall and many people would regard that as a public benefit,” said Derek Webb, the founder of the Campaign for Fairer Gambling advocacy group.

Club Med joins Malta

Malta has joined forces with fellow Mediterranean countries — Italy, Portugal and Spain — to challenge the mooted tax which was first proposed by the Parliament’s socialist lawmaker Victor Negrescu, said four diplomats with knowledge of the discussions.

According to the European Commission’s estimates, seen by POLITICO, a 3 percent tax on the net turnover of the online gambling sector would generate an estimated €1.9 billion per year.

With its big online gambling market, Spain is expected to be among the biggest financial losers, should the tax go ahead. It is estimated to be on the hook for €414 million per year, almost a quarter of the total amount. That compares to a projected bill of €165 million per year for Malta— a disproportionality high amount for such a small country.

Portugal is also reluctant to back the levy. It fears that higher taxes would eat into revenue brought in by state-run betting and lotteries that is currently channeled to the charity Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa‘s healthcare and youth support programs, said a Portuguese official.

Meanwhile, given the relatively low uptake of online gambling, Italy’s misgivings have surprised anti-betting advocates. Rome is expected to pay a mere 7 percent of the proposed new levy — a significantly lower proportion than its regular EU budget contributions.

However, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party has previously been receptive to the gambling industry. Last year its MPs passed a resolution encouraging the reversal of a ban on professional football clubs advertising gambling firms.  

LONDON — The U.K. capital’s transport authority has granted approval for Wayve and Uber to begin giving rides to members of the public in autonomous vehicles.

Transport for London (TfL) said it licensed 15 modified vehicles operated by the companies, which have a partnership, as “Private Hire Vehicles” (PHV) on a trial basis.

In a statement, London-based startup Wayve said the licenses were “an important step forward” that will allow it to begin giving rides to a small number of passengers later this summer ahead of a full public launch.

Wayve said its vehicles “are designed to operate autonomously, and will do the driving,” though under TfL’s rules, a licensed PHV driver must be present and responsible for the vehicle at all times.

“Safety is our top priority,“ a TfL spokesperson said. “Any new vehicle licensed to carry passengers on London’s roads must align with our Vision Zero goal of eliminating all deaths and serious injuries from collisions on London’s streets by 2041.”

Successive U.K. governments have sought to make the country a European pioneer in self-driving technology.

The Department for Transport opened a permitting scheme for companies to operate commercial robotaxi services without a human driver in May. Applications for that scheme — which is separate from TfL’s PHV regime — continue to be assessed by central government with input from local transport authorities including TfL.

Getting licenses isn’t the only obstacle facing robotaxi services. A survey by the London Assembly’s Transport Committee this month identified widespread opposition to autonomous passenger vehicles among the capital’s inhabitants, with just 29 percent of Londoners saying they support the roll out.

An armed suspect was arrested late Sunday afternoon at Trump National Golf Course in Rancho Palos Verdes just days before the President Donald Trump’s fundraiser set to be held there, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department said Tuesday.

The man, identified as 38-year-old Jeanine John Taele, was observed by plainclothes federal agents taking photographs and videos and appearing to monitor security-planning activity. Once he was detained in a parking lot on the golf course, deputies found a 16-round magazine in his pocket, the advisory from the sheriff’s department said. In a subsequent search of his car, investigators said, they also recovered a loaded pistol and an additional loaded magazine.

Sheriff’s detectives and FBI agents executed a search on his home in the Southern California city of Downey on Monday, where they said they found more firearms, ammunition, body armor, multiple notebooks containing “concerning statements” and two radio signal devices.

In the advisory, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department said that the case had been presented to the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office and that investigators had not identified any credible ongoing threats to the community. A public information officer for the sheriff’s department could not immediately answer whether there would be additional security for Tuesday evening’s event, which is still scheduled to take place.

Trump traveled to Los Angeles for a Republican National Committee dinner at his own Trump National Golf Club, where the White House said he would “tout his wins for the people of the Golden State.”

Trump will “draw a sharp contrast between his commonsense agenda and the radical policies of Democrats like Gavin Newsom, who keep raising taxes, inviting rampant fraud in taxpayer-funded programs, and protecting illegal immigrant drug dealers, rapists, and murderers,” White House spokesperson Olivia Wales said in a statement earlier in the day.

Newsom, for his part, slammed Trump’s trip, with spokesperson Tara Gallegos saying in a statement the president is “coming to Los Angeles to raise money while wildfire survivors are still waiting for the federal recovery funding he promised 18 months ago.”

“Californians deserve a President focused on helping families rebuild — not raising money for himself at his golf course,” Gallegos added.

Newsom said later in a statement that he hopes that the visit “brings long overdue federal recovery funding directly to the families rebuilding after the LA wildfires.”

The White House could not be immediately reached for comment.

Lindsey Holden contributed to this report.