It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Tuesday, November 21, 2023
China's carbon emissions set to peak before 2030 - expert poll
Reuters Updated Mon, November 20, 2023 Chimneys of a coal-fired power plant are seen behind a gate in Shanghai
SINGAPORE (Reuters) - China is on track to meet a goal to bring its climate-warming carbon dioxide emissions to a peak before 2030, according to a poll of 89 experts from industry and academia published on Tuesday, though questions remain over how high the top will be.
More than 70% of respondents said China, the world's biggest carbon dioxide emitter, will be able to meet the target, with two saying its emissions had already peaked, in a poll compiled by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), a Helsinki-based think tank.
Still, "experts remain concerned about how high the peak emissions would reach compared to previous levels," CREA said, with a majority of respondents expecting the total to be at least 15% higher than the 2020 level.
Doubts have been cast on China's ability to meet its 2030 pledge, as authorities continue to approve dozens of new coal-fired power stations to meet rising energy demand and avoid a repeat of the disruptive power outages that hit the country in 2021.
But CREA said respondents, including 64 based in China, were more optimistic about the country's ability to meet its goal compared to last year, with the majority believing post-pandemic economic conditions were accelerating the energy transition.
Half of the experts surveyed by CREA said they believed China would reach peak primary energy consumption before the end of this decade, though nearly a quarter still forecast it would continue to rise even after 2035.
China's reluctance to agree to a phasing-out of fossil fuels is expected to be a major sticking point at COP28 climate talks in Dubai starting next week, though Beijing is willing to agree to a new global plan to triple renewable energy capacity.
China also said in an agreement with the U.S. that it would "accelerate the substitution for coal, oil and gas generation" in order to secure "meaningful absolute power sector emission reductions" this decade.
CREA's lead analyst Lauri Myllyvirta said last week it was likely China's emissions would go into a "structural decline" from next year, with renewable sources capable of meeting new energy demand.
(This story has been corrected to state that emissions likely 'would go into' a decline next year, not 'had already gone into' a decline, in paragraph 9)
(Reporting by David Stanway; Editing by Sonali Paul)
WORKERS POWER Nearly All of OpenAI Staff Threaten to Go to Microsoft If Board Doesn’t Quit
Ashlee Vance, Ed Ludlow and Vlad Savov Mon, November 20, 2023
(Bloomberg) -- Nearly all of OpenAI’s employees have threatened to quit and follow ousted leader Sam Altman to work at the company’s biggest investor, Microsoft Corp., unless the current board resigns, leaving the future of the high-profile artificial intelligence startup increasingly uncertain.
More than 700 of the AI firm’s roughly 770 employees signed a letter on Monday addressed to OpenAI’s board stating that the signatories are “unable to work for or with people that lack competence, judgment and care for our mission and employees.” The letter called for every member of the board to resign and for Altman to be reinstated, or else employees might jump to Microsoft. The software giant “has assured us there are positions for all OpenAI employees,” the letter said.
The extraordinary threat of a mass exodus followed a roller-coaster weekend during which OpenAI’s board defied calls from its investors and top executives to reinstate Altman, who was fired following disagreements with the board on how fast to develop and monetize artificial intelligence. OpenAI executives — including then-interim CEO Mira Murati, Chief Operating Officer Brad Lightcap and Chief Strategy Officer Jason Kwon — were negotiating with the board to bring Altman back to the company into Sunday night, according to a source familiar with the discussions, who requested anonymity discussing private information. Instead, the board named a new leader — former Twitch CEO Emmett Shear — and Microsoft hired Altman and OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman to head up a new in-house AI team.
The chaos inside OpenAI could reshape the world of artificial intelligence. OpenAI kicked off the global frenzy around generative AI with the launch of its hugely popular chatbot ChatGPT a year ago. With Altman as its figurehead, OpenAI was at the center of the tech industry’s efforts to deploy this technology to businesses and consumers — and also to work with regulators on guardrails for AI. But the tension at OpenAI raises new questions about whether AI startups can balance developing AI responsibly alongside the need to raise vast amounts of capital from investors to support the expensive computing infrastructure required to build these tools.
OpenAI’s turmoil could also set off a race by other tech companies to poach highly-competitve AI talent. Salesforce Inc. Chief Executive Officer Marc Benioff offered on Monday to immediately employ researchers resigning their posts at OpenAI. Salesforce will provide matching compensation to any researcher who has quit OpenAI, Benioff said in a post on X.
Among the many employees and executives who signed the letter were Murati, OpenAI’s chief technology officer who had been named interim CEO on Friday, and Ilya Sutskever, an OpenAI co-founder and board member who has been seen as instrumental in the board’s actions. (Wired previously reported on the employee letter.)
“I deeply regret my participation in the board’s actions,” Sutskever wrote in a post on X, formerly Twitter, on Monday. “I never intended to harm OpenAI. I love everything we’ve built together and I will do everything I can to reunite the company.”
Altman clashed with members of his board, especially Sutskever, the company’s chief scientist, over how quickly to develop generative AI, how to commercialize products and the steps needed to lessen their potential harms to the public, people with knowledge of the matter have said. OpenAI’s other board members included Adam D’Angelo, the co-founder and CEO of Quora; Tasha McCauley, CEO of GeoSim Systems; and Helen Toner, director of strategy and foundational research grants at Georgetown’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology.
Alongside rifts over strategy, board members also contended with Altman’s entrepreneurial ambitions. Altman has been looking to raise tens of billions of dollars from Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds to create an AI chip startup to compete with processors made by Nvidia Corp., according to a person with knowledge of the investment proposal. Altman was courting SoftBank Group Corp. chairman Masayoshi Son for a multibillion-dollar investment in a new business to make AI-oriented hardware in partnership with former Apple designer Jony Ive.
Altman’s ouster from the company he co-founded also leaves OpenAI and its employees with some immediate unknowns. Thrive Capital had been expected to lead an offer for employee shares, a deal that would value OpenAI at $86 billion. As of this weekend, the firm had not yet wired the money and it told OpenAI that Altman’s departure would affect its actions.
Some investors were considering writing down the value of their OpenAI holdings to zero, according to a person familiar with the discussions. The potential move, which would make it more difficult for the company to raise additional funds, seemed designed to pressure the board to resign and bring Altman back.
Also in the balance was a second tender planned for early 2024 which would have given early stage investors a chance to get some liquidity on their shares, the people said. As recently as last week, blocks of OpenAI’s private shares were being offered that valued OpenAI in excess of $100 billion. That market dried up on Friday after news broke that Altman had been dismissed by the board, leaving hundreds of millions of dollars of private transactions pending.
Altman’s firing came as a surprise to OpenAI’s workers, the letter said, as well as to Microsoft. A coalition of powerful investors, company leaders and the world’s largest software company tried to get Altman reinstated over the weekend to no avail.
Late Sunday, the company’s four-person board instead appointed Shear, co-founder and former CEO of game-streaming website Twitch. Shear, who became OpenAI’s second interim chief executive in three days, won over the directors because of his past recognition of the threats that AI presents, a person familiar with the matter said, asking to remain anonymous to discuss the private deliberations.
Shear is a well-regarded technologist and computer scientist who’s long advocated a more cautious approach to AI. He set out the priorities for his first 30 days in charge in a post on X, promising to reform the leadership team and hire an independent investigator to look into the circumstances of Altman’s termination. That was apparently not enough to assuage employees from issuing their board ultimatum. Shear didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Ahead of the letter’s release, many employees from OpenAI posted identical messages on X: “OpenAI is nothing without its people.” Altman responded to several of them with a heart emojis.
“We have more unity and commitment and focus than ever before,” Altman wrote on X Monday. “We are all going to work together some way or other, and i’m so excited. one team, one mission.”
NEW FROM BLOOMBERG: You’ve got questions about AI. We’ve got answers. Sign up for Bloomberg Technology’s weekly Q&AI newsletter.
--With assistance from Rachel Metz.
Bloomberg Businessweek
BC
Swimmer spots ‘once in a lifetime’ sight of sea lion battling octopus, video shows
Aspen Pflughoeft Mon, November 20, 2023 Screengrab from Lindsay Bryant's YouTube video
A woman going for a swim in Canada had a “once in a lifetime” wildlife encounter when she noticed a sea lion fighting an octopus, a video shows.
Lindsay Bryant spotted the sea lion splashing off the coast of Nanaimo before a swim on Nov. 16, she told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. She swims regularly in the area and often encounters sea lions, but something seemed different this time.
“I actually thought the sea lion was tangled in something,” Bryant wrote in a Nov. 16 Facebook post. “For a minute, he went into a dead float.”
“I started recording because I couldn’t figure out why the sea lion was struggling so hard with what I thought was a fish,” she wrote in another Facebook post.
But when Bryant got home and rewatched the video, she realized the sea lion wasn’t eating a fish at all.
It was battling with an octopus.
Bryant shared the video on YouTube. The 3-minute-long video shows a sea lion thrashing about with an octopus. The sea lion flings the octopus forcefully away, then dives underwater and repeats the movement. Seagulls circle overhead.
“The octopus appears to have put up a really good fight! The sea lion looked to be struggling hard at a few points,” Bryant said.
Andrew Trites, a marine mammal researcher at the University of British Columbia, told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that sea lions commonly eat octopuses.
“The challenge for a sea lion is to swallow an octopus without the octopus using its eight arms to grab onto the sea lion’s head while it is being swallowed whole,” Trites told the outlet. “The sea lion would suffocate.”
To avoid this, Trites said that sea lions “bite down onto one arm at a time and fling the octopus’ body with all its force to rip off an arm to swallow whole. They do it at the surface because they can get more torque in air than they can underwater.”
Bryant said the encounter made for “an interesting swim.”
“I’m guessing this will be a once in a lifetime sighting for me,” she wrote on Facebook.
Bryant couldn’t tell who won the fight but told McClatchy News via Facebook Messenger that she saw the sea lion tore a few legs off the octopus. The video ends with the sea lion still swimming and thrashing.
Nanaimo is on Vancouver Island, about 50 miles west of Vancouver and about 200 miles northwest of Seattle.
Philadelphia Moms for Liberty organizer is a registered sex offender: report
Gabriella Ferrigine Mon, November 20, 2023 Moms For Liberty podium Hannah Beier for the Washington Post/Getty Images
A prominent figure of the Philadelphia chapter of Moms for Liberty is a registered sex offender, according to a new report from the Philadelphia Inquirer. Phillip Fisher Jr. is a pastor at the Center for Universal Divinity and a Republican ward leader responsible for coordinating faith-based outreach for the group, which is a well-endowed organization that aims to align American education with a number of the GOP's far-right ideals.
While living in Chicago at age 25, Fisher was convicted in 2012 of aggravated sexual abuse of a 14-year-old boy, a conviction Fisher has claimed to be the result of a "railroad job" created by the political action committee for Lyndon LaRouche, a serial fringe presidential candidate and known conspiracist. Fisher, who once worked for LaRouche's committee, referred to it as a "cult," saying he was set up by the organization as he was trying to distance himself from it.
Per a file updated in July, Fisher is listed on Pennsylvania’s “Megan’s Law” website for registered sex offenders, which is maintained by the Pennsylvania State Police. Vince Fenerty, chair of Philadelphia's GOP City Committee, called for Fisher's resignation as the leader of the 42nd Ward — which includes Olney, Feltonville, and Juniata Park — on Friday. Sheila Armstrong, another Republican ward leader who chairs the local Moms for Liberty chapter, expressed surprise at the news, saying she had recently received a "child abuse history certification" from the State Department of Human Services in Fisher's name so that he could partake in upcoming holiday volunteering. The certificate indicated that “no records exist” in the state’s database, and named Fisher “as a perpetrator of an indicated or founded report of child abuse.”
COACHING IS ABUSE Another accused sex offender in the sports world, sheltered by U.S., may finally face justice
Irvin Muchnick Sun, November 19, 2023 George Gibney Photo by Independent News and Media/Getty Images
So far, one of the biggest current news stories in Ireland has gone completely unremarked upon in American media. It involves what followers of competitive swimming — there, here and everywhere — need to understand about the fate of George John Gibney, coach of the Irish Olympic swimming team in 1984 and 1988, who has been living as a quasi-fugitive in the U.S. for more than a quarter of a century.
Survivors of Gibney’s many alleged and well documented acts of sexual abuse may stand to get some relief from the Irish judicial system at long last. Missing from the associated commentary is a larger truth: This very late dragnet, if it happens, will still leave open the problem of “accountability delayed, accountability denied.” The enablers of this monster have intertwined in the worldwide institutional cover-ups that help youth sports coach sexual abuse continue to thrive.
Multiple Irish news outlets are reporting that the Garda Síochána, Ireland's national police agency, has forwarded to the director of public prosecutions a recommendation to indict Gibney on up to 50 counts of sexual assault, based on evidence brought forward by newly emerging victims. Further, the reports say, U.S. authorities have been alerted that a request to extradite Gibney from Florida may be forthcoming.
The BBC, producer of the 2020 podcast series “Where Is George Gibney?”, by Irish journalist Mark Horgan, said 18 survivors gave the gardaí information on fresh incidents, never before investigated, during the production and its aftermath. This evidence, aimed at a new generation of news consumers not quite as fatigued by one of Ireland's nearly innumerable legacies of abuse in high places, could be breaking through the DPP’s resistance, nearly 30 years running, to undertake a second Gibney prosecution.
The first prosecution 1.0 came undone thanks to a controversial 1994 Irish Supreme Court ruling, which found that the passage of time had fatally compromised Gibney’s right to a fair trial, after he was indicted the previous year on 27 counts of indecent carnal knowledge of juveniles. One of the barristers who argued Gibney’s case, Patrick Gageby, is the brother of Supreme Court justice Susan Denham (later the chief justice). This level of nepotism is not unfamiliar in Ireland (or, to be fair, in many other places).
The following year, Gibney made it to the U.S. on the basis of a precious diversity lottery visa. The timeline suggests he’d been keeping the visa in his pocket for the right moment. Gibney even briefly coached for a USA Swimming age-group program in suburban Denver before his past caught up with him in that community.
In 1998, a cryptically composed Irish government report found that Gibney’s victims “were vindicated” by the evidence that had been accumulated in various cases. But the DPP never reopened the original case, which would have involved challenging the Supreme Court’s shaky legal scholarship with respect to historical abuses — a doctrine no longer favored in the case law.
Hats off to BBC podcaster Horgan if his effort has succeeded in returning Gibney to Ireland in handcuffs. At the same time, “Where Is George Gibney?” tiptoed around unpleasantness like the apparent corruption Supreme Court and the likely collusion of the American Swimming Coaches Association in arranging Gibney's relocation and reinstallation on our side of the Atlantic.
Asked about Gibney at a deposition for a lawsuit alleging USA Swimming’s responsibility in the abuses of another coach, the group’s then-chief executive, Chuck Wielgus — already accused by some of giving false or misleading testimony in other abuse cases — said, “Sounds like a — sounds like an Irish — is he an Irish coach? Yeah, I think I’ve heard the name.” (In 2014, a petition campaign by abuse survivors forced the International Swimming Hall of Fame to rescind Wielgus’ induction. He died three years later.)
In my FOIA case for material from Gibney’s immigration records, federal judge Charles Breyer said in 2016, “I have to assume that if somebody has been charged with the types of offenses that Mr. Gibney has been charged with, the United States, absent other circumstances, would not grant a visa. We’re not a refuge for pedophiles.” This was just before the FOIA settlement at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which included the release of a letter in which ICE officials determined that Gibney was not a candidate for deportation, even after he withheld from his failed 2010 U.S. citizenship application the information that he had been prosecuted for sex crimes in his native country. ICE’s rationale was that since Gibney had never been convicted of anything, the U.S. would not revoke his green card for false statements on a citizenship application. One wonders whether the same standards would apply to an immigrant from a different part of the world with a different skin color
None of that was in the BBC podcast. Following the FOIA case, FBI agents were dispatched to Peru to investigate Gibney’s travel there on a children's medical mission, along with a group from his Catholic parish in Colorado. Gibney was then, and may still be, under investigation at the Justice Department’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section, in a probe directed by the unit’s human trafficking finance specialist. That wasn’t mentioned in “Where Is George Gibney?” either.
We Americans are in no position, however, to lecture the Irish on the timidity of their news media. Several years ago, major newspapers here reported on a federal grand jury investigation of USA Swimming in the Southern District of New York, related to insurance fraud and cover-up of abuse cases. It has barely been mentioned since.
Ex-Univision boss slams network’s Trump interview as ‘propaganda’
Ex-president claimed in interview that Mexican soldiers assisted in border fence construction ‘free of charge’
Univision’s former president has joined the growing criticism of the Hispanic network over an interview with Donald Trump that was panned by journalists for softball questions.
Reporters at the network, which has US offices and merged with a Mexican media giant in 2022, have found themselves at the middle of a discussion over their network’s ability to cover the 2024 presidential race fairly and accurately after Mr Trump sat down with Enrique Acevedo for an interview that aired just over a week ago. Mr Trump did not face any difficult questions about his criminal prosecutions or policy positions in the interview, and was also able to spout unfounded claims about his immigration policies without accurate pushback from Acevedo.
The controversy has grown over the past several days as prominent Latino Americans such as comedian John Leguizamo have called for boycotts of the network in response.
On Monday, things grew worse for the network as its former president Joaquin Blaya ripped the interview as embarrassing during a sit-down with Rachel Maddow on MSNBC.
“It was not an interview as we understand in the United States. It was basically a one-hour propaganda open space for former President Trump to say whatever he wanted to say,” Mr Blaya told Maddow.
“This was Mexican-style news coverage, a repudiation of the concept of separation of business and news,” he continued. “What I saw there was batting practice, someone dropping balls for him to hit out of the park. I think it was an embarrassment.”
The network’s executives addressed some of the controversy in a note to US-based staff this week, according to The Washington Post, but it’s clear that they have done little to quell the external backlash. The Post also reports that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus is set to address the interview in a letter to the network in the coming days.
Mr Trump remains the far-and-away frontrunner for the Republican nomination. Polls indicate that he currently enjoys the support of a larger share of the GOP electorate than his rivals do combined.
His legal woes continue to worsen, however, and it looks increasingly likely that he will be undergoing a criminal trial process (if not more than one) during the election next year. The former president, impeached twice by Congress, remains under four criminal indictments and faces more than 90 felony charges.
Rivals of Mr Trump for the GOP nomination like Chris Christie and Ron DeSantis have complained that Mr Trump is not taking the presidential nominating process seriously by skipping a series of Republican primary debates this summer and fall; however, the ex-president’s standing in the polls has not suffered due to lack of airtime.
Outrage against Univision grows after Trump interview
Hannah Wiley, Julia Wick Sun, November 19, 2023 Backlash within the Latino community against Univision is growing after the television network aired an exclusive interview with former President Trump that some saw as too friendly. (Andrew Harnik / Associated Press)
Univision has found itself at the center of a growing controversy after a recent interview with former President Trump that critics have blasted as too friendly.
The interview that aired Nov. 9 was noticeably warm, and Trump received little pushback as he gave false or misleading statements on border security and immigration policies he instituted as president.
Backlash from certain corners of the Latino community was swift, including calls for more balanced reporting and an outright boycott of the television network ahead of the 2024 election.
Latinos are considered a crucial voting bloc — and largely up for grabs — in next year's election, likely to be a rematch between Trump and President Biden. Although Latino voters have historically favored Democrats, the Republican Party in recent years has made significant progress in courting their votes.
The exclusive interview with Trump therefore raised significant alarms within the Democratic Party and its allies that the leading Republican candidate was making unchecked claims to important swing voters.
Actor John Leguizamo posted a video to his 1 million Instagram followers Thursday criticizing the Spanish-language media company for "softballing Trump" and reportedly canceling ads for Biden. He said the television network has become "MAGA-vision."
He implored fellow entertainers, athletes, activists and politicians to join him in boycotting the network until it reinstated “parity, and equality and equity” between the presidential candidates. The television network has also requested an interview with Biden, according to the Washington Post.
The more-than-hourlong interview with Trump was conducted by Enrique Acevedo, an anchor from Mexican network Televisa who is not a Univision journalist. The two media groups merged last year. Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly helped organize the interview.
“All you have to do is look at the owners of Univision,” Trump said in the first few minutes of the interview when asked about Latino voters and recent polls showing him defeating Biden in 2024. “They’re unbelievable entrepreneurial people, and they like me.”
"They want to see security," Trump added. "They want to have a border."
During the interview, Trump made questionable claims that the partial wall built along the southern border was made possible by Mexico providing thousands of soldiers "free of charge," and that former President Obama laid the groundwork for the controversial policy at the border to deter illegal crossings that became known as the family-separation crisis. Acevedo did not push back on either claim.
“It wasn’t just a friendly interview. It was an embarrassing 1-hour puff-piece with lots of smiles and no pushback with a guy who relished in attacking, belittling and otherizing Latinos and Latin American immigrants,” Ana Navarro-Cárdenas, a prominent Nicaraguan American political strategist and commentator, said on the platform X, the company formerly known as Twitter.
León Krauze, a veteran news anchor for Univision, has since resigned from the network. He did not provide a reason for his departure.
State Sen. Susan Rubio (D-Baldwin Park), a member of the California Latino Legislative Caucus who is running for Congress, said she knew many other Latino leaders who were “personally upset” about the interview.
Rubio said she was “appalled” at how the former president “was allowed to just continue to spew lies and go unchecked” during the conversation. She called the interview "an insult to our entire Latino community."
The network is “absolutely influential” in households like hers, she said, describing it as a news source she and her Spanish-speaking parents view as trusted and unbiased.
“Our community relies on this information to be truthful. They rely on this source that has been trusted by the Latino community for many, many generations," she said. "They should have done a better job of making sure that our community is not lied to.”
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus plans to send a letter to the television network requesting a meeting with its chief executive, Wade Davis, and calling for stronger guardrails against disinformation, according to a draft copy of the letter reviewed by The Times.
More than 70 organizations — including prominent Latino groups such as the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, America's Voice and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights — signed an open letter to Davis and other TelevisaUnivision executives, sharply criticizing the interview.
The letter, first reported by the Post, asks that the network “conduct a thorough internal review, take corrective measures, and reaffirm its commitment to unbiased reporting and to keeping the Latino community informed and up-to-date with facts and truth,” according to a copy reviewed by The Times.
The controversy is more complicated than what it seems, said Mike Madrid, a GOP political consultant who has a forthcoming book called "The Latino Century: How America’s Largest Minority is Shaping Our Democracy."
Madrid, who is a vocal critic of Trump, said the objections to the interview are reflective of how the Democratic Party and other left-leaning organizations have taken Latino voters for granted — and relied on the television network to promote their candidates and policies for decades.
Since the late 1980s, Democrats have banked on Latino voters to win elections, Madrid said. But over the last decade, Democrats have begun "hemorrhaging" second- and third-generation Latino voters who are U.S.-born and English-dominant speakers.
Madrid doesn't dispute that the interview with Trump may have been biased or too cozy, but he said it demonstrates the media company's shift toward the middle and, therefore, a new Latino audience.
"Where were they for the past 30 years when the Democratic Party was getting softball interviews? The Democrats have taken this base vote for granted. They assumed it was there and Univision would always be in their corner, would always be championing them and advocating for their candidates and policies," he said. "When you’ve been the beneficiary of media bias, objectivity sounds like betrayal. That’s what’s going on."
Instead of promoting a boycott of the network, which Madrid called "absolute madness," Democrats should adjust their strategy and start courting Latino voters on a variety of issues, such as the economy and jobs, rather than just immigration.
"The Democrats have to figure this out very quick that going to war is not in their best interest," he said. "They are going to have to learn to fight for this vote, when they haven’t for decades. ... And they have less than a year to figure this out."
Times staff writer Stephen Battaglio contributed to this report.
Climate change hits women's health harder. Activists want leaders to address it at COP28
UZMI ATHAR, Press Trust of India Mon, November 20, 2023
NEW DELHI (AP) — Manju Devi suffered in pain for two months last year as she worked on a farm near Delhi, unable to break away from duties that sometimes had her standing for hours in the waist-deep water of a rice paddy, lifting heavy loads in intense heat and spraying pesticides and insecticides. When that pain finally became too much to bear, she was rushed to a hospital.
The doctors’ verdict: Devi had suffered a prolapsed uterus and would need a hysterectomy. She hadn’t said a word to her family about her discomfort because of societal taboo over discussing a “women's illness,” and with two grown children and three grandchildren looking to the 56-year-old widow to help put food on the table, Devi had relied on painkillers to stay in the fields.
“I endured excruciating pain for months, scared to speak about it publicly. It shouldn’t take a surgical procedure to make us realize the cost of increasing heat,” she said, surrounded by women who told of undergoing a similar ordeal.
As the annual U.N.-led climate summit known as COP is set to convene later this month in Dubai, activists are urging policymakers to respond to climate change’s disproportionate impact on women and girls, especially where poverty makes them more vulnerable.
___
EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of a series produced under the India Climate Journalism Program, a collaboration between The Associated Press, the Stanley Center for Peace and Security and the Press Trust of India.
___
Their recommendations include securing land rights for women, promoting women's cooperatives and encouraging women to lead on developing climate policy. They also suggest that countries — especially developing countries like India — commit more money in their budgets to ensure gender equity in climate policies.
Group of 20 leaders who met in New Delhi in September also recognized the problem, calling for accelerating climate action with gender equality at its core by increasing women’s participation and leadership in mitigation and adaptation.
Devi is a farm worker in Syaraul, a village of about 7,000 a couple of hours southeast of Delhi in Uttar Pradesh, India's biggest and most populous state. Several other middle-aged and older women from the village described similar injuries leading to hysterectomies.
The link between phenomena like uterine prolapse and climate change is indirect but significant, said Seema Bhaskaran, who tracks gender issues for the nonprofit Transform Rural India Foundation.
“Women in rural, climate-affected communities often bear the brunt of physically demanding agricultural work, made more strenuous by climate change-related challenges like erratic weather and increased labor needs," Bhaskaran said. “While climate change doesn’t directly cause uterine prolapse, it magnifies the underlying health challenges and conditions that make women more susceptible to such health issues.”
About 150 kilometers (93 miles) away, in Nanu village, 62-year-old farm worker Savita Singh blames climate change for a chemical infection that cost her a finger in August 2022.
When her husband moved to Delhi to work as a plumber, she was left alone to tend the couple's fields. As rice and wheat yields fell due to shifting climate patterns and a surge in pest attacks, Singh's husband, who retained decision-making power, decided to increase the use of pesticides and insecticides. It was up to Singh, who had opposed the increases, to apply the chemicals.
“With the rise in pest attacks in farms, we have started using more than three times pesticides and fertilizers in our farms and without any safety gears my hand got burned by the chemicals and one of my fingers had to be amputated,” she said.
In Pilakhana, another Uttar Pradesh village, 22-year-old wage laborer Babita Kumari suffered stillbirths in 2021 and this year that she attributes to the heavy lifting she endured daily in working a brick kiln for long hours in intense heat. Climate change at least doubled the chances of the heat wave that hit the state this year, according to an analysis by Climate Central, an independent U.S.-based group of scientists that developed a tool to quantify climate change's contribution to changing daily temperatures.
“My mother and her mother all have worked in brick kilns all their lives but the heat was not this bad even though they worked for more than eight hours like me. But for the past six-seven years the situation has worsened and heat has become unbearable to withstand but what option do we have than to endure it,” said Kumari, who lives in a makeshift camp with her husband.
Bhaskaran noted that women in India often assume primary roles in agriculture while men migrate to urban areas, which makes the women especially vulnerable to the direct effects of climate change. A government labor force survey for 2021-22 found that 75% of the people working in agriculture are women. But only about 14% of agricultural land is owned by women, according to a government agriculture census.
For Bhaskaran, it adds up to a picture of women sacrificing their health by working long hours in intense heat, exposed to insecticides and pesticides, and with uncertain access to clean water. On top of that, many are undernourished because they "often eat last and least within patriarchal structures,” she said.
Poonam Muttreja is a women's rights activist who also directs the Population Foundation of India, a non-governmental organization that focuses on issues of population, family planning, reproductive health, and gender equality. She said it's essential that COP28, the meeting in Dubai, take concrete action to help women.
She said COP28 should go beyond providing financial aid, and actively promote and facilitate the inclusion of gender considerations within all climate-related policies, initiatives, and actions.
“It must prioritize awareness programs that emphasize the specific health challenges women face in the wake of climate change as a critical step towards increasing public knowledge. These efforts will also serve as a call to action for governments, institutions, and communities to prioritize women’s health and well-being as a central component of their climate initiatives,” she added.
Anjal Prakash, a professor and the research director at the Bharat Institute of Public Policy at the Indian School of Business, coordinated a working group that examined gender for a recent assessment by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He said it will take international pressure to overcome some countries that may quietly oppose gender-sensitive climate policies due to conservative ideologies and political barriers.
Finding money will also be a formidable challenge, he said.
Shweta Narayan, a researcher and environmental justice activist at Health Care Without Harm, said women, children and the elderly are among the most vulnerable to extreme climate events. She saw reason for optimism at COP28 because of a dedicated Health Day at the conference.
“Definitely there is a very clear recognition that climate has a health impact and health needs to be considered more seriously,” she said.
___
Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives support from several private foundations. See more about AP’s climate initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
COP28 Climate Women Impacts A migrant family walks back home in the evening after harvesting millet crop in a farm in Nanu village in Uttar Pradesh state, India, on Oct. 17, 2023 As the annual U.N.-led climate summit known as COP is set to convene later this month in Abu Dhabi, experts are urging policymakers to respond to climate change’s disproportionate impact on women and girls, especially where poverty makes them more vulnerable. (Uzmi Athar/Press Trust of India via AP)
Elon Musk’s X sues media watchdog Media Matters over report on pro-Nazi content on the social media site
Brian Fung and Clare Duffy, CNN Mon, November 20, 2023
After a devastating advertiser exodus last week involving some of the world’s largest media companies, X owner Elon Musk is suing the progressive watchdog group Media Matters over its analysis highlighting antisemitic and pro-Nazi content on X — a report that appeared to play a significant role in the massive and highly damaging brand revolt.
The lawsuit filed Monday accuses Media Matters of distorting how likely it is for ads to appear beside extremist content on X, alleging that the group’s testing methodology was not representative of how real users experience the site.
“Media Matters knowingly and maliciously manufactured side-by-side images depicting advertisers’ posts on X Corp.’s social media platform beside Neo-Nazi and white-nationalist fringe content and then portrayed these manufactured images as if they were what typical X users experience on the platform,” the complaint filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas said. “Media Matters designed both these images and its resulting media strategy to drive advertisers from the platform and destroy X Corp.”
The lawsuit simultaneously names Media Matters and Eric Hananoki, its senior investigative reporter, as defendants. It calls for a judicial order forcing Media Matters to remove its analysis from its website and accuses Media Matters of interfering with X’s contracts with advertisers, of disrupting their economic relationships and of unlawfully disparaging X.
In a statement Monday evening, Media Matters President Angelo Carusone vowed to defend the group against the suit.
“This is a frivolous lawsuit meant to bully X’s critics into silence,” Carusone said. “Media Matters stands behind its reporting and looks forward to winning in court.”
On Monday evening, X CEO Linda Yaccarino chimed in defending the social media site.
“If you know me, you know I’m committed to truth and fairness,” Yaccarino posted. “Here’s the truth. Not a single authentic user on X saw IBM’s, Comcast’s, or Oracle’s ads next to the content in Media Matters’ article.”
Following the lawsuit’s filing, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton piled on, announcing he would be investigating Media Matters to determine whether its study of content on X might constitute “potential fraudulent activity” under Texas law. He also called the group a “radical left-wing organization” that “would like nothing more than to limit freedom by reducing participation in the public square.”
A number of major companies stopped their advertising on the platform after Musk endorsed the antisemitic claim that Jewish communities push “hatred against Whites.”
Musk had teased the litigation on Saturday after those major brands including Disney, Paramount and CNN’s parent, Warner Bros. Discovery, halted their advertising on X. Musk threatened a “thermonuclear lawsuit” against Media Matters and “ALL those who colluded in this fraudulent attack on our company,” including, he said in a follow-up post, “their board, their donors, their network of dark money, all of them…”
In previewing X’s argument, Musk appeared not to dispute the results of Media Matters’ analysis, instead targeting the group for having created a test account and allegedly refreshing the account until X’s advertising systems ran an ad for a major brand beside extremist content. The result generated by the test would almost never happen in the real world, Musk’s complaint alleged.
Legal experts on technology and the First Amendment widely characterized X’s complaint on Monday as weak and opportunistically filed in a court that Musk likely believes will take his side.
“It’s one of those lawsuits that’s filed more for symbolism than for substance—as reflected in just how empty the allegations really are, and in where Musk chose to file, singling out the ultra-conservative Northern District of Texas despite its absence of any logical connection to the dispute,” said Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas and a CNN legal analyst. “The choice of venue can best be described as trying to shore up a weak claim on the merits with a bench more likely to be sympathetic even to weak claims.”
“This reads like a press release, not a court filing to me,” said Joan Donovan, a professor of journalism and emerging media studies at Boston University. “X does admit the ads were shown next to hateful content, but argues it was ‘rare.’ This is the same strategy employed by advertisers that got YouTube to demonetize political content in 2017.” Ken White, a First Amendment lawyer and criminal defense attorney based in Los Angeles, said the decision to file in Texas may have been intended to circumvent laws passed by California, the District of Columbia and dozens of states barring frivolous lawsuits meant to stifle public criticism.
“X filed this in federal court in Texas to avoid application of an anti-SLAPP statute,” White said on the X alternative BlueSky, using the acronym that refers to so-called “strategic lawsuits against public participation.”
In the federal appeals court that oversees Texas, anti-SLAPP statutes do not apply, White added.
“X’s purpose is to harass and abuse and maximize the cost of litigation, and anti-SLAPP statutes interfere with that aim,” he wrote. Monday’s case has been assigned to District Judge Mark Pittman, a Donald Trump appointee who has previously been at the center of some of the nation’s biggest legal battles. Last November, Pittman blocked President Joe Biden’s plan to forgive up to $20,000 in student loan debt, one of two such decisions to reach the Supreme Court.
Last August, Pittman ruled that a Texas law that bans people ages 18 to 20 from carrying handguns in public is unconstitutional and inconsistent with the Second Amendment and US history.
Contributing: CNN’s Jon Passantino and Dan Berman
Elon Musk’s X Sues Media Matters Amid Advertiser Exodus
Winston Cho The Hollywood Reporter Mon, November 20, 2023
In the wake of major advertisers pausing their spending on X shortly after Elon Musk’s reply to an antisemitic conspiracy theory, the social media service formerly known as Twitter has sued left-wing advocacy group Media Matters for allegedly defaming the platform by reporting that ads for major companies appeared next to antisemitic content.
The lawsuit, filed in Texas federal court on Monday, claims that the media watchdog group “knowingly and maliciously manufactured” the report to mislead advertisers into believing that the ad pairings were organic. X seeks monetary damages, as well as a court order directing Media Matters to “immediately delete” the report that led to the exodus of advertisers.
The filing of the lawsuit comes on the heels of Musk posting Saturday that X would file a “thermonuclear” complaint against Media Matters. The message came in response to the organization issuing findings that the platform was placing ads for major companies such as Apple, NBCUniversal, IBM, Bravo and Oracle “next to content that touts Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party.” Many of those firms — plus Apple, Lionsgate, Warner Bros. Discovery and NBCUniversal — halted ad spending with the service.
Media Matters didn’t respond to a request for comment.
The complaint centers on allegations that the organization “systematically manipulated the X user experience” to issue its report. The social media service claims that Media Matters artificially manufactured the findings by exploiting user features.
“Media Matters did not find pairings that X passively allowed on the platform,” states the suit. “Media Matters created these pairings in secrecy, to manufacture the harmful perception that X is at best an incompetent content moderator, or even worse that X was somehow indifferent or even encouraging to Nazi and racist ideology.”
According to the complaint, users control the content on their feeds by showing interest in certain topics, which in turn generates ads related to those topics. X takes issue with Media Matters representing a “exceedingly (and demonstrably) rare” ad pairing as commonplace. It points to methodology in the report in which the group made a profile that only followed 30 accounts belonging to fringe figures or major national brands, which allegedly tricked the algorithm into thinking that user “wanted to view both hateful content and content from large advertisers.”
“Media Matters exploited these features by creating a secret X account precision-designed to evade normal safeguards, manipulating every aspect of the system through which posts and advertisements appear, ultimately creating the side-by-side images of objectionable content and advertisements,” writes John Sullivan, a lawyer for X, in the suit.
An internal review by X revealed that the Media Matters account altered its scrolling and refreshing activities in an “attempt to manipulate inorganic combination of advertisements and content” when the group didn’t get its desired result, the suit says.
X claims that Media Matters “intended to harm” its revenue stream because it’s the “most prominent online platform that permits users to share all viewpoints, whether liberal or conservative.”
The complaint claims interference with contract, business disparagement, and interference with prospective economic advantage.
Elon Musk Sues Media Matters for ‘Knowingly and Maliciously’ Misrepresenting Amount of Antisemitic Content on X
Sharon Knolle Mon, November 20, 2023
Elon Musk has followed through on his threat to sue watchdog organization Media Matters, albeit later in the day than he threatened over the weekend. In a suit filed on Monday, Musk claims that the group “knowingly and maliciously” misrepresented the amount of antisemitic content on the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.
“Not a single authentic user on X saw IBM’s, Comcast’s, or Oracle’s ads next to the content in Media Matters’ article,” Linda Yaccarino asserted in a post on X. “Only 2 users saw Apple’s ad next to the content, at least one of which was Media Matters.”
While not naming a specific dollar amount, the suit seeks “actual and consequential damages caused by Defendants’ misconduct,” along with an injunction to take down its article from both its site and social media that alleged X was placing ads for major brands next to antisemitic content.
In Musk’s weekend post, he threatened to sue “ALL those who colluded in this fraudulent attack on our company.” However, the only codefendant named on the suit, besides Media Matters, is the report’s author: Eric Hananoki, a senior investigative reporter for the organization. Media Matters journalist Kat Abu posted on X following the suit’s filing defending her colleague, but has since deleted her post.
The day after the article, which was titled “As Musk endorses antisemitic conspiracy theory, X has been placing ads for Apple, Bravo, IBM, Oracle, and Xfinity next to pro-Nazi content,” a number of high-profile companies halted ads on the platform. Among those boycotting X are entertainment companies Disney, Warner Bros., Paramount, Sony and Lionsgate. IBM and Apple are also among those suspending ads.
Following the filing of Musk’s suit, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced that he is opening an investigation into Media Matters for what his office describes as “potential fraudulent activity.” Paxton, a Republican, said in a statement, “We are examining the issue closely to ensure that the public has not been deceived by the schemes of radical left-wing organizations who would like nothing more than to limit freedom by reducing participation in the public square.”
The legal paperwork calls the Media Matters article “false, defamatory and misleading.” Musk alleges that the outlet did not “find” the offensive ads next to more reputable ones, but “created” them via “inorganic” use of the site to “manufacture the harmful perception that X is at best an incompetent content moderator … or even worse that X was somehow indifferent or even encouraging to Nazi and racist ideology.”
In a statement over the weekend, Media Matters president/CEO Angelo Carusone wrote, “Far from the free speech advocate he claims to be, Musk is a bully who threatens meritless lawsuits in an attempt to silence reporting that he even confirmed is accurate. Musk admitted the ads at issue ran alongside the pro-Nazi content we identified.”
Musk himself was called out on Friday for agreeing with a post that boosted the conspiracy theory that “Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them.”
“You have said the actual truth,” replied the SpaceX founder in a post that has since been deleted.
The White House condemned the post, calling it “unacceptable to repeat the hideous lie behind the most fatal act of Antisemitism in American history at any time.”
Musk’s suit charges Media Matters with “interference with prospective economic advantage.” The X owner has asked for a jury trial.
Earlier in the day, right-wing host Megyn Kelly was among those defending Musk and attacked Media Matters, claiming that the organization was intent on getting conservatives “fired, ruined, canceled.”
Bill Ackman defends Elon Musk against antisemitism accusations after leading the charge against Harvard students who slammed Israel
Eleanor Pringle Mon, November 20, 2023 Left: Christopher Goodney/Bloomberg - Getty Images. Right: Nathan Laine/Bloomberg - Getty Images
Elon Musk hasn't got many people in his corner at the moment: the White House has accused him of spreading a "hideous lie," major advertisers have pulled their spending and investors are slamming his actions.
Musk's troubles come after he endorsed an antisemitic post on X—the social media site formerly known as Twitter—which Musk bought last year.
"Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them," the post on X read, which Musk responded was "the actual truth."
Among those who are backing Musk is billionaire investor Bill Ackman, who has been a vocal critic of Harvard University's response to claims of antisemitism on its campus.
Writing on X, Ackman declared: "Elon Musk is not an antisemite."
"It is remarkable how quickly the world stands ready to attack Musk for his shoot-from-the-hip commentary," Ackman continued. "Musk is not perfect, but the world is a vastly better place because of him."
In the post, the founder of Pershing Square Capital Management added he agreed with conservative podcaster Ben Shapiro, who said Musk's comments had been taken out of context.
Shapiro highlighted that following his "actual truth" response, Musk had added: "This does not extend to all Jewish communities, but it is also not just limited to ADL."
The ADL—Anti-Defamation League—is a Jewish nonprofit fighting the spread of bigotry and anti-Semitism, which Musk previously said he plans to sue for defaming the reputation of X publicly.
Late last night Musk doubled down on his denial of antisemitism, saying: "This past week, there were hundreds of bogus media stories claiming that I am antisemitic. Nothing could be further from the truth."
"I wish only the best for humanity and a prosperous and exciting future for all," he finished.
It's not the first time Ackman has shown his support for Musk—just last month the billionaire said he would "absolutely" be interested in a deal with X Corp following the launch of his new investment vehicle.
Ackman vs Harvard
Ackman, worth roughly $2.2 billion according to Bloomberg, has pushed his alma mater hard to eradicate antisemitism on the Harvard campus.
The investor asked Harvard University to reveal the names of students who signed a statement holding Israel “entirely responsible” for the deadly conflict in the country, saying he—and other high-profile CEOs—wanted to see the names so that “none of us inadvertently hire any of their members.”
Harvard University has condemned the violence in Israel and distanced itself from the statement from student society Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC) holding Israel solely responsible for the deadly conflict.
Ackman later wrote to Harvard to urge it to suspend students who were involved in an alleged attack on a Jewish individual during a demonstration on Oct. 18.
In the letter shared on Nov. 4 he also called on university president Claudine Gay to take immediate steps to reduce antisemitism on campus, a situation he called “dire” after meeting with students and faculty a week prior week.
A Harvard spokesperson pointed to the university’s prior comments over campus safety and community conduct but declined to directly address Ackman’s letter.
In a one-week period this fall, Elon Musk was hit with three separate lawsuits. The Securities and Exchange Commission sued to compel him to testify about his acquisition of Twitter shares before he purchased the company. The lawsuit came a day after a Jewish man filed a defamation lawsuit alleging Musk had labeled him a neo-Nazi. And the day before that, the singer Grimes had sued the billionaire for the right to see their three children.
Getting hit by three unrelated lawsuits in one week is highly unusual for a CEO—unless that CEO is Musk. In his case, the trio of lawsuits are just a few of the dozens of legal claims that have piled up against Musk and his companies in recent years, and are a reflection of both the man and how he does business. (Musk did not respond to a request for comment sent via Tesla.)
While most people, including CEOs, regard litigation as stressful and expensive and do their best to avoid it, Musk treats lawsuits as an extension of his outsize personality. Ashlee Vance, a journalist who has written a popular biography of the Tesla CEO, says this has always been the case. “Elon has long had a pronounced litigious streak. He tends to feel very strongly about his version of the truth and goes to any and all lengths to stand his version of the truth up in court,” Vance noted.
Legal experts say that for now, Musk has come out a winner in his legal gambits, but in a handful of cases he faces an “existential” threat that could make a courtroom the potential site of his undoing.
Musk’s legal exposure
Musk’s 2022 takeover of Twitter, which he has rebranded as X, led to trouble with the SEC but also lawsuits from workers who claim he failed to pay their severance. Meanwhile, other employees filed a spate of suits alleging illegal dismissals on the basis of age, gender, and disability. Workers at Musk’s other companies, Tesla and SpaceX, had previously filed similar lawsuits.
While employment-related lawsuits are not uncommon at big companies, the nature of the claims at Twitter and the other firms suggests they arose not from Musk stumbling over a legal trip wire—but from his explicit contempt for regulations related to labor and discrimination laws that he has displayed on social media.
Musk has expressed a similar contempt for regulators themselves. When the SEC sued him in 2016 for allegedly misleading investors with a Tesla-related tweet, he settled the case two years later under pressure from his lawyers, but then promptly took to Twitter to mock the agency as the “Shortseller Enrichment Commission.” Since then, Musk has returned to court multiple times in a bid to undo the settlement’s requirement for him to run any Tesla-related tweets by a lawyer—known colloquially as his “Twitter sitter”—before he publishes them.
All of this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Musk’s legal predicaments. He is also facing consumer class actions over insider trading and his pay package, a criminal investigation over Tesla fatalities, and an investigation by the National Labor Relations Board—plus numerous other lawsuits and regulatory probes. Meanwhile, Musk has filed lawsuits himself, including one against a nonprofit group that opposes hate speech, alleging the organization hurt the site formerly known as Twitter by driving away advertisers. He also threatened to sue a high-profile Jewish group, the Anti-Defamation League, for billions of dollars on similar grounds. Legal observers have described Musk’s claims against the groups as far-fetched.
The torrent of litigation, much of it unnecessary, is frightfully expensive—senior lawyers in some of these cases reportedly bill as much as $2,000 an hour—and often highlights the worst aspects of his character. So why does Musk engage in this behavior?
Musk’s motivations
As the richest man in the world, Musk is far wealthier than most CEOs and, in many aspects of life, can operate entirely within his own set of rules. That includes his legal strategy.
“He’s very wealthy, and so he can do this,” said Ann Lipton, a corporate and securities law professor at Tulane University. “It works because individual actors in the legal system don’t have the resources, time, and motives as Musk.”
Unlike other CEOs, Musk also enjoys a large cult following among his customers and the general public—most of whom are indifferent to his crass or insensitive behavior, or even relish the sight of their billionaire hero thumbing his nose at critics and the law.
“His audience for this isn’t bothered by him being in litigation. There’s no reputational cost for him, unlike there might be for a company like Walgreens,” said Verity Winship, a business law professor at the Illinois College of Law.
Senior lawyers in some of these cases reportedly bill up to $2,000 an hour.
Winship noted that Musk’s eagerness to pick legal fights is unusual for a CEO, but that there are other examples—typically involving those who operated their companies since the very early days. She cites the since-ousted chief executives of Uber and WeWork.
But even as much of Musk’s behavior may be driven by impulse, observers say it also has a strategic purpose. Lipton, the Tulane professor, says his reputation for being litigious serves as a deterrent to critics who might challenge him. She says that over his career, Musk has regularly “stiffed contractors” who, along with other adversaries, have often simply walked away rather than tangle with a billionaire—an assessment shared by his biographer. “He certainly does seem to use lawsuits as a tool to keep his detractors at bay. It’s effective. For as long as I’ve been reporting on Musk, people have been cautious to speak out of fear of litigation,” said Vance.
There is one further reason likely driving Musk’s penchant for litigation: So far, he has been winning.
Musk is victorious—for now
In two of Musk’s most high-profile legal battles—one against angry Tesla shareholders, and another a defamation case against a cave diver—he has gone to court and come out on top. Lipton, however, maintains that two ongoing cases do pose an existential threat to the billionaire and his companies. One of these is a claim in Delaware where investors say his $56 billion pay package at Tesla is unreasonable, in part because Musk has at times required employees at the carmaker to work on projects at his other companies. If the claim succeeds, Musk could be compelled to hand back some of his fortune and potentially to reconsider his cavalier view of legal threats.
Lipton says the other potentially existential case confronting Musk comes in the form of the Justice Department’s investigation into Tesla’s autopilot and “full self-driving” features that have allegedly caused numerous fatalities. The company disclosed in late October that the agency has expanded the scope of its probe with additional subpoenas, and that the investigation could result in material losses. This means criminal charges against both Tesla and its CEO are a real possibility—a development that could hobble the carmaker and result in a massive loss to Musk’s personal fortune.
