MGoogle just put Gemini inside Apple CarPlay, and I have to say... this one's actually real.
CWait, Gemini in CarPlay? I thought Apple was keeping everyone out of that walled garden.
MApparently not. Nick Fox from Google posted about it. Tap the Gemini icon, ask for coffee stops, parking lots, traffic.
CSo Apple drivers finally get to argue with an AI about whether they actually want decaf.
MOr whether the parking lot it found is actually a parking lot and not someone's driveway.
CLook, I've used the Android Auto version. It's genuinely useful for multi-step stuff. 'Find coffee near my route, then a park.'
MAnd that's the gap. Android Auto got Gemini about a year ago. CarPlay was left out.
CWhich is weird, right? Google Maps is huge on iPhone. You'd think they'd rush this.
MThe Verge says this is the first time Google has put a voice assistant inside its CarPlay app. Previously, Assistant only worked from your phone.
CSo it's a real milestone. And it's not just voice commands—it's conversational. You can say 'find parking near the restaurant.'
MBut here's the catch. They're not bringing the 'Personal Intelligence' features from Android Auto. Feature parity question.
CRight, the thing where it learns your habits. On CarPlay it's more basic.
MAnd Autoevolution says some drivers find Gemini too chatty. Too much talking while you're trying to merge.
CI can see that. 'I found a Starbucks 2.3 miles ahead, but would you like to know the origin of the coffee bean?'
MShut up and navigate, Gemini.
CBut seriously, this matters. Google just made its AI the default conversational layer for yet another platform.
MAnd Apple's own AI in the car? Still... not exactly leading.
CDifferent world entirely: a Tesla driver in San Francisco crashed, and the CHP says he told them the car was in Full Self-Driving mode.
MLora Kolodny posted the CHP quote. The 26-year-old stopped, cooperated, gave them dash cam footage.
CSo at least on the surface, not a hit-and-run. But the FSD claim...
MThat's the thing. We hear this over and over: driver says the car was driving itself. Then we find out it wasn't.
CBut it could be true. FSD has been around for years now, and people do use it.
MHere's my issue: Tesla has never called it truly autonomous. The driver is always responsible.
CSure, but if the car was in FSD and it crashed, that's a big deal.
MIt is. CHP will pull the dash cam footage. That'll tell us what actually happened.
CAnd what makes this one different from the usual noise is that the driver stayed.
MRight, usually these stories start with a fleeing driver and a tweet saying 'look at this Tesla!'
CSo we wait for the footage. But if it was genuinely running FSD, this is a problem.
MAnd we know Tesla's insurance data claims show FSD has fewer accidents per mile than human drivers.
CWhich critics say is cherry-picked. The routes where people use FSD are the safest roads.
MFair. But the CHP statement is straightforward: driver said FSD, car crashed.
CSpeaking of Tesla... a Bluesky post from someone named Mark Chadbourn says Musk's business success is now tied to Republican supremacy.
MOh boy. That's a loaded take.
CHe's not wrong that Tesla's sales have been tied to political narratives, especially in the US market.
MBut 'Republican supremacy'? That's a very specific framing.
CLook at the Cybertruck, the Roadster 2 launch, the Texas events. The audience there leans one way.
MAnd the SpaceX government contracts—those exist regardless of who's in power.
CI think it's an oversimplification. Musk's businesses are tied to a very specific fanbase, not the whole party.
MAnd that fanbase shifts. Tesla once sold mostly to liberal early adopters in California.
CNow it's a truck with a wrap that says 'Make America Fast Again.'
MThis is the core cultural shift. The brand changed.
CI don't think it's 'Republican supremacy.' I think Musk found a niche and went all in.
MBut the business is now dependent on that niche. If that political coalition loses power, do the contracts dry up?
CSpaceX got contracts under Obama, Trump, Biden, whoever. The rockets don't care about your party.
MTell that to the regulators. Tesla's FSD deployment is a policy fight right now.
CI think this is the exact kind of reductive take that makes tech and politics talk unbearable.
MOh, come on. The post has a kernel of truth. Musk's tweets about the Texas governor race, the moves in the primary—
CThat's him, not the businesses. Tesla sold more cars in Europe than in Texas.
MBut Europe is where the backlash is. The brand is inseparable from the man now.
CI'll give you that. But 'tied to Republican supremacy' is a phrase from a very online corner.
MAnd you're the one who brought it up, so maybe that's the point.
CFine. We'll agree to disagree. Now, here's another one from the Tesla-SpaceX merger beat: E.W. Niedermeyer wrote that Tesla is 'cooked' and this is 'Solar City 2.0.'
MOh, the Solar City comparison. That's the 2016 acquisition that got Musk sued.
CExactly. Shareholders said it was a bailout of a failing company owned by his cousins.
MNiedermeyer's point: if SpaceX merges with Tesla, SpaceX investors are bailing out Tesla shareholders.
CAnd he says rewarding Tesla shareholder loyalty would be a terrible deal for SpaceX investors.
MI'm not saying it's the same thing, but the pattern is there. Distressed asset, Musk family ties, shareholder anger.
CWhoa, whoa. Tesla isn't a distressed asset. It's got a higher market cap than most automakers combined.
MBut the growth story has stalled. And the capex cuts we talked about earlier—
CCapex cuts are not distress. That's discipline.
MAnd the goodwill jump on SpaceX's balance sheet? From 11 billion to 48 billion?
CThat's a red flag, I'll admit. But SpaceX is a rocket company with real revenue.
MNiedermeyer's history here is deep. He's been covering Musk since the early days.
CAnd he has an axe to grind. His book isn't exactly a love letter.
MDoesn't make him wrong. The Solar City deal was ultimately ruled fair, by the way.
CSee? Even the courts said it wasn't a bailout.
MA Delaware judge said it was fair. Which is, famously, the most ringing endorsement in corporate law.
CAlright, moving on. A post about Robinhood Chain claiming $1.14 billion locked and borrowing against tokenized Apple, Nvidia, Google stock.
MHold on. I looked at this. That number... I can't find it anywhere official.
CSo it's a claim, not a fact.
MThe account says it, but there's no confirmation from Robinhood. And the Morpho detail is unverified.
CBut the bigger idea—tokenized stocks and crypto merging—that's real.
MThat's been the promise for years. Real stocks on-chain, 24/7 trading, borrowing against them.
CAnd it's finally happening. BlackRock's tokenized funds, now this.
MThe problem is, if you can't verify the number, what are we even talking about?
CWe're talking about the direction. Whether it's $1.14 billion or $800 million, the merge is happening.
MBut precision matters. If you're going to tell people to trust their money to tokenized stock, the numbers have to be real.
CFair. But one unverified post doesn't undo the whole trend.
MAnd that's where I'll leave it: the trend is real, the specific claim needs proof.
CQuick one to close: a pundit named Oliver Darko says people at Microsoft only tell Jez Corden what they want him to communicate.