Elon Musk's Starlink network experiences a ‘worldwide' internet outage. Everything we know so far
Reports of issues began on Thursday at around 9 pm CET.
'Starlink is currently in a network outage and we are actively implementing a solution. We appreciate your patience. We'll share an update once this issue is resolved,' the company posted on social media platform X.
More than 60,000 reports of issues were reported on the Down Detector website, with the majority of users saying there was a 'total blackout'.
It is unclear how widespread the outage is or the reason for it. Starlink users on X reported issues from Europe, the United States, Africa, Asia, and Australia.
Many of them said that their connections are offline, and an error message reads that there is 'no healthy upstream'.
For some countries and governments, such as Ukraine's army, they rely on Starlink for internet access. It is unclear how they will be affected.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
8 minutes ago
- Forbes
Tesla Doesn't Need Permits For Their CA 'Robotaxi,' It May Come Today
You might see a Tesla robotaxi (with safety driver) next to a Waymo in the San Francisco Bay Area ... More this weekend, according to reports Tesla has been stating, since even before their semi-launch in Austin last month, that they would soon deploy their supervised robotaxi service in many other locations, including California. In this week's Q2 earning's call, Elon Musk predicted they would have robotaxis deployed to half the population of the United States. New reports suggest Tesla may deploy such a service as soon as this weekend in the San Francisco Bay Area. But how? The most common reaction to this plan has been that because many states, in particular California, require that companies get permits before deploying robotaxi services, that Tesla would need to get these permits. They take months to get, and Tesla has not yet applied for them. Tesla can't run an autonomous vehicle taxi service. They can probably run a driver-assist based one. These permits are to operate an actual Robotaxi service, namely one that drives without a human in the car responsible for the safety of the vehicle. Tesla stated it would launch such a service back in June, but was unable to make the deadline, so it put out a test service with a human 'safety driver' employee in the vehicle. In Austin, that person is in the right-hand seat, and Tesla calls them a 'Safety Monitor' when there, but calls them a Safety Driver if they switch into the left seat for any complex operations. 'Safety Driver' has been the term of art in the industry for many years, and is a bit of a misnomer as the person does not actually drive the car, but--whatever you call them--the are the responsible driver for legal purposes, overseeing driving and able to intervene for safety. In the passenger seat, like a driving instructor for a teen with a learner's permit, the safety driver can grab the wheel or trigger the brakes. People debate if the seat matters, but the operation of Tesla's 'FSD' system with a human safety driver behind the wheel is of course very common. Indeed, there are people driving for Uber and Lyft in Teslas who turn on the FSD system while giving rides to customers. The FSD system controls most aspects of the car, and the driver supervises and takes legal driving responsibility. This has already been happening for some time, and apparently nothing stops Tesla from doing the same. A request for comment from the California DMV was sent to them a week ago, but they have been unable to respond, claiming more research is needed on the legality of this. What Permits You Need California regulations (whose drafting I had a minor involvement with) lay out 3 different permits for the operation of self-driving vehicles in the state for testing and taxi service. In addition, the California Public Utilities Commission has a series of permits required for offering taxi-style services to the public, both with human drivers and in self-driving vehicles. Tesla has one self-driving permit, the one required to test such vehicles with a safety driver. It also has the permit from the CPUC to operate a pre-arranged taxi-style service with human drivers. It has not, as of this week according to the CPUC or DMV, applied for any of the other permits. Tesla's self-driving test permit is unusual. Over 50 companies have this permit, and they are required to report every year to the DMV how many vehicles they are testing and how many miles they have been tested. Tesla always reports zero miles, and has for several years. They do this because they declare Tesla Autopilot and Tesla FSD as 'driver assist' systems which simply assist a responsible human driver with the driving task. A bit odd, considering the name 'Full Self Driving" and Tesla is facing lawsuits, including one from the DMV, over the confusion with that name. As long as Tesla can declare its vehicles to be operating only in a driver-assist mode, and not in an autonomous vehicle mode, they can argue the autonomous vehicle related permits do not apply to them. As such, nothing stops Tesla from operating a ride-hail service, like Uber, with human drivers and a driver assist system like FSD. The Blurry Line Uber ATG eventually came to a tragic end after a fatality with one of their vehicles The open question is, when does a system step over the line? In 2016, the DMV reacted very differently when Uber ATG, the now sold-off self-driving unit of Uber, wanted to test their vehicles with safety drivers. They told the DMV they did not need a permit, as they would only test with a safety driver, and thus it would be driver assist. With particular irony, the Uber ATG Chief who declared this was Anthony Levandowski, who had participated in the drafting of the regulations that required the permits. (Later he would be involved in a variety of controversial battles, be ordered jailed, and be pardoned by Donald Trump on his last day of office.) The DMV refused. They said that Uber's vehicles were clearly to be classed as autonomous vehicles being tested, and needed the permits. They told Uber that they would pull the licence plates of the vehicles if they tested them without permits. The DMV has not done this to Tesla. It has allowed Tesla to test Tesla FSD extensively on California roads while having the permit but declaring they are never using it. The DMV has declined to comment on why the two companies were treated differently. Tesla's FSD system is one thing, but their 'robotaxi' version is something more. It still needs a human supervisor for safety reasons, as it is not yet good enough, but it does all the tasks of a taxi service, including remote summoning, pick-up and drop-off and receiving requests from riders. It is indistinguishable from an autonomous vehicle, other than in not yet being safe enough and complete enough to go into commercial operation unsupervised. It is the very archetype of an autonomous vehicle in testing. Some would argue it goes even further when the supervising human is on the right hand side. Since driving school instructors supervise teens safely there, and probably a billion students have been trained in this manner, including myself, one can make the case that there's no big safety difference between the two seats. But going in the right seat does require a system that can do all those other little things a taxi needs to do. However, the reports suggest Tesla will put the responsible safety driver back behind the wheel in California, to avoid pushing things. Supervised vs. Unsupervised That Tesla can do this large deployment tells you what the huge difference between a supervised and unsupervised robotaxi is. You can put a self-driving system on the road with a supervising driver when it is pretty terrible, perhaps 1/1000th of the way to being ready for real deployment. This explains why Tesla could trivially expand their Austin service area, and shape it like a giant upside-down Tesla logo (or whatever shape it intended) while Waymo, which runs a real unsupervised robotaxi, had to take more care in doing an expansion in Austin around the same time. It explains why Tesla could deploy a supervised robotaxi over all of the Bay Area, indeed all of California or the USA, while the companies operating actual robotaxis are growing their services areas at a much slower pace. It has nothing to do with Tesla's approach to driving most streets potentially being more general than the mapped approach other companies use. Tesla can do supervised robotaxi everywhere (as could Waymo and all the other companies) but they can do unsupervised only at the Tesla Factory and on a movie set. At least for now. Tesla's service area in Austin was suddenly enlarged to look like a giant Tesla logo if you rotate ... More it properly. Or some other shape. They could do that because it's a supervised service. The main reason not to have a giant service area is the cost. The cost of the human supervisors. The cost of all the localization infrastructure. (It's a lot.) You're losing money so the reason to expand territory is because you think you can learn. You will learn, but in fact you'll learn more than you can handle with just a modest territory, so there is minimal virtue in big expansion of a supervised service, and that's why nobody has ever let one get very big. Indeed, Tesla said in their earnings call that it has only operated the Austin service a small amount, in the area of 7,000 to 10,000 miles, which is just 20-25 miles, or a handful of rides, per day per car. It's not clear what the goal of a large expansion is. Tesla's CPUC permit does not let them operate an Uber-like service where contractors drive their own cars. The supervising driver has to be a Tesla employee. As such, Tesla is, as employer, vicariously liable for all events. In fact, the permit Tesla applied for said they would only carry other Tesla employees but they may not be bound to that. (The CPUC did not respond to questions about this latter point.) Tesla's goal, like everybody else, is to make a vehicle safe enough to operate without supervision. Musk has said he wants it to be 'much safer than a human driver' which means going at least a million miles between significant crashes. Tesla's very far away from that at present, perhaps only Waymo and Baidu Apollo have reached it. Operating a supervised service helps in learning what problems are out there, but mostly it offers publicity. The California DMV and CPUC may change their views on just what is allowed under their permits. To run an actual unsupervised taxi service, Tesla will need a DMV permit for vehicles to operate with no responsible driver in the car, and a DMV permit for such vehicles to take passengers. It will also need a CPUC permit to offer rides in such vehicles, first without charging money, and later to charge for rides. It hasn't yet done any of that. The DMV might decide to treat Tesla like Uber ATG, and say, 'No, that's an autonomous vehicle, even with a safety driver, so you need all the permits.' Time will tell.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk Downplays Tesla-xAI Merger Open to Investment
Tesla, Inc. (NASDAQ:TSLA) is one of the growth stocks that could double by 2027. On July 14, Elon Musk confirmed he is opposed to any merger involving the electric vehicle giant and artificial intelligence company xAI. david-von-diemar-ZBWn5DvO0hg-unsplash The remark came in response to a question posted on the social networking platform X. It comes as the tech billionaire explores the future relationship between the two companies he owns. Musk has already affirmed he is open to a shareholder vote that will determine whether Tesla will invest in the AI company xAI. Last year, Musk asked his followers on X whether Tesla should proceed with a $5 billion investment in xAI. A majority of the people said yes. Likewise, in March, Musk completed a merger between xAI and X in a deal that valued the AI company at $80 billion and the social network at $33 billion. Tesla, Inc. (NASDAQ:TSLA) is a tech giant that designs, manufactures, and sells electric vehicles, energy generation and storage products, and related services. It is known for its electric cars, including the Model S, Model 3, Model X, and Model Y, as well as energy products such as the Powerwall and Megapack. While we acknowledge the potential of TSLA as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: and . Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Hurricane season is heating up and these Canadian oil stocks are poised to benefit
It was a busy week as major members of corporate Canada released earnings that left analysts rethinking their price targets. Meanwhile, meme stocks burst back onto the scene, but what's driving the phenomenon is different this time around. Stock of the week: Tesla Inc. Shares of Tesla Inc. (TSLA) hit the skids this week when the electric vehicle maker reported sales that fell the most in a decade. But after dropping eight per cent following the release of earnings on Wednesday, the stock recouped some of those losses to close Friday at US$316.06. Elon Musk and his company have been on a roller-coaster in recent months, with his support for Donald Trump turning off customers and a public falling out with the president then rattling shareholders. Reflecting some of the chaos, price targets are all over the map for Tesla, ranging from a high of US$500 at Wedbush Securities to a low of US$120 at JPMorgan Chase and Co., according to Bloomberg data. The average target is US$302.04. Tesla shares are down 22 per cent year to date but up 42 per cent their March lows. Keeping score Is the bad news priced in for Rogers? There's 'too much bad news being priced into' shares of Rogers Communications Inc. (RCI/B), said analysts at TD Cowen, after the telco giants reported earnings this week. Analysts Vince Valentini, Natale Puccia and Carter Sullivan cited uncertainty around Rogers' debt outlook but the trio think 'management will be able to deliver on their strategy to improve leverage' this year. TD Cowen has a buy rating on Rogers and a price target of $57. Shares are currently trading at $46.57 and are up 41 per cent from when markets tanked in April after Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs announcement. In other earnings related news, BMO Capital Markets analyst Tamy Chen hiked her price target for Loblaw Co. Ltd. (L) to $230 from $220 after the grocery giant reported quarterly results that beat estimates. The stock is currently trading at the $222 level. 'More Canadians are shopping in our stores. Actually, traffic is up, unit sales are up and basket growth was positive in the quarter,' Per Bank, chief executive of Loblaw said on an earnings call. TD Cowen also hiked its price target to $250 from $245. 'Assuming no major economic fallout from trade negotiations, we expect guidance to be raised after Q3,' TD analyst Michael van Aelst said. Meme mania returns Meme stocks kicked up some dust this week with shares of companies including Kohl's Corp. (KSS), Krispy Kreme Donuts Inc. (DNUT) and GoPro Inc. (GPRO) soaring as retail investors jumped back on the bandgwagon, spurred on by Redditt's WallStreetBets forum. Meme stocks often have high levels of short interest and low valuations, but its the online boosters who have drawn the most attention. The week's activity harkens back to the days of mega-meme stock GameStop Corp., whose shares rose 788 per cent in one day early in 2021 before pulling back over following few months. But, Max Gorkham, deputy chief investment officer of Franklin Templeton investment Solutions, says the meme stock run of yesterday differs from that of today. 'There was this perception of 'we're going to save this company from the evil Wall Street investors (shorting GameStop).' But I think that's part of this belief in retail traders that actually they could have an impact, even if a small one,' Gorkham said. However, he thinks this week's activity is being driven by retail traders who have made gains in crypto — bitcoin is up 20 per cent-plus this year — looking to invest elsewhere. 'We've generally seen episodes like this before, where after a strong run up in digital assets, we then see a pickup in meme names,' Gorkham said. Canfor puts down more roots Lumber company Canfor Corp.'s (CFP) purchase of three sawmills in Sweden may get some investors' attention. Canfor's footprint in Canada has been shrinking. A decade ago, 69 per cent its lumber capacity was in British Columbia compared with just 14 per cent today, while it now also has operations in Alberta, Sweden and the U.S. South. Analysts at TD Cowen like the deal given that European lumber margins are higher and less volatile in Europe than North America and has a price target of $18 on the stock. It's currently trading at around $14. Hurricanes and why investors should care Hurricane season is almost here. Analysts at Scotiabank Capital Markets identified some potential Toronto-listed winners and losers based on predictions from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that chances are high of a major increase in storm activity in the Gulf of Mexico region where plenty of oil infrastructure resides. Among the S&P/TSX composite index-listed winners could be Cenovus Energy Inc. (CVE), Imperial Oil Ltd. (IMO), and Suncor Energy Inc. (SU) as their 'downstream businesses could benefit from higher Canadian and mid-continent refined product prices. However, modestly wider WCS (Western Canada Select) differentials could partially offset the downstream tailwinds for CVE and IMO and would have the most negative impact on (Athabasca Oil Corp.) ATH and IPCO (International Petroleum Corp.). Scotiabank also warned that Gibson Energy Inc. (GBI) is exposed via its South Texas Terminal and so is Enbrige Inc. as the operator of offshore oil and gas pipelines — 'though this business is small in the context of the whole organization.' One drone stock is up almost 100%. Here's why the sky might be the limit Here's how much higher analysts think Nvidia shares can go after record run to US$4-trillion • Email: gmvsuhanic@ Every week, the Financial Post breaks down the most interesting developments in the week's world of investing, from top performers to surprising analyst calls and stocks to have on your radar. The column will take a break next week, but look for it again on Aug. 8. Are you an investor looking for stock ideas and market insight? Sign up for the weekly FP Investor Newsletter here to get the best of the Financial Post's investing news, analysis and expert commentary straight to your inbox.
