What Car Would You Live In For 100 Days If Doing So Meant Mr. Beast Gave It To You For Free After?
New cars are basically just for rich people these days. Meanwhile, Republicans have given up on any pretense that they aren't intentionally crashing the economy, so financing a new car is also pretty risky even if you can currently afford it. But what if, hypothetically, I told you there was a way to get a new car for free if you were willing to put up with a little inconvenience and possible humiliation in front of millions of people?
You see, YouTuber and possible soul eater Mr. Beast — AKA Jimmy Donaldson — makes an unfathomable amount of money from his videos, and his current hobby is getting people to torture themselves in exchange for money or gifts. Yesterday, he tweeted about several videos he has coming, and they all follow a similar theme. A pilot gets a plane for free if he can live in it for 100 days. A cop and a criminal each get $500,000 if they stay in jail for 100 days. A fat person gets $500,000 if he loses 100 pounds while living in a gym. You can probably see where I'm going with this.
Let's say Mr. Beast offered you a free car if you could live in it for 100 days. Presumably, there would be some allowance for using the bathroom and not getting fired from your job, but at the very least, you'd be expected to sleep in it every night and spend a minimum number of hours inside while awake. Let's also assume you won't be able to turn around and sell it immediately after. If such a scenario fell in your lap, what car would make it worth living in a car for 100 days?
If I had to pick, I'd probably go with the Lucid Gravity. Since it's a crossover, there should be enough space in the back to actually get decent sleep, and since it's electric, I'd be able to run the climate control overnight, as well as power a bunch of electronics. There are certainly other cars I'm more interested in owning personally, but it's still pretty darn cool, and I'm not getting 100 nights of bad sleep over an ND Miata. What about you, though?
Read more: 2024 Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV: A Value That Comes At A Price
Want more like this? Join the Jalopnik newsletter to get the latest auto news sent straight to your inbox...
Read the original article on Jalopnik.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Trump Just Revoked California's EV Rules. How Much Is California To Blame?
President Donald Trump just revoked California's permission to enforce its nation-leading clean-car rules — and Mary Nichols understands why. "No one likes being regulated," she told me ahead of Thursday's Oval Office signing ceremony. Nichols knows that better than almost anyone. As head of California's Air Resources Board for 17 years, she brought the world's biggest automakers to heel using the state's unique authority to go further than the federal government in setting vehicle emissions standards. It's those same automakers who lobbied Trump to "rescue the U.S. auto industry from destruction by terminating California's electric vehicle mandate once and for all," as Trump put it Thursday. It didn't have to get to this point. California officials had been in talks with automakers prior to the November election about how to keep them on board, but the state overplayed its hand, Nichols said. "Many people were acting on the assumption that it was going to be the Democrats continuing in power," she said. "So the state felt like they had all the cards in their hand, and then after the election, it was pretty hard to reset the conversation." To hear Nichols tell it, California may have gone too far this time in nudging the industry to ever-higher sales of zero-emission vehicles. The rules would have required automakers to hit increasing percentages — 35 percent by model year 2026 and 68 percent by model year 2030 — before reaching 100 percent of new-car sales in 2035. Maybe that would have worked if it were just about California. But a dozen other states are signed on to California's targets, and they have been slower and less generous with incentives and EV charging infrastructure. Where California has more than a quarter of its new car sales coming from EVs, New Jersey is at 15 percent, and New York is under 12 percent, according to the industry's latest figures. "They were definitely having issues with the California program because they didn't think they could meet the sales numbers in the mandate, especially [Gov. Gavin] Newsom's target of nothing but ZEVs with a deadline attached to it," Nichols said. "That was scary, and even the interim targets were going to be hard to meet." The pendulum has swung against California before: The George W. Bush administration was the first to attempt to deny California's permission from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to require automakers to sell increasing percentages of zero-emission vehicles, and Trump went further in his first term by attempting to revoke the state's already-issued authority. But Republicans had never resorted to doing it through Congress, via an untested maneuver that congressional watchdogs have warned is likely illegal but that still drew 35 Democratic votes in the House and one in the Senate (Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), in the tradition of Detroit's John Dingell). It's a far cry from the bipartisan consensus that reigned when President Richard Nixon famously signed the Clean Air Act, which set federal air pollution levels for the first time but gave California permission to continue going further, owing to its decade-plus of vehicle emissions rules aimed at the smoggy Los Angeles basin. The automakers have been steadily lobbying against the rules since then, with a brief ceasefire from 2009-16, when ten automakers and the United Auto Workers signed a nonaggression pact in President Barack Obama's Rose Garden with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the EPA. That it happened at the same time that the federal government was taking an equity stake in General Motors was no coincidence, said Nichols, who helped broker the pact. "They saved them from bankruptcy," she said. California has less recourse this time around. Where Newsom signed deals in 2019 with Ford, Volkswagen, Honda, BMW and Volvo to abide by the state's rules even in the event of federal cancellation, he now only has Stellantis, which signed a separate agreement last year that goes through model year 2030. And several of the state's allies are peeling off. California had 12 other states signed on to follow its lead as of last year, but it now has 10, after Republican-led Virginia dropped out and Vermont delayed enforcement by 19 months. And Democrats are getting cold feet, too: Maryland Gov. Wes Moore signed an executive order in April delaying enforcement, and Democratic lawmakers in New York introduced a bill this year to delay their participation by two years. (California and the other 10 states immediately sued Thursday to preserve the emissions standards.) "If it was only California, I think [automakers] wouldn't have been as eager to jump in on the federal level and work with the Republicans, but it's the fact it's the other states that had the California standards that were killing them, especially New York," Nichols said. That echoes the automakers' argument. "The problem really isn't California," John Bozzella, CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, said in a statement after the Senate's vote last month to overturn the rules. "It's the 11 states that adopted California's rules without the same level of readiness for EV sales requirements of this magnitude."
Politico
a day ago
- Politico
Trump Just Revoked California's EV Rules. How Much Is California To Blame?
President Donald Trump just revoked California's permission to enforce its nation-leading clean-car rules — and Mary Nichols understands why. 'No one likes being regulated,' she told me ahead of Thursday's Oval Office signing ceremony. Nichols knows that better than almost anyone. As head of California's Air Resources Board for 17 years, she brought the world's biggest automakers to heel using the state's unique authority to go further than the federal government in setting vehicle emissions standards. It's those same automakers who lobbied Trump to 'rescue the U.S. auto industry from destruction by terminating California's electric vehicle mandate once and for all,' as Trump put it Thursday. It didn't have to get to this point. California officials had been in talks with automakers prior to the November election about how to keep them on board, but the state overplayed its hand, Nichols said. 'Many people were acting on the assumption that it was going to be the Democrats continuing in power,' she said. 'So the state felt like they had all the cards in their hand, and then after the election, it was pretty hard to reset the conversation.' To hear Nichols tell it, California may have gone too far this time in nudging the industry to ever-higher sales of zero-emission vehicles. The rules would have required automakers to hit increasing percentages — 35 percent by model year 2026 and 68 percent by model year 2030 — before reaching 100 percent of new-car sales in 2035. Maybe that would have worked if it were just about California. But a dozen other states are signed on to California's targets, and they have been slower and less generous with incentives and EV charging infrastructure. Where California has more than a quarter of its new car sales coming from EVs, New Jersey is at 15 percent, and New York is under 12 percent, according to the industry's latest figures. 'They were definitely having issues with the California program because they didn't think they could meet the sales numbers in the mandate, especially [Gov. Gavin] Newsom's target of nothing but ZEVs with a deadline attached to it,' Nichols said. 'That was scary, and even the interim targets were going to be hard to meet.' The pendulum has swung against California before: The George W. Bush administration was the first to attempt to deny California's permission from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to require automakers to sell increasing percentages of zero-emission vehicles, and Trump went further in his first term by attempting to revoke the state's already-issued authority. But Republicans had never resorted to doing it through Congress, via an untested maneuver that congressional watchdogs have warned is likely illegal but that still drew 35 Democratic votes in the House and one in the Senate (Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), in the tradition of Detroit's John Dingell). It's a far cry from the bipartisan consensus that reigned when President Richard Nixon famously signed the Clean Air Act, which set federal air pollution levels for the first time but gave California permission to continue going further, owing to its decade-plus of vehicle emissions rules aimed at the smoggy Los Angeles basin. The automakers have been steadily lobbying against the rules since then, with a brief ceasefire from 2009-16, when ten automakers and the United Auto Workers signed a nonaggression pact in President Barack Obama's Rose Garden with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the EPA. That it happened at the same time that the federal government was taking an equity stake in General Motors was no coincidence, said Nichols, who helped broker the pact. 'They saved them from bankruptcy,' she said. California has less recourse this time around. Where Newsom signed deals in 2019 with Ford, Volkswagen, Honda, BMW and Volvo to abide by the state's rules even in the event of federal cancellation, he now only has Stellantis, which signed a separate agreement last year that goes through model year 2030. And several of the state's allies are peeling off. California had 12 other states signed on to follow its lead as of last year, but it now has 10, after Republican-led Virginia dropped out and Vermont delayed enforcement by 19 months. And Democrats are getting cold feet, too: Maryland Gov. Wes Moore signed an executive order in April delaying enforcement, and Democratic lawmakers in New York introduced a bill this year to delay their participation by two years. (California and the other 10 states immediately sued Thursday to preserve the emissions standards.) 'If it was only California, I think [automakers] wouldn't have been as eager to jump in on the federal level and work with the Republicans, but it's the fact it's the other states that had the California standards that were killing them, especially New York,' Nichols said. That echoes the automakers' argument. 'The problem really isn't California,' John Bozzella, CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, said in a statement after the Senate's vote last month to overturn the rules. 'It's the 11 states that adopted California's rules without the same level of readiness for EV sales requirements of this magnitude.'
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
New Nevada traffic ticket laws to go into effect
LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — Nevada lawmakers unanimously passed and Gov. Joe Lombardo signed a proposal to amend the state's traffic-ticket system. Senate Bill 359, which will become law Oct. 1, gives courts flexibility to reduce the amount a driver needs to pay upfront. Courts interpreted the current law as a driver having to pay the full amount of a ticket before a hearing. The 8 News Now Investigators first looked into the issue this spring when a retiree had to pay her $417 ticket in full before her court hearing. Before Senate Bill 359, Nevada law required her to pay the fine in full — whether she wanted to fight the ticket or not. Since 2021, Nevada lawmakers, both Democrats and Republicans, have changed most traffic infractions, like a speeding ticket, to be a civil infraction, not a criminal one. That means tickets no longer carry the threat of jail time, and missed court appearances do not really matter in the long run since the court may already have your money. Democratic State Sen. Melanie Scheible sponsored the change, which passed unanimously. The governor signed it last week. In addition, changes written in Senate Bill 359 now combine civil and criminal infractions — minor speeding offenses versus driving without a license — and allow a judge to deal with both in one hearing. The new law also gives judges more discretion, not a 'presumption in favor' to reduce a traffic ticket to a nonmoving violation should the driver pay all their fines and have a good driving record. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
