It'll be quite interesting to see who sells large chunks of stock over the next few days. Particularly if this turns out to be yet another Elon will-o'-the-wisp.
China has a very low birthrate - well under replacement. India, in the last couple years, has become sub-replacement. Mexico is essentially at replacement. So I don't know which "high birthrate" countries you're talking about.
The relevant measure isn't today's replacement rates -- babies generally don't crawl across borders. Looking at birth statistics for people now approaching 30, India's birthrate was 4.0, China's was 2.6, and Mexico's was 3.7. We'll be dealing with the hangover from that era for quite some time. And even today's rates show that the globe's net population growth is generally constrained to developing countries, so migration pressures aren't going away any time soon.
Tesla lost $717 million on $4 billion in revenue. A 17.9% loss. In Q1, 2018, they lost $597 million on $3.4 billion in revenue. A 17.5% loss. If anything, losses are increasing as a percent of revenue, not decreasing.
But, but, didn't you read the hot-off-the-press Karen Rei infomerical posing as a Slashdot article? None of those silly historical numbers matter, because Tesla is going to turn profitable in the very next quarter.* This time for sure, Rocky!
* If this is anything like the Model 3 production rate, Elon will just hold a bunch of sales until the last week of the quarter and not pay any bills, and then declare that Tesla "operated at a profit" for that week.
The thing that's silly is that "this" is the Tesla news. On the day that Tesla released its Q2 report and investor call.
It's news today because your fearless leader tweeted it today. If he had wanted the focus to remain on the Q2 report and investor call, he easily could have STFU for another day. Be honest with yourself about why he didn't.
If this was dry humor, well played. I know you can't possibly be crowing about margins being (ever so slightly) in the black for cars that are loaded up with the raft of high-margin options currently being force-fed to buyers.
I don't need to 'think through' the fact that you're still basing your shitty opinion on basically nothing . . . you're full of bias
Ah, so I can expect to look through the comments and see you equally riding herd on people drawing negative conclusions about Amazon based on this article, right? Right? Oh, snap. Why do you make this so easy?
Your obsession over the change in the order page when they changed how they were doing orders is duly noted. Goodbye.
And your cowardice over addressing the simple fact that your church removed the "$35,000" base price from the real-world window stickers on the cars in their real-world sanctuaries is duly noted. Be seeing you....
Yeah sure you read the entire article and not just what's on/., sure you did.
Well, yes, Sparky, I did. And the incontestable proof of that is that the last quote in my original post is from the article, not from the Slashdot summary.
You really didn't think that one through, did you?
What makes you think that one paragraph is a god's-eye view, completely omniscient, leaving out nothing?
One paragraph? You and I must be reading different articles. This was an extensive hit piece. They had every incentive to include every bit of dirt in they could find -- and went out of their way to fluff up the few little scraps they had to work with.
You're making a judgement on someone you've never met and never will meet, about a situation you did not and will not ever witness with your own eyes, based on a single account.
Yes. Her account. The one that would by definition be the most biased toward her you could hope to get.
She used a tote bin to try to compensate for the missing brush guard, and hurt her back while counting in an awkward position.
So instead of alerting someone and getting the dangerous condition fixed, she tried to work around it herself and got hurt.
In January 2018, she returned to work and injured herself again on the same workstation that still was not fixed.
Good grief. You'd like to credit her with enough intelligence not to just turn around and do exactly the same thing that had just put her on the lam for 3 months, but then you'd probably have to conclude she was fishing for a payout from the big A.
She currently lives out of her car in the parking lot of the Amazon fulfillment center. “They cost me my home, they screwed me over and over and I go days without eating.”
Yes, when I want to "memory hole" a model, I leave it up on the two most prominent places on the website that people would go to look for information about it.
Ah, so you're saying they have it down to only two places they need to edit when Elon feels like he's come up with a good enough cover story/distraction to flush it for good. How efficient!
It's clear you're not going to address the systematic scrubbing of the $35k base price explained in extensive detail (complete with lots of pretty pictures) in the article I linked, so you may as well save your keystrokes on any further deflections.
Yawn -- it's clear you didn't read and/or comprehend the article I linked to. Doing so probably would have taken less time than typing yet another one of your deliberately-miss-the-point snarky little rejoinders.
And whatever your uncited sources, Tesla "repeatedly confirming" that something is "still on" half a year in the future is worthless currency at this point, particularly when all other signs point to the $35k base price being quietly and incrementally memory-holed.
Cute literalism, Karen, but it's clear enough what AC was referring to, particularly for someone as close to the issue as I know you are.
You can't actually order a $35k Model 3 (for delivery on any date), and as shown in detail in the above link Tesla has restructured its ordering and pricing system (both on the website and on the price sheets on the vehicles themselves) to eliminate any reference to $35k as a baseline for the higher-margin configurations they'll actually sell you today. The fact as you point out that they're still including the number in their high-level marketing materials just amplifies the ongoing bait-and-switch.
Asking society to put its trust in a machine with the justification that at its best it fucks up no more often than some humans at their worst is a non-starter.
To get an official birth certificate in this post-9/11 security theater world in the great state of my birth, I need to get send a request with a notarized signature. To get a notary to notarize my signature, I need a gov't issued ID. To get a gov't issued ID, I need an official birth certificate. It is possible to unwind the Gordian knot, but it requires effort of which forms to fill out with which kind of evidence to get things rolling. It is not obvious or easy how to do this to approximately everyone, although it is possible, of course.
For the handful of people in your state that actually have an issue like this, maybe the resources all these activist organizations are spending trying to eliminate ID requirements for voting would be better spent helping those people get IDs. Just a thought.
It has been proven in court that people who are legal voters for decades lack state ID. Are you denying as much?
And there we have it -- in three exchanges, the big bad boogeyman that supposedly has been proved in court over and over has diminished from people who were once registered to vote, were deregistered, and who now physically can't get the documentation they need to get reregistered, to "people who are legal voters for decades lack state ID." Bye bye, goalposts.
It has been shown to happen with regularity, with hard evidence, under the bright lights of a courtroom. The ACLU has done this multiple times.
Awesome -- in that case, it's in the public record and you should be able to provide citations. After you do that, I suspect it will quickly become clear that the "it" you're referring to has little to nothing to do with your original claim about people who (1) had their birth certificate, (2) registered to vote, (3) were later purged from the rolls, and (4) in the meantime had lost their birth certificate, and (5) at that point were somehow unable to get a duplicate. Looking forward to it.
but maybe life happened and you no longer have a copy of your birth certificate
Or maybe it's Maybelline. Again -- anyone can come up with angels-dancing-on-heads-of-pins hypotheticals. There's a reason we don't design policy around stuff like that. Show it's actually happening in the real world with any degree of regularity, and we'll have something to talk about.
Yep. A substantial burden like not having the resources to obtain your birth certificate.
Putting aside what "not having the resources" would literally have to mean and how hard it is to find actual people actually limited to that degree, your scenario I addressed was people standing in line on voting day only to find out they were no longer registered. Since they previously had been registered, by definition they already had gotten through any "life is hard" issues like that.
2 hour waits only to find you're no longer registered. Florida 2000.
Thing is, it's no longer 2000 and you can instantly check your registration status online by plugging in your first name, last name, and date of birth. I concede that would still require things like planning ahead, turning off the TV for a few minutes, and so on. The Supreme Court has been clear that people have a right to vote without substantial burden, not without any burden at all.
If you want to (rightfully) demand that Musk provide evidence to the pedo claim
It wasn't a claim. It was childish, reflexive, over-the-top invective to try to shut down a dialogue that was hurting Elon's wil' feelings.
(beyond the profile of "63 year old white western male moved to Thailand")
Wow. Really, Karen? You can load up your post with all the lip service you want about Musk being wrong, but that racist little gem takes it all back and more.
and there will be 10000% more of them because the bird population decreased 80% from starvation
Given that it's generally recognized that mosquitoes only make up a smallsingle-digit percentage of the diets of certain birds (mainly purple martins) and bats, 80% might be a wee bit high.
and since 2000 patent filings are public, so the secrecy needed for submarine patents is gone.
Since 2000 the default has been to publish a patent application around the 18-month mark, but under 35 U.S.C. Section 122(b)(2)(B)(i) the inventor can override that by filing a request for nonpublication, certifying that they're not seeking foreign patents.on that same invention. So inventors can still submarine if they're willing to limit themselves to U.S. patents.
I'm thinking the solution is to dust of the U.S. Robotics 56K Fax modem and on-line retailers can accept fax orders.
This opinion has nothing to do with how the orders are submitted. All it did was do away with the prior requirement that a business had to have a brick-and-mortar presence in a state to be required to collect/remit sales taxes for transactions in that state. Mail order retailers fell under the same exclusion for a long time before Internet retailers hit the mainstream.
The only problem I see with the state taxing online purchases is that small online retailers will have extra overhead to meet tax requirements for all states.
The South Dakota statute in question only required collection/remittance of South Dakota sales tax if the online retailer had more than $100k in sales in South Dakota and/or more than 200 annual transactions in South Dakota. The Supreme Court specifically discussed those thresholds in its analysis, which will be a signal to other states that if they follow suit, they'll need to have some sort of reasonable minimum threshold as well. It would be hard for a truly small retailer to exceed that threshold in a single state in the first place, and then if they did it would only apply to transactions in that state.
Slashdot Mirror
It'll be quite interesting to see who sells large chunks of stock over the next few days. Particularly if this turns out to be yet another Elon will-o'-the-wisp.
China has a very low birthrate - well under replacement. India, in the last couple years, has become sub-replacement. Mexico is essentially at replacement. So I don't know which "high birthrate" countries you're talking about.
The relevant measure isn't today's replacement rates -- babies generally don't crawl across borders. Looking at birth statistics for people now approaching 30, India's birthrate was 4.0, China's was 2.6, and Mexico's was 3.7. We'll be dealing with the hangover from that era for quite some time. And even today's rates show that the globe's net population growth is generally constrained to developing countries, so migration pressures aren't going away any time soon.
Tesla lost $717 million on $4 billion in revenue. A 17.9% loss. In Q1, 2018, they lost $597 million on $3.4 billion in revenue. A 17.5% loss. If anything, losses are increasing as a percent of revenue, not decreasing.
But, but, didn't you read the hot-off-the-press Karen Rei infomerical posing as a Slashdot article? None of those silly historical numbers matter, because Tesla is going to turn profitable in the very next quarter.* This time for sure, Rocky!
* If this is anything like the Model 3 production rate, Elon will just hold a bunch of sales until the last week of the quarter and not pay any bills, and then declare that Tesla "operated at a profit" for that week.
The thing that's silly is that "this" is the Tesla news. On the day that Tesla released its Q2 report and investor call.
It's news today because your fearless leader tweeted it today. If he had wanted the focus to remain on the Q2 report and investor call, he easily could have STFU for another day. Be honest with yourself about why he didn't.
Model 3 margins are now positive
If this was dry humor, well played. I know you can't possibly be crowing about margins being (ever so slightly) in the black for cars that are loaded up with the raft of high-margin options currently being force-fed to buyers.
I don't need to 'think through' the fact that you're still basing your shitty opinion on basically nothing . . . you're full of bias
Ah, so I can expect to look through the comments and see you equally riding herd on people drawing negative conclusions about Amazon based on this article, right? Right? Oh, snap. Why do you make this so easy?
Aw, sock puppet account had mod points. How cute.
Your obsession over the change in the order page when they changed how they were doing orders is duly noted. Goodbye.
And your cowardice over addressing the simple fact that your church removed the "$35,000" base price from the real-world window stickers on the cars in their real-world sanctuaries is duly noted. Be seeing you....
Yeah sure you read the entire article and not just what's on /., sure you did.
Well, yes, Sparky, I did. And the incontestable proof of that is that the last quote in my original post is from the article, not from the Slashdot summary .
You really didn't think that one through, did you?
What makes you think that one paragraph is a god's-eye view, completely omniscient, leaving out nothing?
One paragraph? You and I must be reading different articles. This was an extensive hit piece. They had every incentive to include every bit of dirt in they could find -- and went out of their way to fluff up the few little scraps they had to work with.
You're making a judgement on someone you've never met and never will meet, about a situation you did not and will not ever witness with your own eyes, based on a single account.
Yes. Her account. The one that would by definition be the most biased toward her you could hope to get.
Don't be naive.
She used a tote bin to try to compensate for the missing brush guard, and hurt her back while counting in an awkward position.
So instead of alerting someone and getting the dangerous condition fixed, she tried to work around it herself and got hurt.
In January 2018, she returned to work and injured herself again on the same workstation that still was not fixed.
Good grief. You'd like to credit her with enough intelligence not to just turn around and do exactly the same thing that had just put her on the lam for 3 months, but then you'd probably have to conclude she was fishing for a payout from the big A.
She currently lives out of her car in the parking lot of the Amazon fulfillment center. “They cost me my home, they screwed me over and over and I go days without eating.”
Or then again, maybe she's just a bit... off.
Yes, when I want to "memory hole" a model, I leave it up on the two most prominent places on the website that people would go to look for information about it.
Ah, so you're saying they have it down to only two places they need to edit when Elon feels like he's come up with a good enough cover story/distraction to flush it for good. How efficient!
It's clear you're not going to address the systematic scrubbing of the $35k base price explained in extensive detail (complete with lots of pretty pictures) in the article I linked, so you may as well save your keystrokes on any further deflections.
Yawn -- it's clear you didn't read and/or comprehend the article I linked to. Doing so probably would have taken less time than typing yet another one of your deliberately-miss-the-point snarky little rejoinders.
And whatever your uncited sources, Tesla "repeatedly confirming" that something is "still on" half a year in the future is worthless currency at this point, particularly when all other signs point to the $35k base price being quietly and incrementally memory-holed.
Cute literalism, Karen, but it's clear enough what AC was referring to, particularly for someone as close to the issue as I know you are.
You can't actually order a $35k Model 3 (for delivery on any date), and as shown in detail in the above link Tesla has restructured its ordering and pricing system (both on the website and on the price sheets on the vehicles themselves) to eliminate any reference to $35k as a baseline for the higher-margin configurations they'll actually sell you today. The fact as you point out that they're still including the number in their high-level marketing materials just amplifies the ongoing bait-and-switch.
Asking society to put its trust in a machine with the justification that at its best it fucks up no more often than some humans at their worst is a non-starter.
To get an official birth certificate in this post-9/11 security theater world in the great state of my birth, I need to get send a request with a notarized signature. To get a notary to notarize my signature, I need a gov't issued ID. To get a gov't issued ID, I need an official birth certificate. It is possible to unwind the Gordian knot, but it requires effort of which forms to fill out with which kind of evidence to get things rolling. It is not obvious or easy how to do this to approximately everyone, although it is possible, of course.
For the handful of people in your state that actually have an issue like this, maybe the resources all these activist organizations are spending trying to eliminate ID requirements for voting would be better spent helping those people get IDs. Just a thought.
It has been proven in court that people who are legal voters for decades lack state ID. Are you denying as much?
And there we have it -- in three exchanges, the big bad boogeyman that supposedly has been proved in court over and over has diminished from people who were once registered to vote, were deregistered, and who now physically can't get the documentation they need to get reregistered, to "people who are legal voters for decades lack state ID." Bye bye, goalposts.
It has been shown to happen with regularity, with hard evidence, under the bright lights of a courtroom. The ACLU has done this multiple times.
Awesome -- in that case, it's in the public record and you should be able to provide citations. After you do that, I suspect it will quickly become clear that the "it" you're referring to has little to nothing to do with your original claim about people who (1) had their birth certificate, (2) registered to vote, (3) were later purged from the rolls, and (4) in the meantime had lost their birth certificate, and (5) at that point were somehow unable to get a duplicate. Looking forward to it.
but maybe life happened and you no longer have a copy of your birth certificate
Or maybe it's Maybelline. Again -- anyone can come up with angels-dancing-on-heads-of-pins hypotheticals. There's a reason we don't design policy around stuff like that. Show it's actually happening in the real world with any degree of regularity, and we'll have something to talk about.
Yep. A substantial burden like not having the resources to obtain your birth certificate.
Putting aside what "not having the resources" would literally have to mean and how hard it is to find actual people actually limited to that degree, your scenario I addressed was people standing in line on voting day only to find out they were no longer registered. Since they previously had been registered, by definition they already had gotten through any "life is hard" issues like that.
2 hour waits only to find you're no longer registered. Florida 2000.
Thing is, it's no longer 2000 and you can instantly check your registration status online by plugging in your first name, last name, and date of birth. I concede that would still require things like planning ahead, turning off the TV for a few minutes, and so on. The Supreme Court has been clear that people have a right to vote without substantial burden, not without any burden at all.
If you want to (rightfully) demand that Musk provide evidence to the pedo claim
It wasn't a claim. It was childish, reflexive, over-the-top invective to try to shut down a dialogue that was hurting Elon's wil' feelings.
(beyond the profile of "63 year old white western male moved to Thailand")
Wow. Really, Karen? You can load up your post with all the lip service you want about Musk being wrong, but that racist little gem takes it all back and more.
and there will be 10000% more of them because the bird population decreased 80% from starvation
Given that it's generally recognized that mosquitoes only make up a small single-digit percentage of the diets of certain birds (mainly purple martins) and bats, 80% might be a wee bit high.
and since 2000 patent filings are public, so the secrecy needed for submarine patents is gone.
Since 2000 the default has been to publish a patent application around the 18-month mark, but under 35 U.S.C. Section 122(b)(2)(B)(i) the inventor can override that by filing a request for nonpublication, certifying that they're not seeking foreign patents.on that same invention. So inventors can still submarine if they're willing to limit themselves to U.S. patents.
Elon bought himself another 3.7 days of operating capital!
I'm thinking the solution is to dust of the U.S. Robotics 56K Fax modem and on-line retailers can accept fax orders.
This opinion has nothing to do with how the orders are submitted. All it did was do away with the prior requirement that a business had to have a brick-and-mortar presence in a state to be required to collect/remit sales taxes for transactions in that state. Mail order retailers fell under the same exclusion for a long time before Internet retailers hit the mainstream.
The only problem I see with the state taxing online purchases is that small online retailers will have extra overhead to meet tax requirements for all states.
The South Dakota statute in question only required collection/remittance of South Dakota sales tax if the online retailer had more than $100k in sales in South Dakota and/or more than 200 annual transactions in South Dakota. The Supreme Court specifically discussed those thresholds in its analysis, which will be a signal to other states that if they follow suit, they'll need to have some sort of reasonable minimum threshold as well. It would be hard for a truly small retailer to exceed that threshold in a single state in the first place, and then if they did it would only apply to transactions in that state.