Your rantings aside - how was your Internet experience from, say, 2000 to 2015? How did it appreciably change in 2015? How has it changed this year? If the answers - legitimate, honest answers - are "good, not any I could detect, not any I could detect", then we're simply putting regulations where none are needed - and ceding FURTHER control of the Internet to the Government.
Hey, this is all part of my Master Evil Plan to bring back Dogecoin! I'm soon going to get it up to a point of a 1.02:1 ratio and then I'm going to be rich!
The "anthropocene" does not exist, it is not a valid, scientific name. Any "scholarly work" that refers to it is showing its politics right front-and-center.
Additionally, looking at the linked paper, we see they determined the temperature for each reef via looking at the MAXIMUM (not mean, not median, the maximum) temperature recorded for the 1 deg Lat x 1 deg Long box that is centered on the reef - whether or not that corresponded to the "peak" of bleaching.
Additionally, they did NOT include control reefs that have not " warmed more than average" - meaning you do not know if this is from warming or not. All in all, pretty shoddy, politically driven work.
Wow! I guess all the tomato hothouses here in the Oxnard, CA area are stupid for upping their CO2 levels to > 1000 PPM! Who knew that growth of plants plateaus at 500 PPM - someone better tell NOAA!
So the benefit you ascribed to women applies to everyone? Or just to women? And is that benefit because they are women, or because there is a diversity of experience and opinion?
I look at how the first 30 years of the Internet went - without any "net neutrality" - and believe it will continue that way. We didn't have "net neutrality" until 2015, it's hard to believe we were so suppressed and oppressed and controlled back then. I believe adding more regulations will simply stifle the entire thing. Regulation is the heart of the Fascist economic model - where the Government literally controls everything via regulation and undue influence. The goal should be to remove barriers of entry, rather than codify and enforce them.
Work with and sit on are two DRAMATICALLY different things. I've been on 3 boards (one corporate, two volunteer for organizations with ~8,000 to ~15,000 members). Questions asked of people coming to the board to show the latest ideas/concepts/pitches are radically different than those asked of ourselves in our meetings about direction of the organization. Much like your boss has conversations with his boss and peers that are quite different than the conversations he has with you.
Successful people with lots of experience are usually the choice for board positions (where the average age is 62.4). You tend not to be successful over a longish career unless you have some measure of intelligence. Positive-outcome experience (which you describe) tends to also follow success - meaning, once again, a good measure of intelligence.
Reference article for Equilar Gender Diversity Index
women on Russell 3000 boards increased in Q1 2018 from 16.5% to 16.9%
Considering that women are, what 50% of the population, I find it hard to believe that woman are not being discriminated in one way or another
Is it gender, or just time? The average age of S&P 500 corporate board members is 62.4 years old, meaning most board members typically have had executive level experience for the better part of 20-30 years. How many women CxOs where there back in the 1980s? Very few. So the current "talent pool" is small. However, given time that will expand. It will change naturally as the current group of female CxOs mature to the age of board-dom (60s) and are thus considered "sound picks".
Better yet, why not Republicans? They are even more rare in California. I thought the pursuit of diversity was about getting lots of opinions out there so that the best idea can be formulated. What's the benefit if you have 19 people - all different genders and ethnicities - with the same group-think opinion?
The trend is that gross margin is pretty fixed - SG&A hasn't dropped really any, as a percent of revenues. It is SLOWLY towards the positive - but with 3 quarters of cash left, and a current trend that becomes positive in about 17 quarters - there's a big, 14 quarter gap in between.
Take the gross revenue, subtract SG&A (sales and general admin - kind of required to do any sales/delivery process) and you're already at a loss. Add in REQUIRED debt servicing, and you're at more of a loss. You want to talk just gross margin but ignore the costs related to more than just making the product. Go ahead - add "R&D" back into the mix, it's still a loss.
And aren't you the one trumpeting how they are great for doing their own R&D to integrate their systems? Wouldn't that make R&D a key spend in their system?
The fact is, when they sell Model 3s, they make money.
Provably wrong. The hard numbers in the financial statement prove as much. SG&A has been scaling with revenues, and that includes Model 3s. They LOSE MONEY on every vehicle they sell. Even if Tesla set R&D to zero - they would still lose money by the hundreds of millions of dollars per quarter. That's from their published financial data - straight out.
No, they make $10,000 on each Model 3 they sell, and they will make around $6,000 on each $35,000 Model 3 they sell, according to analysis by Munro and Associates
Ahh, so an "analysis" is better than actual published, SEC/GAAP/company approved financials which show a loss of over $17,000 per vehicle? Really? They LOSE OVER SEVENTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS on every car they sell. That's the hard FACT. Provable numbers. Not some unknown-bought-by-whom analysis by someone else. Actual proven, traceable, hard numbers.
$717,000,000 lost in Q2 2018. They shipped 40,740 vehicles, meaning ($17,000,000 / 40740) $17,600 loss per vehicle. That's the fact.
Nope. They are all buying companies working on self-driving systems so that they can control the whole. They disagree with you on what "right" means. Except, of course, for the smallest automakers, or the ones rapidly circling the bowl like FCA.
So - they are letting companies that specialize in self-driving do the development of self-driving?
GM used to build their own fuel injectors for heavy vehicles, back when they owned Detroit Diesel.
So - GM had a different company (which they bought) design and build their fuel injectors?
Tesla has the best EV motor in the industry, literally. And they have it because they designed it.
And they lose over $17,000 on each unit they sell. How long will those "best EVs" be around?
If only there was a way we could add a fiscal disincentive to making things overseas and importing them into the US. We could call them tariffs or something...
Yep. Not very friendlyat all. Imagine how much bigger it could be if the State was business-friendly? Many companies stay in spite of the business climate, because other intangibles are beneficial (like climate, for example).
They also stated that "default of a large account added greatly to the problem". Cash flow kills companies - and it looks like that is what happened here. After all, when you're a 3 person company with $15,000 in monthly revenue, a single $60K bad sale can break you. Bad.
Slashdot Mirror
Your rantings aside - how was your Internet experience from, say, 2000 to 2015? How did it appreciably change in 2015? How has it changed this year? If the answers - legitimate, honest answers - are "good, not any I could detect, not any I could detect", then we're simply putting regulations where none are needed - and ceding FURTHER control of the Internet to the Government.
Hey, this is all part of my Master Evil Plan to bring back Dogecoin! I'm soon going to get it up to a point of a 1.02:1 ratio and then I'm going to be rich!
The "anthropocene" does not exist, it is not a valid, scientific name. Any "scholarly work" that refers to it is showing its politics right front-and-center.
Additionally, looking at the linked paper, we see they determined the temperature for each reef via looking at the MAXIMUM (not mean, not median, the maximum) temperature recorded for the 1 deg Lat x 1 deg Long box that is centered on the reef - whether or not that corresponded to the "peak" of bleaching.
Additionally, they did NOT include control reefs that have not " warmed more than average" - meaning you do not know if this is from warming or not. All in all, pretty shoddy, politically driven work.
Are you one of those who thinks it's also "normal for the Earth to warm up, therefore AGW can't exist?
Well, it IS normal for the Earth to warm up - it's how we exit those dominant time periods called ice ages...
Wow! I guess all the tomato hothouses here in the Oxnard, CA area are stupid for upping their CO2 levels to > 1000 PPM! Who knew that growth of plants plateaus at 500 PPM - someone better tell NOAA!
So the benefit you ascribed to women applies to everyone? Or just to women? And is that benefit because they are women, or because there is a diversity of experience and opinion?
So, how about answering the question I asked: what is the benefit of diversity on a board?
I look at how the first 30 years of the Internet went - without any "net neutrality" - and believe it will continue that way. We didn't have "net neutrality" until 2015, it's hard to believe we were so suppressed and oppressed and controlled back then. I believe adding more regulations will simply stifle the entire thing. Regulation is the heart of the Fascist economic model - where the Government literally controls everything via regulation and undue influence. The goal should be to remove barriers of entry, rather than codify and enforce them.
Work with and sit on are two DRAMATICALLY different things. I've been on 3 boards (one corporate, two volunteer for organizations with ~8,000 to ~15,000 members). Questions asked of people coming to the board to show the latest ideas/concepts/pitches are radically different than those asked of ourselves in our meetings about direction of the organization. Much like your boss has conversations with his boss and peers that are quite different than the conversations he has with you.
Successful people with lots of experience are usually the choice for board positions (where the average age is 62.4). You tend not to be successful over a longish career unless you have some measure of intelligence. Positive-outcome experience (which you describe) tends to also follow success - meaning, once again, a good measure of intelligence.
Reference article for Equilar Gender Diversity Index
women on Russell 3000 boards increased in Q1 2018 from 16.5% to 16.9%
Considering that women are, what 50% of the population, I find it hard to believe that woman are not being discriminated in one way or another
Is it gender, or just time? The average age of S&P 500 corporate board members is 62.4 years old, meaning most board members typically have had executive level experience for the better part of 20-30 years. How many women CxOs where there back in the 1980s? Very few. So the current "talent pool" is small. However, given time that will expand. It will change naturally as the current group of female CxOs mature to the age of board-dom (60s) and are thus considered "sound picks".
So, it's not the content of the character, but the color of the skin (or, in this case, the plumbing below the waist) that matters?
Here's a bigger, more philosophical question for you: what is the benefit of diversity on a board?
Biology is a biological fact, but it's not binary either. There is a spectrum of biology too, and biology can be altered.
Let me know when a man gives birth.
Better yet, why not Republicans? They are even more rare in California. I thought the pursuit of diversity was about getting lots of opinions out there so that the best idea can be formulated. What's the benefit if you have 19 people - all different genders and ethnicities - with the same group-think opinion?
I'm a techie, I'm pro-2A, I hate this backdoor thing - and I opposed net neutrality. I guess that makes me magical?
Supposedly they are at 100% capacity of production right now, so they will need to build more factories...
The trend is that gross margin is pretty fixed - SG&A hasn't dropped really any, as a percent of revenues. It is SLOWLY towards the positive - but with 3 quarters of cash left, and a current trend that becomes positive in about 17 quarters - there's a big, 14 quarter gap in between.
Take the gross revenue, subtract SG&A (sales and general admin - kind of required to do any sales/delivery process) and you're already at a loss. Add in REQUIRED debt servicing, and you're at more of a loss. You want to talk just gross margin but ignore the costs related to more than just making the product. Go ahead - add "R&D" back into the mix, it's still a loss.
And aren't you the one trumpeting how they are great for doing their own R&D to integrate their systems? Wouldn't that make R&D a key spend in their system?
The fact is, when they sell Model 3s, they make money.
Provably wrong. The hard numbers in the financial statement prove as much. SG&A has been scaling with revenues, and that includes Model 3s. They LOSE MONEY on every vehicle they sell. Even if Tesla set R&D to zero - they would still lose money by the hundreds of millions of dollars per quarter. That's from their published financial data - straight out.
No, they make $10,000 on each Model 3 they sell, and they will make around $6,000 on each $35,000 Model 3 they sell, according to analysis by Munro and Associates
Ahh, so an "analysis" is better than actual published, SEC/GAAP/company approved financials which show a loss of over $17,000 per vehicle? Really? They LOSE OVER SEVENTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS on every car they sell. That's the hard FACT. Provable numbers. Not some unknown-bought-by-whom analysis by someone else. Actual proven, traceable, hard numbers.
$717,000,000 lost in Q2 2018. They shipped 40,740 vehicles, meaning ($17,000,000 / 40740) $17,600 loss per vehicle. That's the fact.
They are selling e6 electric taxis in the US right now... And a lot of electric buses as well.
Curious about when a $35K Tesla will finally ship, though...
And they're collecting $10k in profit from each sale right now, they aren't going to give that up any sooner than necessary.
Huh, I guess, based upon their loss of $717 million last quarter, Tesla deconstructed and removed from sale about 71,000 vehicles!
Nope. They are all buying companies working on self-driving systems so that they can control the whole. They disagree with you on what "right" means. Except, of course, for the smallest automakers, or the ones rapidly circling the bowl like FCA.
So - they are letting companies that specialize in self-driving do the development of self-driving?
GM used to build their own fuel injectors for heavy vehicles, back when they owned Detroit Diesel.
So - GM had a different company (which they bought) design and build their fuel injectors?
Tesla has the best EV motor in the industry, literally. And they have it because they designed it.
And they lose over $17,000 on each unit they sell. How long will those "best EVs" be around?
If only there was a way we could add a fiscal disincentive to making things overseas and importing them into the US. We could call them tariffs or something...
Yep. Not very friendly at all. Imagine how much bigger it could be if the State was business-friendly? Many companies stay in spite of the business climate, because other intangibles are beneficial (like climate, for example).
They also stated that "default of a large account added greatly to the problem". Cash flow kills companies - and it looks like that is what happened here. After all, when you're a 3 person company with $15,000 in monthly revenue, a single $60K bad sale can break you. Bad.