Often there are contracts. Sometimes for a very long time, often multi-year. There are sometimes escape clauses (like a morality clause for a spokesperson), but these aren’t easy to invoke.

I suspect many of them are up for annual review/renewal, when they can be terminated without penalty. It might also just be an attempt to get better terms.

Uber’s insurance is pretty bad. Many get the additional coverage from their regular insurer anyway because of this. That coverage also (usually) applies to this situation as well.

“handle” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. The signs are already there that all of these edge cases will just be programmed as “safely pull over and stop until conditions change or a human takes control”. Which isn’t a small task in itself, but it’s a lot easier than figuring out to continue (e.g.) on ice.

Even at stores that have this feature, I rarely see people use it. It’s clearly not an experience that people flock to.

OTOH, on the rare occasion I’ve visited a Walmart in the past 10 years, I have a 100% rate of checkout taking an absurdly long time. Everyone there just seems to accept it like they have no choice.

As long as it’s advertised openly, I don’t see a big problem with it. It would probably be sold as a discount for shopping at slower times, though. It’s a tried-and-true method of smoothing congestion.

Assuming a store with 9a-9p hours (every day), a 9-5 worker can shop 44 hours in a week, vs 40 they cannot. But that doesn’t particularly line up with the busy hours. Around here, after 7 on weekdays and 5 on weekends tend to get pretty slow.

Will this help users on Bing with their number 1 desired search destination, Google?

Or their 7th most common destination, Bing?

Source: https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/1/22703263/google-lawyer-argues-bing-used-find-google-top-search-defaults

Not necessarily. They could split the video in advance, assuming the ads will always be at the same point. Even if not, they could still use the direct, unaltered source with a range. The big challenge would be keeping it all synced, which I think is safe to say that they will get right.

But even if it did need to be transcoded, YouTube automatically transcodes every single video uploaded, multiple times. They are clearly not afraid of it.

I said nothing of the sort, and have no idea where you got that idea. All I said was that marketing claims are separate from the contract.

However, this thread is clearly not interested in any actual exchange of ideas or information, so I will no longer be taking part. Go ahead and downvote.

1. False advertising has nothing to do with breach of contract. Completely separate sections of law.

2. Nothing offered in perpetuity will stand up in court. You can argue about reasonable terms, but it can never be forever.

3. Marketing gets you into the contract. The contract holds the actual terms that both (or all) parties are bound to.

I would be surprised if this goes anywhere meaningful. Those were marketing promises, not contract terms. I noticed the promotion ended just over 2 years before the price hike, indicating that everyone had completed their contract. Once the contract is over, either side can walk away, or renegotiate terms.

It negates the point of a contract. What kind of contract even has a term of length without a set price?

The average lifespan of a car is 200k miles, not 300k. While it’s not uncommon to see cars going higher than that, it’s rare to see them get to 300k. I’ve had 2 Toyotas that died between 230k and 260k. There are more citations in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_longevity

Given that 300k km is ~186k miles, I think OP made a pretty reasonable comparison.

As for robustness, how do you even define that? Repair costs per year/mile? Frequency of repairs needed? In either case, there’s a much bigger gap between a Jeep and a Toyota than between ICE and BEV.

Let’s not forget the Golden Handcuffs. Although given what was reported from Twitter, I’m not sure that applies.

While I would generally agree with that statement (and gave you an up vote for it), I feel like Musk twisted that away from any normal business move.

For instance, many customers aren’t paying for premium features. Rather, they were extorted into paying, because their professional lives depend on it.

And even after all that, it’s not like it’s catering to users on any level. No one is saying that Twitter is better now. Well, no one except the Russian bots and the Nazis.

When a business blames its customers for choosing to no longer be its customers, it’s a sure sign the business is declining. Depending on the severity, it’s often a sign the business is failing.

This applies here, as well as any time you see an article that millennials are killing <business/industry/etc>. It also applies when an entertainer blames their (potential) audience for not enjoying their work. See Jerry Seinfeld, Kid Rock, etc.

No one owes your business any patronage.

Looking forward to seeing this on Technology Connections. Seems right up his alley.

But knowing his timeframe of products, it’ll probably be 20 years from now…

While true, it’s a bit more nuanced than that. They can absolutely have requirements in the contract that will put you on site. For instance, they can have you being the one to set up the conference room for the morning meeting. They can also categorically say that their VPN access is only for FTEs.

But as an independent business negotiating a contract, you just haggle these terms away. It’s still a good idea to document expectations, including work hours and locations.

Simply having an LLC isn’t enough- it’s the separation of personal and business that enables protection. Until you have other employees, this is really hard to do/show.

If you’re going to go this route, you should probably talk to an attorney anyway.

There are legal hurdles to raising rates based on this data. The simple and obvious solution is to set the starting price as the worst-case driver scenario, then discount down from that.

It’s the exact same thing, but worded different.

The CEO is chosen by the board, which is chosen by the shareholders. The shareholders have the ultimate power, if they can unite on a goal/decision. Overwhelmingly, the only thing they can agree on is that they want to make the most money. They often can’t even agree on how to go about that.

So, the board won’t fire him because the shareholders won’t force it. The shareholders won’t force it because they want the most money, and musk as CEO seems to be the best path, or at least not a problematic one.

As for how that can be, it gets into how absurd Tesla stock is in the first place. There was a period where Tesla’s market cap (total value of all shares) was higher than the entire rest of the auto industry combined. This was despite having no feasible path towards that level of production, and even growth in general wasn’t looking too hot.