They typically serve four year terms. When any president begins their term the entire board will have been appointed by the previous administration. Now if games were played to make most of the terms expire at the end of the term that's also not okay under any means.
> Now if games were played to make most of the terms expire at the end of the term that's also not okay under any means.
I think terms in boards like this should be filled under a different periodicity from the presidential term, preferentially with a period coprime to it, just like cicadas do. This way it would be harder to pull the trick of letting both cycles sync.
Totally agree that it is just something being thrown around to little benefit. That said don't compare catalytic converter materials to what they are talking about in EVs. The quantities needed are orders of magnitude different. The easier thing to talk about that gets glossed over is all of the energy expended to extract fossil fuels in the first place.
That is incorrect, there isn't a single state in the United States where the highest paid state employee is the governor. They are mostly coaches at state universities, and where they aren't they are upper tier member's of the state university system.
Yeah using German translations is a well known simple strategy to see how your site handles longer word length, because of the language characteristics.
It will do a good job of pointing out places where you haven't built in adequate flexibility for longer words. It's not perfect of course, there are times when a translated word is shorter, but it is a nice real world test of the basic flexibility of your page layout.
> Well, that's absolutely false, actually, Zack. There is no way that a customer would not be able to sell a position they hold. We are simply stopping opening of new positions.
This is a problematic statement. Because to sell your position there has to be buyers, and the only buyers who were allowed at the table suddenly were those who wanted to pay significantly less then the stock had recently been trading at.
I think you are drastically misunderstanding the Nikola/GM deal. It is absolutely no lose for GM. If somehow Nikola takes off then they are supplying them with batteries and some other expertise they have. If it doesn't then the monetary investment, at GM's scale, was nominal. (Basically, if GM makes a mistake on a new car model)
I think the market is drastically underestimating how seriously the entrenched automakers are taking electric. They are coming from behind for sure, but I think one of the things you see consistently with Tesla is they are still very much trying to figure out the manufacturing and logistics pieces of building cars (rolling out new lines, scaling them, etc). The existing automakers know how to do all that. Are they going to make mistakes? Sure, but in 5 years you will see dozens of electric models spread through out them, and that will hurt Tesla.
>Tesla is they are still very much trying to figure out the manufacturing and logistics pieces of building cars (rolling out new lines, scaling them, etc). The existing automakers know how to do all that
I have to disagree to some extent with that. I think by now Tesla has figured out the logistics of assembling cars at least as well as other manufacturers, but they still nees to build more lines however.
However Tesla is not stopping there and is continuously improving its logistics past the industry standard, it's not catching up anymore, it's pulling out. For example a lot of effort right now is invested into streamlining battery making and integration, this is something no other OEM is really doing right now. Tesla is willing to take on battery production and even potentially mining, allowing them to fine-tune and optimize the process end to end as much as possible, while traditional OEM rely on suppliers for everything and any improvement needs to be negotiated and takes forever.
Tesla last battery day had an extremely interesting presentation about battery making and logistics that illustrates just how deep the stack they are willing to go for the sake of optimization.
Speaking as an owner of a small car (Honda Civic), and 3 children in need of car seats (a Slimfit Graco which is a bit wider then the one you listed, but 2 of them are now in boosters which are narrower to begin with.) The problem isn't always pure width.
The rear seats in are contoured, for comfort reasons, in such a way that you need to put things under one side of the seat to level them out properly. And then the seats are so close together that leaving access to the seatbelt sockets for the children in boosters to access. So simplistic looks like this give you a really inaccurate picture of the problem.
I will also go further and say that even in larger vehicles getting 3 seats across any single row is hard. Adding a 3rd row doesn't even necessarily solve all of the problems if there isn't an easy path out if you have two kids needing 5 point harnesses done by the parent. Those seats block the folding exit mechanism that a lot of 3rd row vehicles use to let passengers in the rear row exit. You would have to remove a seat entirely to let that action work.
