It’s utterly bizarre. The customers lose out by receiving an inferior product at the same cost. The workers lose out by having their employment terminated. And even the company loses out by having its reputation squandered. The only people who gain are the executives and the ownership.

Unfortunately, they can multitask

True, but I’m asking what they can do, and that’s far from clear. What do you suggest?

I agree completely. It’s clear we’re in need of much stronger constitutional safeguards.

As you pointed out, they attempted to subpoena Musk and the republicans voted it down. They’ve also introduced articles of impeachment, which they successfully put through last time only to have senate republicans refuse to convict on the basis that trump was no longer president.

Politely, I think this comment is unhelpful. What do you propose that they do? Our government is based to a large degree on the assumption of good faith. The Supreme Court, for example, has power because the constitution says it does. They don’t have the capacity to actually enforce the rulings they hand down.

The current president has basically said that he doesn’t care about the constitution, and is just concerned with stealing power for himself and his cronies. Elections are supposed to be our mechanism for dealing with that.

I’m aware. The collateral for the credits are EV sales, hence my shorthand.

You misread the sheet slightly. The total profit for the year was $7.1 billion, of which $2.8 billion was renewable energy credits. I.e. their profit would have only been $4.3 billion.

You are. Without the EV credits, Tesla would have folded years ago.

We all just learned from Walgreens’ latest report that placing barriers between consumers and the goods they’re trying to purchase reduces sales, and CVS’ response to this problem is to add a login requirement.

It took me a second to figure out what you were referring to, but yeah, that’s a case in point.

Yes, and this lawsuit follows a whole series of other actions by the SEC. It may seem like a long time, but due process was followed.

You made an assertion. If you are unable to provide supporting evidence, we can assume that your assertion is incorrect without needing to prove anything.

Advertising for a product isn’t a citation. That article literally just repeats Dyson’s own claims. Do you have anything that actually tests that claim?

You made a claim first, so you should provide your citation first as well.

They do not. For a given power input they produce less airflow at lower velocity than a regular fan. They’re a complete scam.