> but at the same time what Tesla is doing is much bigger than the individual
I don't think you really believe that - if you truly internalized this, then isn't the conclusion that you should go find any way possible to contribute to them as well?
I actually do believe it and that's why I reserved a model 3.
Maybe I just bought into their rhetoric, maybe. But I believe that the company's vision is more directed at sustainable transportation rather than profit.
They have worked really hard and brought in a lot of investment working towards an electric car. If Musk was truly profit driven he could have made a lot more money, a lot faster by directing his energy elsewhere.
if you truly internalized this, then isn't the conclusion that you should go find any way possible to contribute to them as well?
Everyone has limited resources. What you chose to contribute to and your level of contribution will vary. For example, commitments to one's family may preclude contributing to Tesla beyond reserving a Model 3 untenable. This is independent of one's belief in the impact of what Tesla is doing.
Why? The argument being made is that the workers should suck it up and accept the low pay and grueling working conditions because of the importance of the work Tesla is doing. If you accept this argument, then why can't I also say that you should simply accept that giving up on your commitments to your family is also a necessary sacrifice?
Point well taken. I agree that reserving a Model 3 is not equivalent to working in the conditions described in the submission. Thanks for pushing back!
>The argument being made is that the workers should suck it up and accept the low pay and grueling working conditions because of the importance of the work Tesla is doing.
I did not make that argument whatsoever. You made that up.
I attended a public school in a Minneapolis / St. Paul suburb. Nothing particularly special about the school that I can recall today, although it was in a school district that included grad student housing for University of Minnesota so maybe the student body, as a whole, was more motivated than you may have found elsewhere.
Classes were tiered into ability, even at this age (I do not remember what the rubric was for deciding your tier) and for math classes I was pulled in to a self-study course along with 2 or 3 other students. There was no 'formal' class and instead the teacher would spend varying amounts of time with each student as they worked through the material on their own. Each student would work at his or her own pace.
I think this sort of system would do wonders for those both at the very top and at the very bottom. In college, I found office hours were somewhat similar in that students both behind and in front could get focused time with a professor to either catch up or advance even further ahead.
This is ignoring any budget and teacher constraints, but this seems like a real issue for both the 'top' and 'bottom' students.
Yes, but the funny end result of this is that bilateral trade deals will likely include similar or even more draconian restrictions w/r/t corporate sovereignty and IP laws as the policies being put forth are US-standard.
Which might not be true. If the deal doesn't benefit the country, guess what will happen? Just don't sign it. Most of the TPP countries didn't have a bilateral agreement with US at this moment, so it is the status quo.
And since Trump's government is backtracking to protectionism, manufacturing jobs will less likely be delegated to countries like Vietnam, and countries like Japan doesn't have its back from US to confront China(Abe must be scratching his head right now, lol), I think it is much less appealing for those countries to hand over domestic control over regulations in exchange for something lesser.
Yes, that's true. But now people are aware of multinationals slipping sops to themselves into trade treaties. Every single bilateral agreement gets voted on in Senate for treaties, and both houses (?) for laws. Stakeholders like the bulk of the populace can be heard multiple times, once on each deal on these issues. One, fast-track vote on TPP where McConnell could stifle all debate procedurally is kind of a farce when nobody but multinationals negotiated it.
Regardless, you are not refusing anyone service - you are not banning people from your platform, you are designating your platform as something not be used for certain purposes.
Is this post satirical? I think I am being trolled, but at the risk of making myself look like a fool for falling for it:
How is your reading comprehension this bad?
1. Your understanding of the comment here is miserable given the point you are trying to make. If you should find anything suspicious, it is that the 2nd set of e-mails, with a broader search, included e-mails that should have been turned over previously but weren't. If you want to go down that angle, you think the Benghazi committee would sit on those e-mails and not say anything if there was anything particularly salient in them?
2. You have an issue that State is considering whether releasing POTUS e-mails are subject to executive privilege and should be cleared first?
3. Really? I'll parrot the guys that give out free comedy show tickets - "you don't like to laugh? you don't like humor?"
4. Please point me to the illegal or unethical behavior here.
> 4. Please point me to the illegal or unethical behavior here.
Well to start, Qatar is funding ISIS according to other emails so maybe don't accept money from states that sponsor terrorism?
I mean we could go into how they stone gays for being themselves and women for having the gaul to think they can drive but we all know that's totally ethical.
Who better to surveil than those who may have access to state secrets, and are actively talking with representatives of other countries? Members of Congress should be at the top of the list for NSA surveillance.
Perhaps more important to note: are, and its not a secret.
Members of government in general have very little expectation of privacy when it comes to their communications, to the point that it's a significant issue with Hillary Clinton's private email server that the mail is unrecoverable in some cases for auditing purposes.
The rights and obligations of a member of congress and the rights and obligations of a cabinet secretary appointed at the pleasure of the President are fundamentally different. They are not just 'members of government'.
This is what confuses me, so maybe someone with a better understanding of this market works can elaborate. How is it that the drug is not patented but the manufacturer has the exclusive right to sell it? It blows my mind that one company can overnight make such a huge change and there is no competitor to turn to.
In the US, you still have to get FDA approval to sell drugs that claim to be reformulations of another manufacturer’s product. This isn’t entirely baseless - demonstrating your version’s bioequivalency to the original is part of the process, which doesn’t seem like an unreasonable thing to require.
Unfortunately, the whole approval process still costs in the low $millions at a minimum & so for out of patent drugs that are a pain to manufacture, and/or have small numbers of patients, they just aren’t financially viable once you factor in the approval costs.
Part of what you see when a drug company steps in and jacks up the prices like this is that the new owners know that the FDA approval process combined with their pre-existing manufacturing capability gives them an expensive moat to bridge for other companies that isn’t justified by the size of the market, so if they’re willing to take the reputational hit that the previous owners weren’t then they can jack up the prices enormously since the patients have no-where else to go.
I am several steps removed from the industry but to my knowledge -
There is still a regulatory approval process to be able to manufacture the drug - so the cost and time required to receive this approval, then to market the drug as a generic alternative to the existing drug to a market that often doesn't see itself as the ultimate payor (ie. the consumer thinks the insurance companies / government are paying) and may prefer known names, and the original manufacturer's ability to then lower the price of the drug all combine to push away competition on low volume drugs like this one.
I'm not very familiar with the drug market myself, but game theory can theorize why they can do it. From what I have read, drugs cost a lot of money and a few years to get to market even when they are not patent protected. This means that when a competitor starts investing money in a competing product, the main company can simply reduce the price to a point where that investment is no longer profitable. Potential competitors know this and that’s why they wont enter the market.
According to a CNBC interview last week the product is protected via trade secrets. People know what's in it, but not how to make it. And it's some weird stuff (I think pituitary glands from pigs or something equally weird are key components - not sure there's a lot of open-source knowledge on how to deal with that ingredient pipeline.)
The CEO's pitch was that they believe the drug is useful in more roles than it's currently used for, so they're taking the increased money to perform the studies required to allow the drug to be used to treat more diseases for which there is no alternative.
And right now this is a last-ditch drug - it's used once all other therapies have failed.
So they're trying to increase marketshare by doing expensive studies, which is why this drug is still produced and where the money is going.
Assuming kchoudhu is somewhat familiar with the banking space in the US, I think his question is - on what grounds was this individual able to get FDIC/OCC/FRB approval?
Is it that difficult for individuals to get approval? There are tons of small 1-3 branch banks in the US owned by individuals. I would expect it's on par with getting a liquor license or similar, background check and assets check.
Years ago I worked for a bank that was > 75 years old and had recently been bought by a guy who had immigrated to go to college and then in the next 20+ years done very well in construction. As far as I know there was more uproar over him changing the name of the bank than actually buying it.
It is and it isn't - as was stated elsewhere, for example if starting a new bank, regulators will require (and enforce) specific business plans, will limit dividend payments, will limit growth, etc. - there will be a lot of scrutiny on the (proposed) management team and you would find it hard-pressed to be able to get away without having someone with previous bank executive experience. Would imagine for a failed bank there would be similar questions on what is changing with the bank model (which may be as simple as operating with a higher level of equity to support the bank's risk profile).
So... you're saying its easy for the reckless and foolish to somehow overcome these steep barriers and understand what it takes to open while those who are competent are unable to do so?
He's saying that those who understand what it takes to build a secure service see the problem as so difficult that they prefer to use their talents for something else. As a consequence, the services that do exist have been built by reckless people who don't understand the issue.
I don't know whether that's true, but that's what s/he wrote. It's an easy enough to understand and plausible notion.
You obviously never had to deal with bureaucrats, right now the 2nd biggest exchange BTC-e is runny by some shady eastern europeans who are simply ignoring all laws. The biggest exchange Mtgox was run by an incompetent fool who lost half a billion in the cushion of his couch or something.
Bitstamp seem to be doing the right things but I doubt that they can legally operate in US or take transfers from/to US as they are doing.
I don't think you really believe that - if you truly internalized this, then isn't the conclusion that you should go find any way possible to contribute to them as well?