Uhh, we got the Celica all-trac for 2 generations (ST 165 and ST 185, just didn’t get the ST205), which is just a GT-Four with a different name. And the Celica-Supra was pretty cool too.

Haha, sounds like my mechanic, except every time he finishes a job, he smells like beer. I only go back because he is pretty nice and does cheap work at the hours that suit me...

Where I am, the Altima and Infinity drivers aren’t really getting into big crashes, just a shit load of fender benders and driving like jerks.

Got ya, I thought you were talking about Biden there for a bit. I put 1919-1921 out of my memory, was not a great time in my life.

My far-out joke, maybe not a joke, is that Tesla’s will be the only vehicle you can legally buy in the future. But there is some sort of chance that only Tesla will qualify for a rebate or something.

Wait, what president are you saying had a stroke?

I mean, it looks like the options are merger or possibly BK, so same outcome, just a different way to get there. 

I feel like that should have done it to the GRC instead or why not both?!

It is a nod to the ranch that Toyota bought to build its Texas truck plant. The ranch was established in 1794.

In this article is says they are looking into a merger with Frontier...

Completely agree with the last two sentences and know about crowdfunding. I guess I am just sick of the deposit for future good culture overall. Like I said, I am not exactly sure, but I have a feeling that using that term and agreement is advantageous for the company and any debt holders over the depositor. So, in a…

While I agree with you overall, I think the term deposit in this situation or a similar one where there is no real good, is misleading. Whether it is a $1 doohickey or a $10mm car it should be termed a “loan” and not a deposit if the end product is still in development and not a deliverable good.

Deposits on good that don’t exist should not be legal. If there is a real good to be delivered, then sure. But, if it is a “coming soon” product, they should have to just a regular waiting list OR if they need the money to develop the product, term it as a loan or something.

This is most likely a move to make them either able to be bought or able to merge more easily. They know what the other carriers do/have, so shedding stuff now, to make a transition more seamless makes sense. But you never know.

Is it actually safer to have people slow down abruptly for a short distance and then speed back up? I mean, in theory it is to some extent. But it should be a road design that makes it consistently slower, not just for 100 yards or less.

Yea, maybe. The problem is, with that APR this guy has bad or no credit and doubtful to have any or enough savings to even buy a car cash that is decent. Would have made more sense to buy a cheaper car if you are getting rates like that. But he probably walked in and said, “I can afford $300/month, what can I get?”…

Ehh, there is some point where putting money into a sinking ship will stop to make sense. But I don’t know when or how much that is.

Maybe, if they end up paying the fines.

I am fine with it as a stop gap. But the city should get more of the ticket value and then use that to directly improve the street to make it safer. Let the company make some money on it and then once revenue falls due to reengineering, move the cams to the next problem area. 

A “driver education company” with $1bn in spare funds to invest in a junk Indo EV company? Nothing to see here folks... move along.