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.

Now I really want a MK3 Supra again...

Yep, by a huge amount and in 10 days!

Wow, $5 to $10k? In this story they generated over $600k in 10 days, I think they would be OK getting there $10k back plus 10% of the fines for a total ROI of 600% in 10 days, they don’t need $400k for nothing. I honestly don’t know why the cities don’t buy them and cut out the company.

Yes, around the cam location, but they don’t do anything to change people behaviors.

Around me, speed cams serve as speed checkpoints. People know where they are, slow down then speed back up. And the road is never changed to promote slower driving.