He didn’t say it would. He said that when the now brand new transmission needs to be replaced because one day, it might spell the end of manual transmissions in a 911.

I don't get it. Why would a Mustang be better suited for crashing into Jews, in particular?

That would defeat the entire point, wouldn't it?

This is what the Veyron's successor should have been

Seriously, I am disappointed. This is just a Veyron turned up to 11, not a worthy successor. When the Veyron came out, it was batshit insane: Over 1000hp in a street-legal car was absolutely over the top, unheard of, basically unthinkable, and changed what “a lot of power” meant for a supercar. But that had been done…

The cars are almost exclusively used by government institutions. The first time I saw one, I was actually taken aback and thought “Wow. It is even uglier than the photos”.

“Our interest is in her success,” claimed a Sony lawyer. “Our interest is in Dr. Luke’s success. They are not in the least bit mutually exclusive.” In other words, we know what’s good for her

Hm. I liked the rear, but I am not a fan of that snout. Much too prominent, at least from this angle.

There were parallels drawn to GM, which was intended as a group of brands from the outset. Toyota wasn’t. That's why they are not very good with having different brands.

But Toyota was never conceived as a group of brands. It's just Toyota, and perhaps Lexus because those pesky luxury buyers somehow don't want a Toyota. Toyota is Toyota, cars, trucks, pick-ups, racing, whatever. The concept does not really include other brands.

Only if you want another war

In all seriousness: A combined solution is more efficient, safer, can be more easily tuned to work well together, and is cheaper on a per-unit basis. If multiple vehicles are used, it makes a lot of sense to have a motor in each, so they can be used in parallel. Also, multiple cars per household are a recent…

Right. You can see, in both videos, that the point where the bro-truck starts to bounce or spin is when it looses.

Pretty much any contract (regardless of whether there’s a signature or not, an e-mail suffices) we enter into means we have to provide what we promised or compensate the buyer for (punitive) damages stemming from our failure to deliver. The way I’m used to doing business, you do not get to renege on a contract simply…

You can have a contract without a signature or even the word “contract” appearing anywhere. If two parties agree on an exchange of goods and services in return for money, that’s a contract.

My point is that when they asked for and accepted the down-payment or at the very latest when they set a delivery date, they for all intents and purposes consented to the deal. The dealer is only protected as long as he doesn't actually agree to honor the listing. I think Tesla agreed to honor their listing and only…

The way I see it, Tesla reneged from a contract. They had offered to sell this car for the listed price, had accepted a down-payment for that and even announced a delivery date. At that point at the latest, they had entered a binding agreement - at least if US law works similar to German law. Guy should have sued.

No, but it didn’t stop at the erroneous listing. Tesla had actually accepted the down-payment and promised a delivery date. I would think that at that point at the latest, Tesla had legally committed to their offer. Maybe he should have been more persistent.

I don’t think it’s sufficiently cavernous to carry four passengers with their luggage and bikes or skiers. Those things are more common uses for roof racks than just additional luggage area, at least around these parts.

And why would having to order your car from the factory be so bad? That's the way it works in Europe.