I can’t see anything less than 4' tall out of the back of my 2014 Mazda6. Worse visibility than my family's old minivans.. The problem is the higher beltlines driven by pedestrian safety regs, not the SUVS.

Personally, whether the turn encourages passing or not, I’m just looking forward to not having to deal with the old one in this year’s F1 video game.

If only a well-rounded company like Ford would buy them.

So a member of the government that’s trying to extort the owners of a cargo ship agrees that said government can extort owners of said cargo ship?

Yep, Erik did another terribly written piece that doesn’t align with Barra’s comments at all, and for some reason the commentariat is just jumping aboard. At the end of the day, they’re trying to make the small cars actually profitable and avoiding the race to the bottom, which will be good for their durability in the…

Your take is bad and you should feel bad.

We're equating handicapped parking needs and EV parking needs now? Cool.

I think it’s more that he’s against bandwagoning on the “subscriptions bad!” thing going around here, against all logic.

It does if you pay the $399 unlock instead of going for the subscription.

Ah, so I see why I was confused: after paying $400 for the vest, you can “unlock” it by either paying another $399 or you can do the $12/month thing. Either way you have to pay more to make it actually work.

This is kinda what I was thinking. As long as I don’t put it on thinking it’s going to work - then I don’t see what the big deal is. You can still buy the thing outright, so the subscription is really just there to provide the option (and entice buyers to go for it and then keep on paying long enough to be more…

For whatever reason, Vietnam seems to have more credibly private companies. But maybe that's just because I haven't looked under the surface as much, compared to companies like the "private" Huawei.

I think when I looked a few years back there were somewhere around 100k jobs for pilots.

Well, the -400 was designed in the 80s. So only 30 years old for the engines and flight deck.

You think the paperwork just files itself? They’d have to pay someone (or probably people) to actually do the work that was missed here, which would increase costs and decrease profitability.

I vaguely remember that, and apparently they have no interest in ever being a party to an investigation again.

By missing a deadline, do they become more profitable in not playing by the rules? If so, then yes, it is.

I wouldn’t, not when the NTSB is involved. You don’t say anything unless they say you can.

Then...that’s not compliant, is it?

The problem is probably that they have about as many people in the PR department as their EH&S department.