bwilliams18

Labor while cheap is still hard to find, especially on public-works projects where everyones papers need to be in tip top shape.

The work is hard, the pay is shit, nobody wants to do it if they have even a slightly better option.

If your investments are all inside the country That defaults on its debt then yeah your fucked anyway, but if you're investing in a country's debt and you have little other exposure to said country, then their defaulting on the debt is the only thing that's fucking you. Argentinas default is the best example of this problem.

The answer to that question is not complicated. It's either Apple or Foxconn, and it's clearly determined in their contract. One of them has it on their books as current inventory, not both.

They've said before that they have proprietary techniques that allow them to produce the CF for their road cars at scale more affordably.

Except for the earthquakes we have once every five or so years...

Maybe they didn't understand they didnt have that legal ability...theyre used to work in a particular medium (text) where I'm sure they usually buy exclusivity and re-publish rights.

They didn't just rip code though. They ripped the entire story...that's gotta go higher than some random intern.

But doesn't this business model entirely eliminate someone's income to be cheaper?

Is a total elimination better or worse than a reduction? I don't have an answer, and I see good arguments for each side...

By installing the autopilot software update, or purchasing the car with the radar installed I'm sure you signed away these rights.

He's a one man shop, and has said before he wants to keep it that way. I'd be very surprised if he wanted to take on the workload of selling ads...he's not that ambitious.

Yes...there is no "they" though, just a single person.

And all that took were a few faxes.

CEOs have way more latitude than most think. There is an incredibly easy argument to make in this case: paying employees more means you get better employees, and more productive employees, thus you drive more shareholder value.

We all lament the loss of Jacky Molecules. :'(

As I understand it, and I have a weak understanding, the judgement only has a direct, enforceable effect on the area of jurisdiction, but can be cited by other district courts and ultimately the supreme Court in decisions.

He's in SF w/ Casey and Marco... :/

This will find enormous success in the theatrical market. Nobody is willing to give up the CRI of tungsten filament fixtures.

For those who haven't heard, Formula E, the electric racing series is putting together a support race called RoboRace. http://roborace.com/ All autonomously driven cars designed for exactly that purpose. It should be exciting.

He was going to SF for Beme meetings presumably, and the hotel offered to make it up to him the next time he was in town. It just happened to be only a week later.

But you also dropped off one of the new boosted boards didn't you?

What I'm saying is the culpable stockholders (Holmes being the primary one) have few assets.

And what, compensate people with the stock of the company that was found to be willfully and intentionally defrauding them?

Goldman Researchers advised investors while Goldman Investment Bankers underwrote a deal. These guys (and gals) aren't standing around a water cooler chatting about their work with each other for exactly this reason. It's highly unethical, and illegal to share this sort of information before it's public.

There's an argument about YC reps giving favorable publicity to some but not other companies being unfair signaling, and disadvantaging the companies who are given less hype time. I don't know if I agree with that argument, but I think it's a valid point to discuss. Furthermore, YC partners are locked out from investing in YC companies for a period of time, for a similar reason, so the argument gets stronger.

Any link between the offering and the analysis would most likely be in violation of Insider Trading regulations. Both their work on the deal, and their research department's analysis would be considered material non-public information, and thus couldn't be shared with the other group, until publicly announced.

Goldman Sachs Research in this instance is a defined term that carries a whole lot more weight than research you or I would do to determine if we should invest in a stock.

Analysts are required to genuinely believe what they are saying, or at least aren't allowed to say one thing in public research reports, and another in private. Their research is considered Material Non-Public Information until it is published, and thus cannot share it with anyone in their firm that is outside the research department until they release it to the public.

Probably referring to Meg Whitman[1] not Marissa Mayer.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meg_Whitman

No, that's a horrible thought. If he truly is suicidal we should be doing what we can to make sure he is cared for.

A private equity firm would find the money in a heartbeat.