Alas, the only car that comes close to fitting my requirements (cargo space, chargeable + hybrid tech) is the Audi A3 e-tron, which isn't available in the States yet (and it's really only a hatchback). The only other (distant) contender IMO is the Lexus RX450h, which, while roomy enough, isn't chargeable, gets not-too-stellar mileage, and is priced absurdly.

Those of us who need a commuter car with extra space that has the option (not the requirement, the option) of running on battery power for a decent stretch have been left behind. The Volt's technology would be awesome in a small SUV form factor.

Why hasn't anyone bothered to look into this?

Diversity and inclusion are tools for gathering ideas, not for determining their acceptance or rejection.

If we follow your argument to its conclusion, anyone's beliefs are valid by virtue of being diverse (or needing to be inclusive). Are you failing to "respect my diversity" if you don't believe my claim that there are ants on the moon?

(Ad hominem attacks are a logical fallacy. So is, as you're putting it, ad hominem respect.)

...they could ask for someone who would show up instead. What's Dennis Rodman up to these days?

There's a reason for the bile thrown at white Christian males. They deserve it.

Sorry if that sounds like troll bait, but I don't remember any other group lynching African-Americans. While also denying women health choices or voting rights, or screaming for border security to keep out people who are "not like us". Or complaining about the "culture war" (which is in reality an indicator of declining influence). Or recently, trying to get Draconian voter ID laws on the books.

They'll do everything in their power to protect their hegemony, because they firmly believe that their privileges are in fact rights.

Sure, there are counterexamples, but not very many. Far fewer in fact.

If you're offended as a white Christian male, well, I'll ask you to try something new: Stop whining.

Ban golf.

Total waste of (already precious) water and arable land. If we're lucky, every golf course will be consumed in flames.

( I would say it;s contributed nothing to society, but there is Caddyshack...)

Numerous posters are decrying the lack of the original book's content in the final screenplay, so I'll ask a slightly different question.

One of the problems cited with adapting the book was the structure of the narrative, since it was essentially a series of interviews. But movies consisting of interviews and recollections, and their non-linear construction, have been done before. (The most obvious example is "Citizen Kane".) As problems go, this one didn't look insurmountable from here.

So...what am I missing? Is there something else in the book's story arc that posed a problem? Or do Hollywood studios regard the average audience member as just a whole lot dumber these days?

Yep. And China won't drop it any time soon.

Why? Because they don't want a few million - or tens of millions of - refugees crossing the Yalu or Tumen Rivers.

The Kims have effectively blackmailed the Chinese with threat of a mind-bending humanitarian crisis.

And the DPRK knows that a coup is in China's best interest as well. Hence the ginormous military.

Seriously, get this book from your local library and read it.

In short, I gained a perspective that otherwise never would have attained on my own. I recommend it highly.

One caveat: In my finance and operations courses (where geeks tend to gravitate), my professors were a bit impatient with me when I would ask questions that probed too deeply into the subject matter. (Not so accounting however.) The mindset in B-school is a bit different. You're not being asked to know exactly how something works, but how you can apply it in the real world. It's the difference between knowing how to rip apart an engine, and knowing how to drive an F1 racer.

And it's also a MASSIVE networking opportunity. Know and befriend your classmates and professors, and understand that everyone there will want to help you succeed, as you do them.