You can make money on the stock in more ways than dividends. For example, Alphabet is also buying back stock. People who invested at a lower stock price and now sell back at the higher have made money. Normally, buybacks tend to concentrate control of a company into fewer hands, but, since these are already non-voting stock, in this case, it doesn't change this.

Yes, but this whole story is about the USA, where only 43% of the population even have a passport (and don't have access to something like the Schengen Zone).

... if you are on an international flight.

No, you misunderstand completely. It's not disallowing anything.

It simply allows someone who is buying a business to negotiate a valid non-compete with the seller. This negotiation would take place at the time of the sale. The seller can refuse to accept the non-compete. They buyer can also refuse to buy without the non-compete.

We know what would happen in that case: non-competes all around. A few years ago, a bunch of companies in the SF Bay Area (such as Apple, Google, Adobe, etc.) were sued because they had agreements to not hire from each other.

I think you have misunderstood "gardening leave". Most Formula One employees are in the UK, so it's UK law. In general non-competes haven't traditionally been used in the UK, but this seems to have changed in recent years.

However, a one-month or longer notice period has been common in the UK. It was quite typical for employees to give a one-month notice and their employer telling them to to stay home for that month. That's gardening leave.

Gardening leave was usually only required when moving to a competitor. I knew someone who got gardening leave by refusing to name his new employer and the old employer gave him a month of gardening leave out of caution.

Or how about the earlier Wickard v. Filburn?

https://www.oyez.org/cases/194...

The Mirai weighs about the same as the larger Tesla Model 3. So that's another thing that early promoters of hydrogen claimed (lower weight) that turned out not to be true.

The California ban on non-competes has an exception, which is probably the only valid reason: If you are a business owner and you sell your business to another company, the contract for that sale can have an enforceable non-compete for you (but not your employees).

For anyone who bought a Mirai, it was obvious that they had backed the wrong horse before buying. Either the buyers did no research or they trusted Toyota's reputation far too much, or (more likely) both.

Tesla had started building the Supercharger network a couple of years before the Mirai was introduced and Toyota was clear that the Mirai was a car to be used in limited locations. You might not make it between San Francisco and Los Angeles because the Harris Ranch hydrogen station may be offline.

If there really is too much solar during the day, why are there special, cheap rates to use electricity at night? Why aren't the companies like PG&E asking the CPUC to change rates in such a way as to balance out this supposed surplus?

Yes, there are a few days where solar produces too much, but its limited in time. It's not the whole year. Note that the period shown in the graph (March to May) is the time of year that probably experiences minimum electricity usage in California: it's not so hot that A/C is used extensively.

What's really going on: investor-owned utilities and generators want to maximize profits and solar is getting in the way of that goal.

I have Frontier at home. It is actually fast. My Ethernet-connected computers register both upload and download speeds close to 1Gbps.

But, just about every evening, or night, it goes down for 1 to 5 minutes. Strangely, the router also seems to shut off the WiFi at this time, which means that some connections within my LAN fail.

I did not experience these dropped connections with Comcast. Comcast's upload speeds were utter crap, but the connection typically stayed up for many months.

... they don't mean "Microsoft Account".

I was setting up a new laptop for a colleague. We have Office 365 (or whatever it's called today) for company email, etc.., but my work account was not accepted. My work email is clearly what I would call a "Microsoft Account", but apparently Microsoft doesn't. I assume that Microsoft doesn't allow the use of this account because they would really prefer us to use the [expensive] Azure AD, or whatever.

I was able to set up local accounts after trying "a@a.com" (rejected) and "f*ckyou@f*ckyou.com" (rejected, but allowed me to proceed to to setting up a local account.)

If you can't read the article, read the summary at least before posting: