Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:That's easier to do (Score 1) 124

Ah, I had missed Trump accounts because they originally couldn't hold individual stocks according to how congress defined them in the legislation. I was not aware Trump and co were trying to do an end-run around the legislation by arguing that the law doesn't prohibit corporations from donating individual shares.

However, that's a pretty new development, is controversial, and its unclear how it would really work, especially in tandem with the other rules.

Comment Re:That's easier to do (Score 5, Insightful) 124

Its a little tricky too, as children generally don't have suitable investment accounts that can hold publicly traded shares. I'm doubtful they even legally can open those accounts.

So what are they going to do, issue a gazillion single paper share certificates? What a shitshow that would be, the fees and shipping alone around dealing with that for a single share would be nuts, not to mention the hassle of redeeming them, and the untold numbers that would be misplaced or destroyed. And I'm still not sure children can own them, or sign the agreements required to get them.

What else could the do? Create beneficial trusts for every child? Whose going to administer that? and again the fees and management expenses around it would be nuts all for a $150 space-x share?

It might be reasonable for him to set a bunch aside, and as children reach adulthood, let them claim them at that point.
If the idea is that the kid can't sell it or whatever until they're an adult anyway, its probably fine. It'll be income maybe when they receive it, so that could work out badly for some kids though, if they have to sell it to cover the taxes on it, because they don't have a job yet. Especially if its appreciated to a couple thousand or something. (How are splits etc handled, do they get one or more? Or worse... reverse splits on a single share?)

Comment Re:Let me think (Score 1) 153

When you boil it down, situational awareness is little more than our attempt to maintain a mental model of what's happening around us. And models can be wrong.

Do humans have eyes on the sides of their heads? In the back of their heads? Can they watch all directions simultaneously? No.

Can they instantaneously detect changes in speed and direction? No.

Can they react in microseconds? No.

No to all of that. In fact, numerous studies have shown that most people can only deal with about three events occurring at the same time. Throw one more into the mix and they start to lock up.

And "the fact that numerous people surrender all of that" is precisely the problem. People get distracted. They daydream. They drive on autopilot. They become impaired.They lose focus. They get old and slow down. They're not looking in the right direction when some event occurs. And even when they do they often make poor decisions. They overreact and they overcompensate.

And that's when 40,000 people a year die.

Comment Re:We don't need to stinkin' badgers in cabs (Score 3, Informative) 153

Musk picked Austin for Tesla’s robotaxi trials and rollouts primarily because the city serves as the home base for Tesla's corporate headquarters, and it offers close proximity to company engineers and executives overseeing the project.

Also, Texas law does not permit individual cities to regulate or ban autonomous vehicles, so it's an AV friendly environment.

Finally, other autonomous vehicle networks, such as Waymo, had already established testing footprints in Austin.

So sorry, but I think your conspiracy theory is a bit short lived.... ;)

Comment Re:Let me think (Score 2) 153

I agree wholeheartedly that we should do everything possible to prioritize mass transit, walkability, and biking, and minimize car use.

But.

In the US we've spend the last century designing our cites around urban sprawl. Like it or not, that's where many of our homes are and where people live.

You're simply NOT going to solve sprawl, especially in western cities, with mass transit.

As such, some form of personal transportation must exist. And if so, then it benefits everyone to make it as efficient, and as clean, as possible.

Comment Re:Let me think (Score 1) 153

Which doesn't mean that in an emergency that they can't shut down roads and highways to automotive traffic or stop and arrest offenders who're violating the law.

Not to mention that your ability to operate a motor vehicle is largely dependent on the state and deemed a privilege, not a right. (Sovereign citizens to the contrary.) It can be taken away.

Your version of "personal autonomy" is illusionary.

Slashdot Top Deals

If money can't buy happiness, I guess you'll just have to rent it.

Working...