The irony is today you literally have to take a baby out of those carriers for take off and landing, but can have them in it at other times on the plane. That said, there might be a way to make a new type of carrier that is safer.
This is mentioned in the article. The concern appears to be that a baby strapped to your chest will shoot out of the carrier (not clear how), not that it will be damaged by getting squished between your chest and your lap:
> The couple also secured Avalee-Rose in a carrier worn like a chest pack. “That felt safer because she was always on me, strapped in,” said Ejmont, whose family of five is based in Australia and spends about half the year traveling. But like the bassinet, the airline requires parents to remove their babies during certain maneuvers and conditions.
> Hoffman warns that the carrier is not foolproof, especially during severe turbulence. “The child can slip out of it because of all of that force. A plane that falls 4,000 feet in seconds — that’s like being shot out of a cannon.[1] A front pack is not going to do the same as a car seat.”
The obvious solution would appear to be:
1. Get rid of the rule that prohibits these carriers.
2. Look into what it takes for a harness to prevent something strapped into it from suddenly coming unstrapped.
[1] It's not clear to me what Hoffman might mean here. Falling doesn't exert any force. Force is needed to stop falling, but you have a lot of discretion over how that occurs.
Don't know about the US, but in the UK ownership of farmland is used as an inheritance tax dodge. Because of land rich but money poor farmers as a voting constituency, farmland is not counted for inheritance tax. The predictable result of this is people like Dyson owning most of the farmland in Lincolnshire (https://whoownsengland.org/2017/09/19/why-is-james-dyson-hoo...)
I was surprised so clicked through on the graph. Looks like it is 3,000 per 100,000 people, not just children. Graph should have had more context in the article posted.
I just checked in on this and noticed that it seemed like the FAQ language changed as well. I can't find the old wording anymore, and the new wording has done a 180
Without commenting on whether it is sound, the logic seems to be that transportation (particularly private transportation) is essential. Thus, auto repair and supply businesses have been exempted as "essential businesses" (they are specifically called out in all 6 Bay Area county orders).
Taking this one step further, auto repair businesses can't very well repair cars if there are no parts available, and those parts come from Fremont. Therefore, the Tesla factory would (at least in part) theoretically already qualify for an exemption under the existing order.
One could also make the argument that (given that private transportation has been deemed an "essential" service) replacing worn out or destroyed cars is essential, and thus manufacturing finished cars qualifies for an exemption.
Your argument can be extended infinitely. It's pretty easy to understand that Tesla (and any other assembly plants that fit in this window) is simply getting special treatment here.
The factory that makes hydraulic fluid for Tesla's presses that stamp out car parts is also part of the transportation supply chain, As is the oil refinery that supplies feedstock to the hydraulic oil vendor.
Honestly, your point is valid except for the part about special treatment. From what I've heard, window tint shops are staying open too based upon the same exemption. Its a confusing time and the regulators haven't fully thought this exemption through.
(Just to be clear, I'm not defending Tesla here. They have the choice to shutdown regardless of government order or exemptions)
If a business owner wants to skirt the regulations by following the letter of the law instead of the spirit of it, that's fine and we can consider them all assholes. The rules are to keep people from getting sick. I hope all of his employees go on strike like the Mercedes and VW ones.
If the largest business in the area was producing nail varnish, you might find that "beauticians are staying open too based upon the same exemption" - it would still be special treament because neither of them should be open.
You're absolutely right; our economy is far too interconnected to isolate specific industries. Right now it's a bit of a "tragedy of the commons" situation where the companies that are able to sustain operations (legally or illegally) will reap huge rewards when everything starts to go back to some version of normal.
I honestly think the thing we will learn from this pandemic is that we can't stop a modern economy like this for a couple months without also incurring significant loss of life. If this shutdown extends more than a month we're going to see supplies start to run low and people will panic. Grocery stores around me (large northeastern city) are already having trouble restocking.
Careful, things may not go back to normal and we may have a lasting recession. This is especially so if we don't do things to help the rest of the economic ecosystem alive during this period of little to no commerce in some sectors.
At the same time, I hope Tesla is going as far as they can to protect their workers... and that will probably be the real story at the end of all of this, "What companies did to protect their workers and the economy around them."
I think it's already too late; we've ground the nation to a halt and it will take a while to restart. I work for a company that is often cited for knowing these kinds of things, and we were told today to operate under the assumption that the economy will be more or less shut down until May/June, with normal economic activity not resuming until the end of Q3. All that said, the companies that can keep as much of their operations going until then will be in a much better position to come out of this intact.
We're heading into the next great depression, and it's going to take a New Deal type of effort to recover. Trump is actually in a remarkably similar position to Hoover in all this too; so it's not unprecedented to be headed into something like this with a nincompoop at the helm.
A severe and sustained global economic depression could kill significantly more people than CV19, mostly in Africa and other poor regions. It could also trigger a half-million first-time homeless in the US.
We need to "Flatten the curve" enough to spread out critical care capacity surges without over-achieving to the extent we cause even more harm long-term to the world's poorest populations. We need a constant gradual rate of CV19 spread. If we "full stop" CV19's spread now, when social distancing and lockdowns lift, we'll be facing Wuhan/Italy surges again.
This is the time I really miss having adults running the federal government. Individual states are flying blind while everyone at the federal level is too worried about how the boss will take it to effectively coordinate.
> The factory that makes hydraulic fluid for Tesla's presses that stamp out car parts is also part of the transportation supply chain, As is the oil refinery that supplies feedstock to the hydraulic oil vendor.
Yes, I believe that is rather the point of the exemptions laid out in the order. The health commissioner is trying to prevent infections of Covid-19, not destroy the economy.
Tell me how you feel about drycleaners. They are also explicitly exempted as businesses providing essential services.
Actually, now that I think about it, you're right: It is more important to have a crisply-pressed suit than transportation to the grocery store for food. Grab the pitchforks, let's get Elon!
Dry cleaners are essential services because they are necessary for sanitation. They may not be for you, but for example my pillow is dry clean only and it would be a problem if I spilled my morning tea on it and then ants showed up because I couldn't have it cleaned because someone thought I could live with limp creases.
I’m going to ignore the thinly veiled personal insult and focus on why I wrote the above comment: I find it irritating when people assume that if they can’t see an obvious reason for something then there must not be any reason at all, and doubly so when they assume an air of superiority about it. In hindsight, it was a bit off-topic for this thread and maybe I should have held my tongue.
However, I’d like to point out that you’ve done the same thing again: while I do not personally have a maid, I might have been disabled and require a housekeeper to do some cleaning that I was incapable of. Fortunately, unlike you, the public health department has also thought of that scenario and covered it in their order as well.
Oh yeah any interruption in Tesla's notoriously smooth repair process would totally cripple the state for sure. What with all the critical services reliant on ... checks notes ... luxury electric sports cars.
Yeah, I've had this discussion before. I'm not convinced that its any worse than a base 3 series, but I'm also not convinced that a base 3 series is a luxury car.
Sure, its a premium with premium perforance, but its not "luxurious". Conversely, you can get more "luxurious" cars with worse performance for about the same money.
Want luxury and premium performance? That's another 10k (at least) with most brands and Tesla doesn't really offer a car with both at all, IMO.
Outside of performance, what features does my Model 3 have that my Subaru BRZ didn't?
Heated seats are pretty standard these days. My TM3 has heated seats in the rear. The TM3 has a better entertainment unit for sure, but I could have certainly replaced the head unit in my BRZ if I wanted navigation and Spotify integration. There's self-driving features, but all Subaru's these days except the BRZ have lane-keeping and TACC, which makes it on par with the AP I have, since I didn't pay for FSD. My BRZ even had dual-zone automatic climate controls!
The only things I can think of that my Model 3 has that my BRZ didn't are the automatic wipers, the a power passenger seat, and profiles for the power driver seat.
What features would the TM3 need to be considered a luxury vehicle? I can think of a few things it doesn't have.
- Heated steering wheel
- Entertainment screens built into the back of the front seats
A Civic starts at under $21k per https://automobiles.honda.com/civic-sedan. It's Motor Trend's fault, not yours, but that must be the most decked out Civic possible at that price point. I actually went through the "Build" option for the 2020 Civic Sedan Touring CVT and could not get it above $32k, so I can't explain the $36k figure.
Parts, yes. New cars, no. In the short term regarding replacement cars, I'm certain there's enough inventory. The optics of what is still considered a luxury brand continuing the production lines isn't great (but is consistent with the messaging Musk has released during this crisis)
>How is an electric car factory an essential business?
Because it's not like a restaurant that you can close and then open a month later with little consequence to the public. If you stop production of components or cars, you will not have them later on to restart the economy.
Most of the world uses lean manufacturing. Closing down some factories will mean that entire production chains will shut down. All the companies that service those chains will shut down. And when the virus passes, you will have no cars, no components for cars, and no easy way to restart manufacturing.
Even without shutdowns the entire system will take a huge hit dues to changes in demand. (Which will drop to nothing for some thing and skyrocket for others.)
Yeah, the idea that all of these businesses shutting down has little consequence to the public (regardless of whether they open again) is incredibly tone deaf, with somewhere around 15% of the US population impacted by these closures. Worse, this population likely overlaps with the most at-risk when it comes to both health and financial standing.
It sounds cold but the reality is that other restaurants will open to replace the ones that never reopen because a demand for them will exist thanks to places like Tesla staying open and pumping revenue into the local economy.
So we can lose Tesla and be fine with remaining electric car manufacturers or new ones. In contrast, losing a long-term social hub is a lasting negative impact.
So you think it's OK for a business to knowingly take actions that are likely to kill people, as long as they really need the money? Thank God most of modern society disagrees with you.
I have bad news for you: Modern society not only allows business and individuals to take actions that will kill people, but it quantifies to what extent in dollar terms:
I'm not sure of your point here? Presumably Tesla's capital position is still significantly smaller than VW? I do not know this, though, as I am not as familiar with VW's capital structure.
TBH, I'm more worried about what will happen with Ford or GM if they have even a short outage. GM has massive ongoing obligations and a relatively weak balance sheet, afaik.
Strictly in terms of market cap (not the best metric, admittedly) Tesla is larger than VW. (both company's stocks have been devastated recently though)
Market cap is a psychological construct. It will not help you when you're already bleeding cash and your cash flow suddenly goes sharply negative. It's entirely possible that this calamity will kill off some very large companies (by any metric) that have been operating in the margin.
This applies just as much to anything food-related (grocery or restaurant); maybe moreso because most of what a restaurant needs (or farm/ranch/fishery could produce) is not as shelf-stable as most car parts.
Still, restaurants are commodities. Even in normal market conditions, there's plenty of churn in gastronomy. It's harder to restart a factory, and consequences on the supply chain might be more profound.
> Because it's not like a restaurant that you can close and then open a month later with little consequence to the public. If you stop production of components or cars, you will not have them later on to restart the economy.
Interesting. VW, Daimler, Lamborghini, Ferrari, FCA, PSA all are stopping production.
The short version is: it’s not an inessential business and it poses little risk. So balancing the economic impact of shutting it down versus the economic impact of workers on social isolation orders possibly getting sick, the better option for everyone is to keep as close to BAU as possible.
Shutting cities down is not going to make coronavirus go away — it is a last ditch effort of a failed nation that let its health infrastructure rot.
Everywhere else we are taking sensible personal precautions, and retraining people for the six month fight ahead: social distancing, self-isolation, far more attention to hygiene. We can do that because our health care systems and pandemic response capabilities weren’t vandalised by vested interests.
An incredible quote: "Defendants subsequently complained that WhatsApp had closed the vulnerability. Specifically, NSO Employee 1 stated, “You just closed our biggest remote for cellular ... It’s on the news all over the world.”"
Won't someone think of the malware company? How are they suppposed to sell their services to oppressive governments if WhatsApp keeps patching all the vulnerabilities they depend on?
Specifically page 10. Still wondering where the original quote came from. Who was this person talking to? Presumably "you" refers to FB, but what was the situation that an NSO employee was complaining to FB?
I saw this article earlier wanted to read comments on it here. It had already been posted five or six times, but never made it to the front page. Glad it finally did as it should. But what a weird dynamic.
It wouldn't surprise me, even if it were not officially sanctioned. Perhaps this is just the human desire to find patterns in everything, but I have seen at least some evidence of coordinated up/downvoting that pushes specific agendas on here. The unending GDPR fanboyism is one example. It's either the worst case of groupthink I have ever seen, or people are coordinating.
I don't want to get into a long GDPR discussion, but the idea of privacy regulation is great. GDPR, however, is deeply flawed. Yet any comment even attempting to discuss those flaws in a rational manner are instantly downvoted into oblivion, while comments glossing over its flaws are instantly upvoted. It's pretty clear that there is some coordination going on.
Not trying to be snarky, but my experience is almost exactly the opposite.
I can't comment on voting patterns, but while GDPR was being prepared, and after it was released, there was an endless barrage of posts claiming how it was flawed, lead to the ruin of technology companies in Europe etc, and it should be replaced by something else (anything else, at some point in the future - and in the meanwhile please stop getting in the way of tech companies trying to make a profit)
Frankly I would not be surprised if there was indeed a reflexive downvote effect that is not caused by a shady conspiracy but rather people like me who are tired of posts like that.
