Why doesn't someone just ask him why he's giving the money.
He's participating the democratic process, would be interested to hear his rationale rather than a bunch of speculations about what he may or may not believe.
Yes and no right? Being able to inspect the financial books is a right that share holders of Delaware based corporations have. You can read the law above, collida linked it. It's really straight forward.
The questions here are two fold, disclosure limitation and rights waivers.
The first is the question "Can a corporation compel a shareholder to sign a non-disclosure in order for that share holder to exercise their rights under rule 220?"
As I mentioned I've never experienced anyone who has been part of a funding round (investing) balking at the idea of signing a non-disclosure which prevents them from disclosing the financial information to third parties. They person in the article is refusing to sign a non-disclosure. Which suggests they are considering disclosing that information to third parties (most likely other employees) and (I presume) management feels that would be detrimental to the business.
The second question, which doesn't seem to be part of this suit, but one that bears on it, is whether or not a corporation can compel an employee, who will become a future shareholder, from exercising their rule 220 rights by having them waive their future rights as part of their employment agreement. See the Chriscross sibling comment where it is asserted the 220 right is statutory and thus immune to waiver.
And what will probably be an interesting future question, since California is an at will work state, can a company fire an employee for invoking their rule 220 rights? Whether or not they sign a non-disclosure agreement? I'm guessing that they can (fire the employee) which would make it the last thing you got to request at a company.
this also calls into question the general practice of "forfeit right X to get benefit Y" that appears common
In cases where "benefit Y" is actually "right Y", then it raises the question of whether these agreements are valid.
I don't know if that's actually happening, but probabilistically would not be surprised if it were - just given the legal complexity involved in these documents.
"Consider this: If a Toyota driver had standard cruise control set for 70 miles per hour on the highway and failed to take over and reduce speed for a 25 mph turn, would we blame the cruise control for the resulting crash? Relinquishing full control to Autopilot is no different."
That's why Toyota calls is cruise control and not autopilot
>An autopilot is a system used to control the trajectory of a vehicle without constant 'hands-on' control by a human operator being required. Autopilots do not replace a human operator, but assist them in controlling the vehicle, allowing them to focus on broader aspects of operation, such as monitoring the trajectory, weather and systems
Autopilot doesn't mean fully autonomous. It was never that originally in aviation either, basicLly just controlling altitude and speed. I'd say Tesla's use of "autopilot" is pretty spot on.
The difference is that "keep height, speed and direction" is a pretty safe way to operate an airplane at altitude: there are no sudden obstacles, and there is a lot of infrastructure to make sure traffic stays nicely separated. A human reaction time of a few seconds is fine.
It's not for a ground vehicle in normal environments.
If I'm not wrong, autopilot can follow set route also and if the airport supports it, it can land autonomously too. Tesla's use of the term is highly misleading.
Agreed, though Tesla's autopilot feature explicitly makes it clear it's not self driving. It's still an assistance, albeit a very good one, somewhat true to the definition that an autopilot system "doesn't replace the human operator".
I do think Tesla have their work cut out in distinguishing what autopilot actually is vs the general Persephone that autopilot means "it controls itself, autonomously".
I agree there's a lot of (potentially dangerous) ambiguity in what the name "autopilot" means and implies.
Personally, I'm not a fan of the name "autopilot" for 2 reasons.
Firstly, the name is sexy and filled with hype. Even for a fully autonomous "driver go to sleep" level 4 driving system, "autopilot" would be a great sounding name (much better than "full autonomy" or anything more explicit in my opinion).
Secondly, the name deviates from industry semi-standard naming such as "cruise control" or "lane assist". I don't believe Tesla's automated features are more advanced than the rest of the industry[0], but the name sounds more advanced. Maybe this is good marketing, maybe this is dangerous and deceitful, maybe both.
[0] I'm not an expert on the state of self-driving systems. If anyone here who is reads this and has some evidence that Tesla's autopilot features are more advanced that what's offered by Audi (for example), I'd love to hear why / see some sources.
Ask them whet they think and autopilot feature is.
The vast majority of them will say. "Err... a car that drives itself"
Of course I'm speculating. But if someone did run such a focus group and the majority didn't give a definition which boiled down to "a car that drives itself" then i'll eat my hat.
The pedantic "true meaning" of a term doesn't matter. Particularly when naming a feature that not only has the capacity to kill, but has now actually done so.
But cruise control only means cruise control because someone decided to call that feature cruise control. I find it harder to blame Tesla for an ambitious phrase rather than drivers that are considering nothing beyond the name of the feature before turning it on.
I'd say the bar for writing it off as simply an ambitious phrase is a bit different when you know that particular form of "user error" is literally lethal.
So far one person has faced lethal consequences. As the article states, that person was fully aware of how autopilot worked. Do you honestly think that if that feature was called something else that person would still be alive?
> So far one person has faced lethal consequences.
This is the tip of the iceberg.
How many other Tesla owners aren't fully aware of how the feature works and are just relying on the vernacular usage? Even if 100% of Tesla owners are 100% aware of the feature's capability, what happens when a friend/coworker/spouse/child of the owner borrows the car and uses the feature based on their misunderstanding of the technology?
Think you are missing (what I understand to be) his point.
The point is not that this is the UI of the future, the point is that there are other ways to conceptualize doing knowledge work with a machine, this is one.
This is interesting, but I don't understand why the existence of CB coin would necessarily lead to traditional bank accounts losing their status as means of exchange.
Money is whatever other people will accept as money.
CBcoin accounts could be more stable form of money (though as many emerging markets show, it's not like central banks are always risk-free), but that doesn't mean it would crowd out all other forms. On the contrary, just seems like a return to fractional-reserve gold standard, where instead of gold, people use CBcoins...
