Yes they did though they never admitted to it despite the clear cut proof Google had provided.

His knowledge is not the problem, he knows about batteries, electric cars, rockets. The problem is his intention when speaking and that of those quoting him. Whether it be to boost his ego, manipulate the market, insult others, I never read a quote from him trying to share an insight.

> Turks should come out in support. You can rephrase it. “What’s so sad about this thing is that some rando idiot walks into a salon,…”

Why did you remove the “racist” description that the original commenter had for the attacker? Sounds like an omission unless you’re trying to make a point that I don’t get.

Agreed but do regulators care? Hummers and even some other large SUVs to some extent feel the same.

The whole concept of analysts telling executives what to do is asinine.

Thank you, well to give credit to your system it’s great that these documents get published. Though in this particular case it seems silly to respond to a random jet setter. But presenting the reasoning in such detail is a great approach in general and if it were not so full of fallacies I would really enjoy reading these.

If done properly (i.e. correctly argumented) I think this would be awesome.

But it seems very flawed. This could be my ignorance but paragraphs 13-17 are logically flawed or suspicious (for example paragraph 12-13: accusation that there are biased in the system, then contradicting “proof” Is that the system itself cleared itself of wrongdoings). I then stopped reading because it seemed like a waste of time.

I’m so confused by this whole document, is it common in Singapore to publish this? It looks at the beginning like it’s meant to be a demonstration but in fact there are logical fallacies and absence of proofs.