Search results

So no possible way it passes safety and they want $1000. It may be an OK bike but considering it probably costs most of $1000 to get it to pass safety, the sale price needs to be close to zero.

Years ago, my niece (<10yo) was waiting for the school bus with her grandpa. She saw a rabbit and got really excited. "Grandpa, go get your gun. We can shoot it and eat it for dinner". Most of the other parents and kids were shocked.

I don't know who's buying the shares offered for sale. There doesn't seem to be much there. Given the low market cap, maybe someone is scooping shares to take it private and have the bike for themselves? Picking up a one-off prototype bike for $70K isn't a bad price. You may get equipment, IP...

It's not moving and in neutral. Signal is once again conveying no useful information. No repair needed, functioning as intended.

There is zero shooting in my neighbourhood (not enough space). I know quite a few neighbours with gun safes but none choose to publicize for obvious reasons. Afaik, no active shooters or hunters. Got licenses and guns and locked them up. Within earshot, someone really likes shotguns. Hundreds of...

Considering that 12 months ago the shares were $5, I assume it's pretty much all dead money in there. If you bought $50K worth of shares a year ago and cash out now you get $35 (minus fees). You might as well let it ride on the tiny chance someone takes it private at a premium. EDIT: Today may...

If you want to put a tinfoil hat on, government can make some stupid argument about gold that immediately causes you huge issues converting what you have into something useful.

Yup. When I pulled the market cap it was at about 4/100ths of a cent. It's falling fast today. EDIT: Math fail. It's 3/10ths of a cent not 3/100ths.

But they're scary and an easy target for both bad policy and a great opportunity for grift. It is very clear that he is following the expected path as JT 2.0. All the same bad policies, a new face, same anger if you dare to question his lies.

Holy crap. Their market cap is $92K. That is substantially less than the single prototype bike is worth. Plotting the stock price on a graph that includes negative stock price on the scale is an interesting way to literally prop up the perceived price. https://ir.damon.com/stock-quote-chart

He was hoping to double or triple his money on a studio condo he bought for $855K? That was some strong kool-aid. Maybe poor wording and he was hoping to double or triple his 85K deposit? Still crazy short-term but plausible if you bought at the right time (which he didn't).

Here are the facts: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/900611#BK8 As not every situation is detailed clearly, everything else is still interpretation. What one mechanic passes, another may not. With the required pictures many things that would be routinely overlooked will now trigger a...

It's a way to avoid the huge expense of complying with regulations.

Probably. I haven't checked the exact wording of the checklist. Presumably that should have failed before or if it complies with the wording on the checklist, it may still pass. Obviously much less room for discretion now and if it doesn't comply with checklist, the mechanic probably has to fail...

If anything, I have heard the opposite. There were no changes to the certification checklist. It's just done differently (now on tablet and pics required). EDIT: FWIW, even if they tested sound levels (which I doubt they do), unless you have straight pipes or a GP muffler, bikes pass the...

Sad but not at all surprising. Either it was a scam to attract idiot politicians/investors from the beginning or they were just idiots and perfection was the enemy of good enough. They needed to get a working bike in production before they spent any time or money on the transformer/self-riding...

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/sidl-rlcfa/

It's far worse than that. If you drive home sober and then get hammered, if cops show up within two hours of you driving, they can sobriety test you and charge you with DUI. It has been that way for a few years. Helps to mitigate the Michael Bryant defence where you kill somebody and then start...

I think the definition that changed was "driver" not "motor vehicle". The path the lawyer used was the definition of driver was limited to "someone who drives or has care or control of a vehicle on a highway". Not on a highway, you're not a driver and therefore letter of the law is no authority...

Ouch.