You want to be the first offered a deal, and leaving immediately signals you know things, and aren't totally incompetent.

Have to double check each one because half of them can't read. /s

Cheese is life.

Just ask a lactose intolerant person. So many just deal with the consequences because it's (apparently) worth it.

Hey the ritz is golden at least, could be a saltine.

That's one of the requirements for choosing to own one of those. Don't like it, get a different brand. That's literally what Ferrari says about it. L

So Deadmau5 got a McLaren instead. Nissan also offered a GT-R as an option to replace the Purrari. Because they cared more about him driving one of their vehicles than onerous limits.

Ferrari has always had their heads up their own ass. It's literally how the company was founded and why Lamborghini was founded.

One of the easiest and most common changes people make to their cars is changing or removing badges like that. Can't with a Ferrari though.

The original delivery agreement for the Foundation Series (initial 1000 built) when they first launched required you to get Tesla's permission to resell the vehicle for the first year.

Which is common for limited availability vehicles upon release from basically every manufacturer. The average person is never buying limited edition vehicles so it's not relevant to 99.9% of the population, and something they've never heard of. Ford does it with every limited release Mustang variant for a common example.

The two primary reasons are essentially to prevent scalping, and so they can guarantee they receive back any vehicles with initial production run issues so engineers can study them. But facts don't stop media reporting, especially when it comes to headlines about Musk.

Some manufacturers keep ownership limitations like that in place indefinitely. Ferrari famously sued Deadmau5 because of his Purrari modifications, so he had to remove them and sold the car, replacing it with a Meowclaren instead.

I’m not sure why you seem to think that this is a show stopper?

I never said it was.

The US Congress isn't where the difficulty lies at the moment. The Compact still only has 222 Electoral Votes, so more States have to pass the Compact before it even gets to that point, and by the time that happens, a majority in both side of Congress may no longer exist.

so I’m not sure what you mean when you say that they’ve ignored every state election issue this year.

That was not really a State election issue, it was the Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act conflicting in a way SCOTUS ignored for 30 years, just making an assumption for simplicity (the exact thing SCOTUS exists to determine and shouldn't be ignoring). Since States handle the redistricting maps, a State was involved, but the actual issues at hand were federal, so SCOTUS has jurisdiction.

There is very little in common between determining conflicts with race-based limits and requirements for drawing maps, and reinterpreting part of Article 1 of the Constitution. One of the easiest to read parts

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

That is pretty clear cut. And unlike the above situation where we are talking about a newer federal law conflicting the Constitution, there is no conflict here. If Congress consents, then the Compact is approved.

If you think the actual text of the Constitution matters then you don't understand how the current Supreme Court has been ruling. 😅

Quite the contrary. SCOTUS hasn't thrown out the rulebook, and they don't show any sign they intend to. They've ignored every State election issue that's come before them this year. Hell, the only time SCOTUS has meddled with State elections was Bush v Gore.

But SCOTUS doesn't really matter here... we already know the Compact is not allowed, by itself. The Constitution explicitly says so. Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3... The Compact Clause. It explicitly says they States cannot enter a compacts with another State, without the Consent of Congress.

It is very clear. There is zero room for interpretation. SCOTUS has never tried to worm their way through something so fundamentally explicit in its wording. Almost nothing legal is ever phrased so clearly as this clause. Definitely nothing this SCOTUS has ever come close to hearing.

Maybe litigators that know where bodies are buried?

This isn't a federal law, these are State laws, and the Constitution very clearly gives electoral power to the States. So much that even this extremely partison ratfucking SCOTUS has avoided taking related cases.

The only issue with the Compact, as pointed out in the article, is that the US Constitution also says States cannot enter into an inter-state Compact without Congressional approval. So they're at odds with each other. However, that would only require a basic approval by the House and Senate, it doesn't involve the President at all. Still some big hurdles, but not nearly as many as two days ago.