RSD1

Some people are missing the two main points I'm raising. First, weed is a commodity with a fairly standard market value worldwide. High THC strains, considered premium quality, are now selling in Thailand for significantly less than that global average. Yes, Thailand has a lower cost of living, so one might expect prices to be lower than in other countries. But just a few years ago, top tier weed was selling for 300 baht per gram, more comparable to global prices, but now it’s a fraction of that price. Second, producing high quality weed requires a certain level of fixed investment. If prices stay this low, will maintaining that level of quality become unsustainable? Will growers start cutting corners, leading to a decline in overall quality? Some of the really low cost weed isn’t particularly high in THC, and it’s often grown outdoors with minimal investment, so its low selling price makes sense. But when high quality flower is selling for 30 to 40 baht per gram, comparable in quality to strains that go for $10 per gram elsewhere around the world, it raises a key question: Can growers continue producing top tier weed at these prices, or will quality inevitably drop to match the low price point? A lot of the weed being mentioned in this thread is average at best when it comes to potency, with THC levels that don’t compare to the higher end strains. That’s not really what I’m talking about. I’m referring to the higher quality stuff now selling for $1 to $2 per gram in Thailand, which requires more investment to produce the high THC yields they are offering and would typically sell for $8 to $10 per gram in other parts of the world.

Right, but weed is a commodity with a fairly standard market price worldwide, typically around $6 to $10 per gram in countries where it’s legal, like Thailand, and sometimes double or triple that in places where it’s not. That would put the baseline price at around 200 baht per gram. In Thailand, however, prices have now dropped to less than a quarter of that on average. It seems that domestically, this crop is trading well below the typical market price.

I’m not thinking about potential legal changes to the sale and consumption of weed anymore, just the current market pricing. Now that the average retail price for high THC quality weed has dropped well below 50 baht per gram, where does the market go from here? If prices have fallen so low that investing in high quality growing methods is no longer profitable, what happens next? Do growers stop investing in the equipment and techniques needed to produce top tier weed? Does indoor cultivation decline because the costs outweigh the returns? Will everything eventually shift toward outdoor or evap greenhouse growing to cut expenses? And if so, does the overall quality of weed in the market start to decline? At some point, either demand has to rise significantly or supply needs to shrink for prices to stabilize. Otherwise, at current price levels which keep falling, the market may end up flooded with only cheap low quality product. Serious growers could move on to other business ventures, leaving behind only those willing to invest the bare minimum in cultivation and quality control.

True. But a logical reason would be that they realized the administrative costs of enforcing the taxation weren’t worth the revenue they’d gain from it. When they reverse course on something here, it’s often due to financial motivations or an attempt to contain a growing public relations disaster. In this case it could actually be a bit of both. Let’s see if they truly abandon the whole crusade, and if they do, what kind of explanation, if any, they provide. It’s also possible they just quietly drop it without much clarification, leaving everyone confused and in a state of taxation filing chaos.

Fingers crossed. 🤞🏼 👍🏼

Seems he transferred his bitcoin to a scammer, posing as a business broker. The money isn't frozen, that's just part of the scam, the money is gone.

So they're gonna basically scrap the whole thing now and we're gonna go back to pre-2024. Done.

Are you kidding me? The kid is a hero! Musk is a train wreck, but his kid, on the other hand, is going places. The kid is a genius. Managing to plaster a juicy booger on Trump’s desk, whilst Trump was sitting there, in the Oval Office, during a press conference with dozens of journalists and cameras on him, the boy deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. In fact, that booger might be there for the next 100 years, or more. Class act innit.

Musk claims he should be corrected when he makes a mistake, yet no one has access to the same data he references when spreading false and disinformation. The fact that he was caught lying this time about condoms being sent to Hamas is fortunate for the public, but future falsehoods about U.S. government spending could become harder to catch, as Musk is likely to start covering his tracks better. Meanwhile, Musk’s supposed efforts to cut wasteful government spending are just a distraction and a sideshow from the real issue which is that the added spending and tax cuts laid out by Trump will increase the U.S. debt and deficit by as much as $4 trillion over the next decade. Trump ran on improving government efficiency and reducing the deficit, yet he’s increasing spending to levels considerably higher than the previous administration, not net cutting of government spending at all under Trump.

It could start hitting Thailand as soon as April first. That was in the memo Trump signed yesterday focusing on reciprocal tariffs. India, Vietnam, and Thailand are the main ones in Asia that could get hit by this. Thailand is well aware of the situation. They are already scrambling. https://www.thaiexaminer.com/thai-news-foreigners/2025/02/13/thailand-waits-on-new-trump-retaliatory-trade-tariffs-to-be-launched-within-hours-from-the-white-house/ https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c360lle165ro

Tons of stuff! Have a look at my OnlyFans. The link to my Amazon wishlist is on there.

It looks like Trump may eventually impose retaliatory tariffs on Thailand due to the high import duties Thailand places on U.S. goods. In the short term, this could hurt Thailand's exports, but in the long run, it might squeeze Thailand to finally lower its import duties on American products. If that happens, it would be great for people living here, making it easier and more affordable to buy goods from Amazon and other U.S. retailers without the steep import taxes currently in place. You can now order most stuff online from Amazon in the US with free shipping to Thailand, making it much more cost-effective to order stuff now from the US. The only killer at present is the added on Thai import duties. It could be a little bit disruptive to the Thai economy and local manufacturers that sell to the Thai domestic market if more people start ordering stuff from the US. But I think the impact will be minimal. It will hurt the Thai government more though because they have been the big winners from collecting the high import tariffs on US goods for decades.

Yes, I'm familiar with the weekend charge issue with Revolut, but they do it to hedge any exchange rate fluctuations that might occur during the weekend when currency exchange markets are closed. You've got two options with that though. You either exchange large chunks in advance, so you're not dealing with the weekends or, if you prefer to do it little by little, then just exchange on a Friday enough for the weekend. Anyway, not a big issue overall. For now it's just a back up for me too. I'm still good with Wise. But sometimes things can change unexpectedly and I think it's good to have a similar alternative to jump to quickly if needed.

A while ago, I noticed a feature on my Wise cards that others didn’t seem to have. Called "Spending," it appears in my card settings for every Wise card in my account. This feature lets me select specific currency balances and Jars for each card to spend from and disable some if I want to. However, I recently learned that I was part of a test group, which explains why some users didn’t have access to it. Unfortunately, Wise has now decided to actually discontinue this feature starting in April. Below is the message I received from them today: In addition to the change mentioned above, I’ve been reading more reports online of Wise accounts being shut down for seemingly arbitrary reasons. While these cases are anecdotal since I don’t know all the specifics, it still makes me feel like I may not always be on steady ground with Wise, especially since I rely on my Wise account for part of my daily spending and some monthly transfers. Because of this, I decided to open a Revolut account last week as a backup. I regularly deal with quite a few different currencies through Wise, and while it has been a cost-effective and convenient tool in many ways, losing access to all these currencies, especially while traveling, would be a major inconvenience. To mitigate the risks with Wise, I now have Revolut as a backup spending option if I need it while traveling. It offers similar features and currency exchange rates to Wise, though its bank transfer fees can be significantly higher. So before any trip, I plan to link my Revolut account to one of my real bank debit cards so that I can quickly add funds to the Revolut account for instant spending if needed. While I don’t intend to use it as my daily driver like I do with Wise, having an alternative gives me peace of mind in case something unexpectedly prevents me from accessing or spending my funds through Wise at any time. Has anyone else using Wise set up a Revolut account as well? Do you use both, or have you switched to mainly just one?

Welcome to the house of boogers.

Elon Musk’s Business Empire Scores Benefits Under Trump Shake-Up Feb. 11, 2025 Elon Musk controls six companies, including Tesla. Mr. Musk’s companies secured $13 billion in federal contracts over the past five years. Carly Zavala for The New York Times Government investigations into Mr. Musk’s companies are stalling amid President Trump’s firings and Biden administration resignations. By Eric Lipton and Kirsten Grind The reporters have spent the past year investigating Elon Musk’s business with the federal government. President Trump has been in office less than a month, and Elon Musk’s vast business empire is already benefiting — or is now in a decidedly better position to benefit. Mr. Trump and Mr. Musk, the world’s richest man who has been given enormous power by the president, have been dismantling federal agencies across the government. Mr. Trump has fired top officials and pushed out career employees. Many of them were leading investigations, enforcement matters or lawsuits pending against Mr. Musk’s companies. Mr. Musk has also reaped the benefit of resignations by Biden-era regulators that flipped control of major regulatory agencies, leaving more sympathetic Republican appointees overseeing those lawsuits. At least 11 federal agencies that have been affected by those moves have more than 32 continuing investigations, pending complaints or enforcement actions into Mr. Musk’s six companies, according to a review by The New York Times. Trump firings hit agencies with oversight of Musk’s companies Staffing changes, including the firing of several top officials, have affected agencies with federal investigations into or regulatory battles with Elon Musk’s companies. The events of the past few weeks have thrown into question the progress and outcomes of many of those pending investigations into his companies. The inquiries include the Federal Aviation Administration’s fines of Mr. Musk’s rocket company, SpaceX, for safety violations and a Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit pressing Mr. Musk to pay the federal government perhaps as much as $150 million, accusing him of having violated federal securities law. On its own, the National Labor Relations Board, an independent watchdog agency for workers’ rights, has 24 investigations into Mr. Musk’s companies, according to the review by The Times. Since January, Mr. Trump has fired three officials at that agency, including a board member, effectively stalling the board’s ability to rule on cases. Until Mr. Trump nominates new members, cases that need a ruling by the board cannot move forward, according to the agency. Over at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a public database shows hundreds of complaints about the electric car company Tesla, mostly concerning debt collection or loan problems. The agency has now effectively been put out of commission, at least temporarily, by the Trump administration, which has ordered its staff to put a hold on all investigations. The bureau also is an agency that would have regulated Mr. Musk’s new efforts to bring a payments service to X. “CFPB RIP,” Mr. Musk wrote in a social media post last week as the Trump administration moved to close down the bureau. Mr. Musk not only has numerous contracts that are overseen by multiple government agencies — including space, media, financial securities and highway safety. He and his team also have an extraordinary position created by Mr. Trump that allows him to review the spending and staffing of every department in the executive branch through his cost-cutting initiative called the Department of Government Efficiency. Traditional federal conflict of interest rules seem almost antiquated, if Mr. Musk is determined to be involved in specific decisions about agencies his companies do business with. That is why Mr. Musk’s role is so concerning to former White House ethics lawyers in Democratic and Republican administrations alike. None of the investigations or lawsuits involving Mr. Musk and his companies, at least so far, have formally been dropped since the start of the new administration, according to more than a dozen current and former federal officials interviewed by The Times. The Times also found no evidence that Mr. Musk directly ordered that an investigation into one of his companies be shut down or stalled. The shifts at the agencies in many cases reflect changes in national priorities that come with a president who has long complained that government regulation has been too aggressive, a view widely held in the business community. But the upheaval at federal agencies represents one of the first tests of a wide range of conflicts of interest Mr. Musk has brought to the White House, including 100 contracts with 17 federal agencies. Mr. Musk controls six companies, including Tesla, which is publicly traded. He is the founder of SpaceX; the artificial intelligence start-up xAI; the Boring Company, a tunneling venture; and Neuralink, which is developing brain computer implants. All of those are private. He also owns the social media platform X, formerly Twitter. Mr. Musk’s companies secured $13 billion in contracts over the past five years, making SpaceX, which collects most of that money, one of the biggest government contractors. There is already talk during the Trump administration of expanding these deals, particularly at the Air Force. Mr. Musk has had a long and contentious relationship with regulators of his companies. He has called the S.E.C. “bastards,” and SpaceX has sued the N.L.R.B., arguing it’s “unconstitutional” after the agency had alleged that the company had mistreated and illegally fired some workers. “If the rules are such that you can’t make progress, then you have to fight the rules,” Mr. Musk said in an authorized biography published in 2015. Democrats in Congress, and outside lawyers who specialize in government contracting and ethics, have questioned Mr. Musk’s position, saying that they cannot identify a time in American history when a corporate executive with so many regulatory matters, as well as billions of dollars in federal contracts, has had such power over government operations. “Mr. Musk’s dual roles — running a for-profit corporation while serving in public office — not only creates glaring conflicts of interest that pose grave risks for America’s most sacred institutions, but may also violate federal law,” Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat who is the ranking member of a Senate investigations panel, wrote in a letter to Tesla’s general counsel and board chairman this month. Mr. Blumenthal sought answers as to how the company is dealing with the apparent conflicts. Mr. Trump, speaking with reporters before he attended the Super Bowl on Sunday, said Mr. Musk is “not gaining anything” in the role. White House officials last week added that it is up to Mr. Musk to police his own actions. “If Elon Musk comes across a conflict of interest with the contracts and the funding that DOGE is overseeing, then Elon will excuse himself from those contracts,” the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said. Mr. Musk, his companies and a spokeswoman for the Department of Government Efficiency did not respond to requests for comment. However, in comments from the Oval Office with Mr. Trump on Tuesday, Mr. Musk defended his involvement in Pentagon contracting and said he was confident he did not have conflicts because employees at SpaceX submit the bids, not him personally. Mr. Musk added that if anyone can find a contract that “was awarded to SpaceX and it wasn’t by far the best value for money for the taxpayer, let me know, because every one of them was.” SpaceX, Tesla and Safety SpaceX’s launch of its Falcon Heavy rocket in July 2023 from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida gained little national attention, but in its own way it was historic: The company was putting a 10-ton satellite, the largest ever sent into what is called geostationary orbit, 22,000 miles above earth. To the public, the launch went off without a hitch, but behind the scenes a conflict between SpaceX and the F.A.A. had been playing out, documents show. The agency had told SpaceX as the countdown to the launch was underway that a new facility SpaceX had built to fill the rocket engines with fuel had not yet passed all the required safety checks. SpaceX went ahead anyway. The F.A.A. proposed a $283,009 fine. That move, along with a second proposed fine from the F.A.A., infuriated Mr. Musk, who had called the enforcement action unjustified and “improper, politically-motivated behavior.” Mr. Musk later demanded the resignation of the agency’s head, Michael G. Whitaker. Mr. Musk got his wish when Mr. Whitaker, a lawyer with decades of experience in the aviation industry, resigned on the last day of the Biden administration, even though he had been unanimously confirmed only in late 2023 to a five-year term, with bipartisan support in the Senate. With Mr. Trump back in the White House, Mr. Musk’s allies saw an opening to revoke the proposed F.A.A. fines and also to force the agency, which is charged under law with ensuring that rocket launches do not endanger the public or cause undue harm to the environment, to speed up its SpaceX approvals. The confirmation hearing last month of Sean Duffy for transportation secretary created a moment to ask for the fine to be withdrawn. “If confirmed, will you commit to reviewing these penalties and more broadly to curtailing bureaucratic overreach and accelerating launch approvals at F.A.A.’s Commercial Space Office?” asked Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, where SpaceX is moving its headquarters. Mr. Duffy, who has since been confirmed, replied: “I commit to doing a review and working with you and following up on the space launches and what’s been happening at the F.A.A. with regard to the launches.” Katie Thomson, who recently left the agency where she served as deputy administrator and previously chief of staff, said she found Mr. Musk’s involvement as a federal government official “very troubling” given what she called Mr. Musk’s clear conflicts of interest. “The F.A.A.’s actions are supposed to be driven by safety,” she said. Officials at the F.A.A.’s commercial space division, which directly regulates SpaceX launches, said in a statement to The Times that it had not seen any recent cuts in its staff of approximately 160 and that the standards it uses to evaluate SpaceX permit requests had not changed. Even seemingly small staff changes could benefit Mr. Musk’s multibillion-dollar business operations. The full-time Fish & Wildlife Agency wildlife biologist assigned to help monitor the federal lands near the SpaceX launch site for any damage to threatened species’ habitats after launches recently was transferred to a post elsewhere in Texas. “The service is currently covering the workload with existing staff,” the agency said when asked about the transfer by The Times. This response was derided by local environmentalists, who said that they have relied on the agency to help protect nearby coastal estuaries, considered some of the most important bird habitats in the world. “What is happening is more or less a capitulation — they are tiptoeing around because of Trump and Musk,” said Jim Chapman, leader of a South Texas community group called Save RGV, short for Rio Grande Valley. Shifts at the S.E.C. and F.E.C. Changes in leadership at the Securities and Exchange Commission, which sued Mr. Musk in January shortly before Mr. Trump returned to the White House, will almost certainly result in an outcome more beneficial for Mr. Musk, lawyers involved in the case said. The S.E.C. determined that Mr. Musk underpaid by at least $150 million for the Twitter stock he purchased in 2022 before moving to formally take over the company because he illegally failed to file a disclosure on time that he had already purchased 5 percent of the company. If that notice had been filed, the stock would almost certainly have risen in value and cost him more to acquire, the agency said. Mr. Musk called the agency a “totally broken organization,” in response to a post on X regarding the S.E.C.’s lawsuit. Mr. Musk, for months, repeatedly rebuffed efforts by agency investigators to interview him, agreeing only a few months before the end of the Biden administration to answer questions in person, delaying the investigation. The agency is overseen by a five-member commission, which must sign off on litigation and settlements. The two Republicans objected to the planned lawsuit, but they were in the minority at the time. Now, with the departures of two Democrats, Republicans have a majority, and two lawyers who have participated in the deliberations said they expect that the matter will be settled with a modest fine. Mr. Trump’s effort last week to remove the chairwoman of the Federal Election Commission also could affect Mr. Musk. The agency has received several complaints involving Mr. Musk, including one from Public Citizen, a nonprofit group, saying that he violated federal law by offering voters in swing states $1 million each “to encourage voter registration.” The agency’s chairwoman, Ellen Weintraub, a Democrat, has challenged Mr. Trump’s effort to remove her. If her seat were empty, it would be less likely that the four remaining members of the commission would agree to open any new investigation or approve settlements, said Daniel Weiner, a former lawyer at the agency, as any such move requires four votes. Workers’ Rights At two federal watchdog agencies for workers, the actions by Mr. Trump have a clear effect on Mr. Musk’s business empire, as well as countless other companies that have matters before them. The firings at the agencies, the National Labor Relations Board and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, mean neither has a quorum on its board to decide cases. One of the many N.L.R.B. investigations involves Mr. Musk’s companies’ sweeping job cuts in 2022 at his social media platform X, then called Twitter. Twitter employees at the time banded together to talk about what was going on at work, on Slack software and on the messaging app Signal. Twitter tried to get ahold of the communications and even surveilled some employees, according to copies of the N.L.R.B. charges obtained through public records requests. The matter is being reviewed by N.L.R.B. staff, but the board’s current construct could trouble its path forward or prevent a decision against X from being enforced. Even if Mr. Trump replaces the absent board member, that would be likely to significantly shift the balance of the board more Republican, according to four people familiar with the agency. Shannon Liss-Riordan, a lawyer representing the Twitter workers, said she is worried that the changes at the N.L.R.B. could affect those specific charges. “If I were a betting person, this is not exactly where I’m hanging my hat today,” she said. In 2023, the E.E.O.C. separately sued Tesla, alleging widespread and “ongoing racial harassment of its Black employees” and retaliation. The litigation has been a thorn in Tesla’s side. Last year, a judge ruled against the company’s move to dismiss the lawsuit despite the company’s argument that “Black workers can and do thrive at Tesla.” While the case is moving forward, Mr. Trump is expected to appoint new commissioners, representing a shift in the agency’s approach to workers’ rights and a potential dismissal of the matter. A spokesman for the E.E.O.C. said the agency would not comment on current litigation. Fired Watchdogs In his first week, Mr. Trump fired at least 17 inspectors general, who are charged with investigating waste and corruption within their own agencies. The mass firing — a move that may have violated federal law — may benefit Mr. Musk. Among the dismissed inspectors general was Phyllis Fong at the Agriculture Department. Her agency had opened an investigation in 2022 into Mr. Musk’s brain implant start-up, Neuralink, and the inquiry was in progress as of late last year, according to two people familiar with it. Reuters reported last month that the investigation was continuing. In December, Mr. Musk posted a letter from his lawyer on X that claimed that the S.E.C. had also reopened an investigation into Neuralink. Both investigations arose after a nonprofit, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, discovered through a public records lawsuit in 2021 that Neuralink had allegedly mistreated dozens of test monkeys, Ryan Merkley, the nonprofit’s director of research advocacy, said in an interview. “They suffered from infections, internal bleeding and there were surgical mistakes that were made where devices that were screwed to the skull came loose,” Mr. Merkley said. Mr. Musk has denied the mistreatment of monkeys at Neuralink, and the company was not cited after a U.S.D.A. review. The U.S.D.A. inspector general’s office didn’t return requests for comment. On Monday, Mr. Trump fired the head of the Office of Government Ethics, an independent agency. The office had pending requests to investigate Mr. Musk based on allegations raised by Democrats in Congress last week that Mr. Musk’s role as a federal government official creates an unavoidable conflict of interest. The letter, signed by 12 House Democrats, said: “The American people deserve assurances that no individual, regardless of stature, is permitted to influence policy for personal gain.” Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Aaron Krolik contributed reporting. Kirsten Noyes contributed research. Kirsten Grind is an investigative business reporter writing stories about companies, chief executives and billionaires across Silicon Valley and the technology industry. Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/11/us/politics/elon-musk-companies-conflicts.html

Even if that were truly Musk’s intention with his flawed DOGE program, and that it's not just another move for his own personal gain, it would still be impossible for him to take an unbiased approach to auditing government spending. He has an immediate and personal financial conflict of interest. At best, he can point fingers at the spending he personally doesn’t like, but he will inevitably ignore or downplay any scrutiny of the spending that benefits him, plus he will likely increase additional spending in his own favor. It's a wholesale fleecing and restocking of the swamp by Musk and the majority of the world already knows and accepts this truth.

He's not doing the right things. According to a Quinnipiac University survey released on January 29, the majority, 53% of registered voters disapprove of Musk taking a prominent role in Donald Trump's administration, while only 39% approve: https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/us/elon-musks-popularity-plummets-as-he-goes-full-maga-his-favorability-plunges-in-the-negative-zone-says-new-poll/articleshow/117984177.cms

Here’s a summary of just some of Elon Musk’s major U.S. government contracts related to SpaceX, highlighting the financial ties between Musk and the military-industrial complex: • National Security Space Launch (NSSL): $316 million+ (U.S. Space Force) • Human Landing System (Moon Lander): $2.89 billion (NASA) • Spy Satellite Network: $1.8 billion (National Reconnaissance Office) • Rocket Cargo Program: $102 million (U.S. Space Force) These contracts illustrate the deep and incestuous financial entanglement between Musk’s ventures and U.S. government funding.

The real travesty of government spending in the U.S. is the staggering waste and corruption within overpriced domestic contracts, particularly in the defense industry. Major U.S. defense contractors routinely charge the government absurdly inflated prices, sometimes 100 times the actual cost. A simple bolt that costs $1 to manufacture for a military aircraft might be billed at $100, or more. This isn’t a secret. The government knows it happens but does nothing to stop it. It’s a well-oiled system where big U.S. corporations siphon taxpayer money while making massive political donations to ensure nothing changes. Just another cog in the military industrial complex. In comparison, the U.S. spending on humanitarian aid abroad that everyone has become so focused on now is just a fraction of what gets washed and wasted through corporate overcharging. Cutting foreign aid on humanitarian programs won’t fix the real financial hemorrhaging within the U.S. government, it’s just an easy scapegoat to distract from the real issue. If Elon, the spastic jumping jellybean, truly wants to tackle government overspending and waste, he should focus on the rampant corruption involving major U.S. defense contractors and other large American corporations, including himself and his own greedy business enterprises. His companies have secured massive, overpriced contracts with the government, making him part of the very system siphoning money from the government, which he claims to oppose and appears to be trying to stop. What he’s doing now is mostly a distraction, a red herring being used to shift attention away from the fact that he, too, is profiting unjustly from taxpayer money. If he were serious about fixing the problem, he’d start by exposing and reforming the same corporate greed that benefits him and his own corrupt business enterprises.

The CBR300R that was first released in 2014 is not too dissimilar to the CBR250R that first appeared in 2011. The 300 was a replacement with only about 5 more horsepower and a bit more torque than the 250. More or less the same bike, but I think Honda decided that being able to market a 300cc bike would sell better than a 250cc bike. Truth be told, I think the 300cc bike only really has a 287cc engine. One could probably barely notice the difference between riding the 300 and the 250.

The power of the Hyabusa is of course impressive. Too heavy and poor maneuverability though. I know a guy who sadly went down on his right in his own Soi. He got quite badly banged up. Lots of damage to shoulders and neck. I'm not sure if he even ran into anything. He said he wasn't going fast and I think he just somehow lost control. The problem with that bike is if you go down, and it ends up on top of you, even at slow speed, it's not going to be a pretty picture.

I agree, except your not going to look so cool riding one of those bikes that has a design language that looks a bit like a hangover from the seventies.

I'm here for it bro.