So I got a yearly subscription with Gemini given its ability to gather information quickly and accurately so I only need to focus on reading what I need. It does save me time in the beginning, good product. Then I move forward to pay for a yearly subscription. Now not only it hallucinates A LOT, it also rejects my request even though its only market value is Text-Visual language model. Gemni sucks.
Hello guys, have anyone successfully applied to CA Board with construction experience? Have you ever got a deficiency on your reference for not being "in responsible charge"?
Also, I'm not sure where does Business Code or Professional Engineering Act mention that the overlapped time between your experience wouldn't count towards your 6 years (total). I asked the Board staff but I think she got pissed and just straight up told me No...
I had terrible experience with Apollo Scooters. First of all, their scooters price tag are already higher than the competitor. I decided to give them a try. Secondly, their quality is relatively the same. I've owned Segway and Apollo. In my opinion, they are not much different. However, Apollo is such a scamming business. When my Apollo scooter battery unexpectedly died for NO REASONS during my ride, I was away 2 miles away from home, and I had to get an Uber XL to get my scooter back home. It was not a fun journey.
I then filed a complaint with their warranty department. They denied my claim and started asking for EVIDENCE. If you ride a scooter, you know that you need to keep both hands on the handles, otherwise you'll lose stability. Apollo ask me to RECORD my ride when the battery died. Can you believe that lol such a ridiculous request.
I encourage people who own Apollo Scooters to file a consumer complaint against them so we can get a refund.
https://oag.ca.gov/contact/consumer-complaint-against-business-or-company
I purchased an Apollo City 2.0 electric scooter from Apollo Scooters (Apollo Imports, Inc.) on 10/29/2025. The battery began draining unexpectedly and prematurely, rendering the scooter unusable on 03/11/2026, which is still within the manufacturer's warranty period.
I contacted Apollo's customer support to file a warranty claim. Over the course of more than 1.5 months, Apollo has subjected me to a series of escalating and unreasonable demands while refusing to replace the clearly defective battery:
1) Apollo first instructed me to recharge the battery and retest the scooter. I complied. The scooter failed again. Apollo request me to record the incident. However, I explain that I can't perform any recording action whilst riding because safety rule requires both hands on the handles at all time to maintain stability during the ride.
2) Apollo then requested photographs of the battery to check for physical damage. I provided the photographs, which clearly show no physical damage — confirming the defect is internal.
3) Apollo then demanded "ride statistics" recorded through the Apollo mobile app. However, Apollo never disclosed — at any point during the warranty process or at the time of sale — that I was required to manually enable a setting within the app to record ride data. This requirement was not communicated until after the battery had completely died, making compliance impossible. The battery is dead; I cannot operate the scooter to generate the data Apollo is demanding.
4) Apollo then suggested the issue might be the charging adapter and sent a replacement adapter. The replacement adapter did not resolve the issue.
5) On approximately April 23, 2026, Apollo asked me to replace the charging port on the scooter. I purchased and installed a new charging port on April 27, 2026, at my own expense.
6) After I replaced the charging port as requested, Apollo then stated they need to see "the battery screen" to fully confirm the battery is not charging — yet another deflection tactic adding a new requirement after I have already complied with every prior request.
Throughout this process spanning over 1.5 months and over 51 emails, Apollo has engaged in a pattern of deflecting the core issue — a defective battery — by imposing one new requirement after another, each time shifting blame away from the battery. Every request I have complied with, and every time Apollo moves the goalposts rather than honoring the warranty.
Apollo's conduct appears to violate the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civil Code § 1790 et seq.), which requires manufacturers to promptly repair or replace defective products under warranty. Apollo's conduct also appears to violate the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.), which prohibits manufacturers from imposing unreasonable conditions on warranty claims — such as demanding data that the manufacturer itself made impossible to collect.
Apollo Imports, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Montreal, Canada (3800 St-Patrick St, Unit 302, Montreal, Quebec, H4E 1A4), which sells and ships products directly to California consumers. Apollo does not appear to be registered as a foreign corporation with the California Secretary of State, despite conducting ongoing business in the state.