Tesla is the opposite of Linux philosophy.
Tldr; I drive a fleet of hacked cars on the road daily. Its fine.
It literally records and reports back to HQ. If you ever make any statement that Tesla doesn't like, they will use what should be your own data against you.
Surveillance capitalism. Ownership as a service.
They also restrict the repairability via software.
It's as far from gnu as its possible to be.
Wow. Take out the tinfoil hat Sir. I'll PayPal you $1000USD if you can cite this ridiculous claim.
> They also restrict the repairability via software.
You CAN perform repairs on them, you can even access the parts catalog (https://epc.teslamotors.com) for free when most manufacturers charge for this or even restrict it to dealers only. Need a part? Just call up a service center!
Many people have also refurbished Tesla battery packs and even rebuilt salvaged cars: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/my-first-model-3-reb...
> Wow. Take out the tinfoil hat Sir. I'll PayPal you $1000USD if you can cite this ridiculous claim.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/03/the-custo...
https://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/that-tesla-data-... about this ridiculously detailed releasing of data https://www.tesla.com/blog/most-peculiar-test-drive
https://electrek.co/2016/05/11/tesla-model-s-crashed-own-sum...
or Teslas own privacy policy, which says that they may remotely collect telematics data including speed, odmeter, battery charging, use of charging stations (linked to location), infotainment system data, camera images, short video clips, lock/unlock data, horn honking, etc. They also collect detailed position data in many cases, but say that they store it in a non identifiable way. While the policy doesn't specifically mention recording torque applied to the steering wheel, presumably they must include that somewhere, as they have announced to the press that the user didn't have their hands on the steering wheel. The policy also says that they "also may use information we collect for other purposes, including: For our business purposes", a vague and expansive definition. We've seen in the examples above what they consider this to include - disputing customers accounts of what happened if it makes Tesla look bad.
https://www.tesla.com/about/legal
I presume your offer of payment was hyperbole, but in my view, even if you disagree with the links I posted, I have certainly cited the claim. Email [email protected] if you actually intend to back up your words.
These customers almost always sue, but thankfully the U.S. justice system favors factual information.
A prime example of this was the recently released NTSB data on the Model S driver that crashed on the back of a Firetruck. The media had a field day and sensationalized the story and the owner tried to blame autopilot.
But the NTSB report noted that not only did he had his hands off the wheel he was also having breakfast!:
“I was having a coffee and a bagel. And all I remember, that truck, and then I just saw the boom in my face and that was it,” the driver told NTSB investigators."
Source: https://www.culvercityobserver.com/story/2019/09/05/news/nts...
NTSB Safety Report: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/HA...
The report states that probable cause was the Tesla driver’s lack of response and inattention and the driver’s use of the system in ways inconsistent with guidance and warnings from the manufacturer.
So tell me, how can Tesla defend itself from such customers who abuse and misuse these 2 ton machines? I'm curious on what you think is the best approach to solve this "he said/she said" problem by not using factual and irrefutable data.