4 ms·
Sorry I misunderstood your previous comment. I assumed you meant that they should include safety features for no extra cost, which they do, not that they should
by Klathmon 7y ago
Sorry I misunderstood your previous comment. I assumed you meant that they should include safety features for no extra cost, which they do, not that they shouldn't charge anything at all for safety features, which is such a weird and extreme take that I'm not sure what to even say...
- reallydontask 7y agomy original comment was around the point of mixing morality and business. > I assumed you meant that they should include safety features for no extra cost, which they do I could buy a car without it for 37500 and now I can't but I can now buy a car with it for 39500 and you would still consider this is no extra cost? I must be misunderstanding what you are saying
- throwawayhhakdl 7y agoThere’s no moral problem with increasing the price when it becomes a better product. There arguably is a moral problem selling a product with optional safety features that cost extra. If tesla invented immortality fields within their vehicles, I have no doubt they would jack up the price, and that would be fine, because it’s now a much better car. To think otherwise would be silly.