4 ms·

I like bashing at Tesla, but I have a hard time feeling sorry for the guy here. Pre-orders are always a risk, he took the risk, he lost. And it is not a huge l

by GuB-42 2y ago

I like bashing at Tesla, but I have a hard time feeling sorry for the guy here. Pre-orders are always a risk, he took the risk, he lost. And it is not a huge loss, just a year of uncomfortable parking before he can sell it, or he can buy a smaller vehicle, leave the Cybertruck in a rental garage for a year, and then sell the truck. Buying a $80k+ vehicle and not even thinking about its dimensions shows either a bunch of disposable income (so he can absorb the loss of having to wait a year before selling), or a lack of discipline, which would have gotten him into trouble in a way or another. My guess is that he is not stupid, he doesn't want his truck anymore because of a change of situation, and he uses exposure to try to weasel out of his contract. If it can save him a few thousand bucks overall, why not try it? All he needed to do was to contact Business Insider, who, in turn, get a good story for their paper.

bravetraveler 2y ago
Rationalization, meet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality In short, confounding. The vehicle is the least important thing to him [now, probably], yet this quirky little contract is a needless thorn. Why should he endure all of the erosion you open with? The paper agreement? Holding someone to a technicality encourages being beat on one. It harms good faith. I don't know, feels like we're doing too much. The sale should be finished, and at most, continue between him and the bank (I haven't bothered to learn his specifics) on his terms. I don't like the redefinition of ownership. Tesla feels parasitic with this, seeming to wash it with the fear of scalpers. I feel for him/others. This policy serves Tesla, as fanfare if nothing else, more than him or you/I. It's a toy/commodity - nobody needs these.
- bravetraveler 2y ago
  Before a rabid fanboy appears: I'd say the same if this were a Ford GT. This isn't a vendetta against Tesla, but rather, erosion. They're "just" party to it. Innumerable would-be-buyers being priced out of their new toy is preferable to one being unable to... truly own their belongings/freely transfer them. I can complain because I'm aware of the terms and chose to not participate. This is why. I will agree it is a little silly to complain about terms one agreed to, though...

by GuB-42 2y ago

bravetraveler 2y ago

Rationalization, meet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality In short, confounding. The vehicle is the least important thing to him [now, probably], yet this quirky little contract is a needless thorn. Why should he endure all of the erosion you open with? The paper agreement? Holding someone to a technicality encourages being beat on one. It harms good faith. I don't know, feels like we're doing too much. The sale should be finished, and at most, continue between him and the bank (I haven't bothered to learn his specifics) on his terms. I don't like the redefinition of ownership. Tesla feels parasitic with this, seeming to wash it with the fear of scalpers. I feel for him/others. This policy serves Tesla, as fanfare if nothing else, more than him or you/I. It's a toy/commodity - nobody needs these.

bravetraveler 2y ago
Before a rabid fanboy appears: I'd say the same if this were a Ford GT. This isn't a vendetta against Tesla, but rather, erosion. They're "just" party to it. Innumerable would-be-buyers being priced out of their new toy is preferable to one being unable to... truly own their belongings/freely transfer them. I can complain because I'm aware of the terms and chose to not participate. This is why. I will agree it is a little silly to complain about terms one agreed to, though...