>Doesn't require fuel
>People actually believe this
This is what you get for betraying gasoline environment cucks
Anthony Peterson
Juan Jenkins
And they will remotely disable your car and confiscate it.
Check the purchase contract on a Tesla, it's ridiculous
Kevin Wood
>/r/cars "journalism"
>credible
You might as well ask RCR about performance dynamics.
Samuel Scott
automotive DLC.
Come on now!
Samuel Thompson
BREAKING NEWS: OPTIONS ON CARS COST MONEY
Robert Cook
>EE here
I would personally not buy one, but I'm looking forward to musks other projects.
I'm not surprised this is happening. Soon we might not even have the right to repair, let alone modify or ownership. It's currently a fad company and people are viewing it through rose colored glasses, and even though they have done a few things right, the end consumer always ends up getting fucked by policies and the 'ownership' terms.
I wonder if these types of policies would rub off on other manufacturers, and how long do we have.
Reminds me somewhat of Deadmau5's Nyan 458 incident a few years ago.
Easton Sullivan
Zach is pretty cute, would prolly suck him off.
Aiden Sanders
The issue is precisely that: it's not an option.
There's no hardware or service to justify the increase in cost. It seems it's deliberately crippled. If they officially anounce some difference in either hardware or software that genuinely justifies the difference in cost that isn't "we disabled x feature, give us money to enable it" then I'll rescind any opinion.
Carson Watson
on-car dlc, nice
Luis Smith
enthusiasts will still exist though.
it's just metal and software.
it can never be more than that
unless they outlaw machining and coding you'll never get rid of modification and repair.
it really only concerns normies and they dont give a fuck anyway.