Well no, “light pollution” refers to unnecessary illumination of the wide night sky by artificial light. If it only blinds you, a man standing on the ground, apparently that doesn’t qualify. Astronomers hate it more than anybody else, but there aren’t enough astronomers, so if they were the only objectors few else…

Tesla’s PR department:

It’s clearly breaking down what the customer service rep said.

It’s less than negligible, it’s almost certainly $0.000. The bandwidth to make the purchase and send out the code likely cost them something like a millionth of a cent (and I’m probably being generous here).

I believe the point is that the cost to install and remove the package is so negligible that they don’t even have grounds to charge a fee, let alone refuse a refund.

I get what Torch was saying. They were trying to guilt trip the guy by saying time and effort were spent in upgrading his car after he made a purchase, and those people deserve to be paid; and that’s not true. In fact, it’s doubtful any human interaction was involved until he contacted customer service.

The main point being that for a customer service rep to compare this situation to that of a home addition is rude and absurd. The bigger question is were they shooting from the hip or is that actually part of their training? I’m guessing most likely the latter.

Glad I scrolled down a bit farther to find that someone else remembered Tesla remotely deleting Autopilot from someone else’s car.

Imagine thinking this is a good ‘joke.’

I don’t think he’s suggesting it should be free, I think he’s saying Tesla shouldn’t be making it this difficult to request a refund or unintentional purchases, or purchases that a buyer quickly realizes they don’t want. I can call Amazon or Apple and get a refund for software purchases in about five minutes. Tesla…

Yet they have no problem pulling these dubious upgrades on resales. If this absolutely stupid comparison to a house addition were remotely appropriate, then they wouldn’t be able to steal back a feature from the subsequent victim owners without physical contact with the vehicle. If anything, the appeal of these ripoff…

...failed submarine designer Elon Musk

I understand the point the CS rep was trying to make with this terrible response “You can’t take back what you said” or maybe “you can’t unbake a cake” kind of thing. Only:

This is not a software problem. It is a business problem.

Tesla: We will fix many problems with over-the-air updates.

Nay, this is no longer a land of freedom. The terrorists have won. That we cannot go on with our Spirits illuminated is more than simple metaphor. Our spirits have literally been broken.

...All I ask is a tall car and an illuminated spirit hood ornament to steer her by.

I’m a little confused as to how a dimly-lit hood ornament will cause a noticeable amount of light pollution when it’s bracketed by blindingly bright LED DRLs and headlights.  Or is the issue with the light being on when the car is off?  It honestly doesn’t make any sense to me.

The hyperbole is appreciated in the spirit (ahem) in which it is delivered, but let’s not completely dismiss this with snark, either.

That’s a pretty dumb law. It’s also kinda ridiculous that existing examples that have already been sold have to be retrofitted.