Yes, but this wasn’t a rental. It was a free loaner.

Is a fuse not property? What is it, an idea?

Have you watched the video?

Yes.

All she said was she didn’t notice it for a few days.

Yeah that part is hard to draw any conclusion on, given the utter lack of info about whether they informed her and she didn’t realise, or wasn’t informed, or anywhere in between.

My comments are not really directed at her in particular, but mostly rather at the bunch of people in this thread proclaiming how they’d deal with the equipment. Assuming they made the choice with full awareness, I’m really really interested in how they twist their moral compass around to justify it. I’m fully certain if it was their property they would have a very different viewpoint.

There is a significant difference between “property destruction” and “not abiding by the terms of the contract”. This situation falls under the latter.

The suggestion we’re replying to was to burn the fuse, not just pull it. How is that not maliciously damaging property?

If you’re that opposed to it, put your money where your mouth is and don’t take the free loaner. She would have seen it the moment she stepped into it, there’s nothing stopping her from returning the car.

Objecting to surveillance in public is one thing, objecting to surveillance of private property that’s on loan to you and that you can return at any time is just self entitlement.

Or you could not borrow the car.

It’s interesting how many people here don’t seem to have any sort of reservation at all about damaging stuff that doesn’t belong to them. It’s a car that’s been loaned to you for free, that you’re using voluntarily. What exactly makes you feel you have the right to just abuse it?

Well yeah, but it seems likely in this case the accelerator was being floored, dunno for how long. So much as I hate to give tesla a pass, they’re probably not really at fault here unless new info appears.

Just saw it. Will look at the stuff you posted!

You keep saying that, you want to link an authoritative source? Because I would think a bunch of allergists and immunologists know what they’re talking about.

a single bad research paper,

That has apparently been reproduced many times according to the source I gave

Yeah, I’ve found there’s a lot of emotion and irrationality along people when it comes to the potential of extended lifespans, improved bodies, etc.

Fair enough, I make no claims about the efficiency of acceleration. I just saw an issue with your scenarios that I pointed out.

Why not? Real life is messy with side effects and such, but if that wasn’t a concern, hell yes.

Is that relevant? Taiwan isn’t realistically asking anybody to stop recognising China as a country.

Me: Drink dairy and die of dysentery

It is obviously impossible to prove a negative in science. But the evidence is good enough that the experts say it’s not a thing.

Well you posited 2 scenarios, and this assumption was one of the major differences between the two.

The greater acceleration is what will reduce efficiency big time.

I’m not an expert, but the other comment provided a source claiming otherwise.

I deleted my comment a minute after posting, so no I didn’t mean you.

deleted by creator

Legal liability can result from more than just destruction of property. It’s not her property, there’s likely limits on what she’s allowed to do with it, period.

I will not let a company watch my every move, period

Then don’t use somebody else’s car? There’s nothing in the law that says you can use another’s property however you like.

Supposedly not possible according to studies

https://www.aaaai.org/allergist-resources/ask-the-expert/answers/old-ask-the-experts/peanut-air-travel

Source? Because the medical professionals say otherwise.

https://www.aaaai.org/allergist-resources/ask-the-expert/answers/old-ask-the-experts/peanut-air-travel