Justice: the one step process

Wednesday, January 29, 2020 4:20AM EST post RE: continuing Tesla mismanagement, and my continuing attempts to attempts to eliminate it

Please don’t expect me to resort to sarcasm — i.e. clever use of a lie to explain something which is so simple everyone still gets it wrong. I won’t use it.

Justice is the one step process of telling the truth. Over and over again.

Pursuing it most definitely gets tiresome at times. It can be terribly boring, also (those ARE two separate things.) There is a certain amount of amusement a person can take from ‘outsmarting’ other people; “pulling the wool” over their eyes. There’s a certain advantage which can be taken — a liberty extracted — when you believe you have enough information that another person will never find out and then you use that information to make your job or your life marginally easier at their expense.

It’s bullying, and sometimes it amounts to a crime.

It’s bullying regardless of whether you’re directly or tacitly using force, or even if you’re just operating from a position of advantage — in the above case, what you perceive as more information. [Essentially those things are the same.]

As nearly as I can tell, the principle of Occam’s razor is what gets people into trouble so often — whether they know that’s what it’s called or not:

“The simplest solution is most likely the right one.”

Yes, the simplest solution IS most likely the right one. Which certainly implies what amounts to the reverse, as well:

The simplest solution is never always the right one.

And I’ve phrased it that way for the purpose of illustration. I understand it may look curious.

The simplest solution is another way of saying, “there are multiple solutions.”

Never always is another way of saying, “sometimes this assumption is wrong.”

What purpose would we have in following up carefully on what appears to be a convenient answer to a puzzle? In what cases would we ever do such a thing?

Generally, we follow up on puzzling events when it’s within our best interests to do so. We also do so when we’re suspicious. And this is precisely where the problems with the Tesla service center at 3300 West Henrietta Road in Rochester, New York began.

{to be continued in edits, on the hour}

5:20AM EST

A bit of housekeeping:

I’m using this approach so that everyone concerned about Tesla and the company’s management approach can understand from the outset that I simply will not stop registering objection to the unlawful behavior I’ve personally witnessed from the company until such time as the source of that behavior has been found and addressed. I’ve decided that, even though it requires significantly more care and effort to do so in what amounts to ‘real time,’ it is also easier in some ways, and helps evince sincerity — which is, to me, among the most important chief operating principles.

Sincerity is the tool to get things done in a world where you’re perfectly ready to accept the consequences of your mistakes. Conversely, lack of sincerity is the surest way to encourage others to grow suspicious of your motives, and to ensure that their skepticism will ultimately come to rule your behaviors via supervision.

When I took my 2012 Tesla Model S P85 in to the Henrietta service center, it was on the occasion of a vehicle failure. It remains to be seen whether this was a malfunction or code functioning as intended. This is the essential argument I have with Tesla which brought about the larger question re: management.

The car’s dashboard displayed 3% remaining charge, and the car stopped while I was traveling 72 miles per hour on an expressway less than half a mile from a Tesla supercharger.

Obviously, a vehicle doesn’t simply stop from any speed to zero instantaneously, it decelerates. The way it does so is a function of a variety of things, which include:

1. the driver’s actions
2. the physical characteristics of the vehicle
3. the environment the vehicle is in at the time
4. the operational design of the vehicle, loosely, the way the vehicle works

(4) above includes software management of the controls, e.g. the regenerative braking.

Depriving a driver of some of the control of his or her vehicle in an unpredictable fashion [without warning] is unacceptable and extremely dangerous. Frightening a person is one of the surest ways of prompting them to make a mistake, and dead men don’t tell their tales quite so readily as live ones do.

When you put people in bad positions, you get bad results out of them, it’s that simple.

Because I’m sure some of my readers are not aware:

I am certainly not the judge, but I know that when a vehicle reads 3% fuel remaining, and when there have been no other external representations that 3% fuel remaining means anything other than the car can continue to drive as though it had fuel left and then the car stops itself, conditions 1 and 2 from the above list are met.

Condition 3 would certainly seem to apply, and as such, the additional charge of reckless endangerment would also seem to apply:

Condition 4 applies, despite that the defendants, Tesla Motors, Inc., a Delaware company, probably suspected that “most people aren’t going to expend their batteries below [a certain] SOC” and that “the range of very low SOC is a range owners won’t frequently take advantage of.” It applies regardless of whether any physical injury took place, and it also applies in cases of serious psychological distress.

Conditions 5 and 6 certainly both apply in this situation to me, and one might readily argue that 5 applies to many if not most Tesla owners, even though 6 almost certainly applies very rarely.

Compensatory damages do apply in this situation, and though I’m not familiar enough with the law to know how those damages apply precisely, I will say that I have no problem doing the reasonably necessary research to find out, and that that, too, is likely to be covered under the branch of actions which the defendant forced the plaintiff to do as a direct result of what amounts to multiply criminal behavior. In short, this means my legal fees will be covered.

Note: I am not nor have I been operating under the generic human paradigm that money is going to somehow solve this situation for me or anyone else. I insist that the situation be addressed, and I have every right to so insist. I will certainly want to be compensated reasonably for the time and psychological toll this has taken me, but to say that money isn’t enough is, if anything, an understatement.

The below should clearly represent Pandora’s Box for Tesla Motors:

“Today, the most common measure of compensatory damages for the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation is benefit-of-the-bargain damages — the same as expectation interest compensatory damages for breach of contract. In the fraudulent misrepresentation context, the benefit-of-the bargain measure of damages allows the plaintiff to recover the difference in value of the property as represented by the defendant and the value of the property the plaintiff ultimately received. Under this measure, the plaintiff ‘will have no loss’ and ‘will achieve any economic gains he would have had if the representations had been correct.’”

Because it is very hard to determine what a general plaintiff’s losses might be in a situation in which a compensatory damage award is given for a tort of this nature, one is free to speculate on what those losses might be in the most severe of cases.

Since loss of life is generally the severest case, and it is certainly possible to lose one’s life in a variety of different ways directly related to the situation in question, it appears to me that Tesla ought to realize already that it ought to contact me promptly to discuss the matter further.