If the company running the auction misrepresented the car's condition, he can certainly take it up with them or their lawyers. But he has no reason to blame Tesla for his situation, at all. According to the article, they're not trying to force him into any service contract, or pay a huge fee (they even said they would waive the inspection fee). But they have got to be able to cover themselves if he does something like electrocutes himself or hits someone if a repair they weren't responsible for is insufficient.

Well, there is a darker side. It's just not always the same side.

First of all, I'm of the mindset that it's probably best to not list every issue fixed, and especially not list every bug reported publicly. Many bugs reports are bogus, and it's certainly possible for a large number of "reported issues" to detract from the true quality of the current version. For a new product I would never make this information public. But that's neither here nor there since in the OP's situation, they are public. So, let's go with that.

What I would do is based on a Freakonomics episode where a company (furniture company, or appliance company, whatever it doesn't matter) inadvertantly stopped advertising in some of their major-market newspapers. While it was an intern's mistake that this happened, what they found was that there was no impact (i.e. no reduction) of sales in those markets. So while a logical person would say, "Let's scrap advertising in those markets forever and keep the cash," the people in charge instead said "but we *have* to advertise." Preserving expectations/status-quo won out over rational thinking, and the difference was millions of dollars.

I would put a challenge to the marketing and sales departments. If they think public disclosure is hindering sales, let them prove it. Pull the publicly-visible bug tracking for a period of time and if the marketing and sales people are right, sales will go up compared to similar periods in previous years. If, however, customers are unhappy with the "secrecy", take that into account as a ding against the approach. But I'd be firm -- if you pull the bug info, the sales better increase.

Of course, before you issue a heavy-handed challenge to M&S, maybe just ask your existing customers about it. "We are considering pulling our publicly-visible bug tracking/reporting but have no plans to change our update cycle, just the reporting. How does this impact your business, and how does it impact your decision to use Product X?" Use that as a basis to continue current practice, or start the M&S challenge.

I also acknowledge I am anothing but a keyboard jockey in this horse race. :)

Yes, certainly. It's called running the automated translator and NOT blindly checking in the generated code. There's no concern here.

Depending on how you define "life", yes. In fact, almost certainly, regardless of which definition of "life" you choose. Selection can occur in any kind of chemical or physical process in which produces similar but not always identical results. There's nothing special about the particular chemical processes we call "life", nor some magic line in the sand you can draw and say "this is life, and this isn't" -- it gets rather fuzzy on the edges, and the distinction between life and other chemical processes is as arbitrary as the distinction between which celestial bodies we decide to call "planets" and which we decide don't qualify. Nature doesn't care much for our arbitrary distinctions.

You can tell people at a company are speaking from a place of privilege when they assert that using real names will reduce bullying/make people safer/etc. For many of us, using real names pretty much guarantees bullying and danger, and quite possibly even threatens our lives. From Blizzard, it really takes the cake. Like I'm going to put my life in jeopardy for the sake of a video game. And even if the threats aren't serious, many people would just rather avoid the hate and abuse to begin with, even if it's "only" verbal/emotional abuse. Some people use anonymity as a weapon, but most of us use it as a shield. Congrats for those lucky enough to not need it, but understand we're not all so lucky. Removing it just further marginalizes those who aren't privileged enough to be safe without it.

People always think the world is currently going to Hell around them, even while living in a golden age.

s/server/service/

You mean like how I can't get warranty repair on my Dell because I'm nowhere near Texas? Oh wait, I can. Hell, I can get the tech to come right out to my office and do it on-site, I don't have to take it anywhere. Funny what happens when there's a competitive marketplace, and the ease or difficulty of getting service and support is something consumers consider. Or were you imagining a scenario where car buyers worry less about server than computer buyers? Cars are so cheap, after all. Oh wait...

Thanks, now I'm having dirty thoughts about your DOCSIS.

Well, I certainly didn't. Actually had a better throughput on my connection than I did the previous day.

Meh :) At the time I was reading, only one other comment in response to the article spelled it properly, and I just figured someone might actually be wondering, as a result.

Oddly, the site is offering to let me moderate you now. But that would be immoderate.

You were probably joking, but for anyone who is really confused, it's coronal mass ejection. The solar flare thing that was supposed to affect us this afternoon (in the USA).

One wonders how long it will be until it's entirely represented in Elite: Dangerous. :)