Hacker News Reader

Comment by blackeyeblitzar | Hacker News Reader

Let’s be honest - we all know the “market share limitations” are just a construct to eliminate Tesla from eligibility, not something to actually help other automakers - which would not make sense anyways since Tesla has a better product and is the only one manufacturing in CA. This is obvious political discrimination and it shouldn’t be legal. We need to change the law to treat political views as a protected trait, to protect individuals and organizations.

View on HN

> Tesla has a better product

Isn't there room for a different "better product" for each individual?

You may like a MacBook and I may prefer a ThinkPad. One is not better than the other, it depends on our individual needs.

My Kia EV6 is a much better car for me than any Tesla.

Just a few of the many reasons:

Physical controls that are so much like my old gas Kia: A stalk for the lights. Another for the wipers. Plenty of buttons on the steering wheel that I can find by touch. And regen paddles like the gear shift paddles on some gas cars, so I can adjust the regen level without taking my eyes off the road. I only rarely have to use the touchscreen while driving.

Dual displays, with essential driving information right in front of me, and "infotainment" functions on the center display.

"Vegan suede" seats that feel like a high quality cloth seat and keep me cooler than a leather seat (vegan or not).

Of course if a Tesla is a better car for you, I have no quarrel with that. I'm glad you found the best car for yourself, just as I have.

Should it be more or less protected than race? Tesla as a company seems to think protected class doesn't matter.

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/05/1043336212/tesla-racial-discr...

> Should it be more or less protected than race?

Equal.

> Tesla as a company seems to think protected class doesn't matter.

I don’t see evidence for this. Sure any examples of discrimination like those in the article are bad. Is it deserving of $137 million in punitive damages that are arbitrarily decided? I don’t think so. But regardless of that case, I am fairly certain most people in Tesla and Musk himself feel race should be a protected class.

Arbitrarily decided is how all judicial and jury decisions are made. They're all arbitrary. There are no objective court cases like this one. We have a justice system, it arbitrates. Sometimes those decisions are surprising. But like, using arbitrary in this way suggests you don't like the judicial apparatus generally.

Can you explain why systematic racism in one of the richest company's in the world isn't deserving of the amount of damages awarded and that the amount is arbitrary? Should the amount have been lower so they would effectively not feel it and feel emboldened to continue with their actions? Would you have been ok with a lower fine and jail time for anyone in the org chart that knew?

> we all know the “market share limitations” are just a construct to eliminate Tesla from

Based on what?

> We need to change the law to treat political views as a protected trait, to protect individuals and organizations.

Why would we want to do that? It's also totally impractical because everything is politicized.

The 14th amendment equal protection clause can be used here to invalidate that part of the law after it is passed, if the plaintiff can find evidence from lawmakers that the law was about singling out Tesla, as opposed to it being happenstance from the metrics in the proposal

It's probably both? These kind of incentives were in place when the only player was Tesla.

"which would not make sense anyways since Tesla has a better product"

I had a different experience. Watching a Cybertruck which had flat-bottomed itself in sand as my Subaru winched it out made me think more about getting an F-150 lightning.

Not a Subaru?

I already have one, don't need two! Just got this one, to boot. Customized 2013 outback with rally off-road package (paddle shifters, better shocks, still same crummy articulation.) I was thinking more electric vehicle that can do off-roading.

I'd love to see a small EV truck or wagon with its motor attached to an actual 4x4 transmission. Don't care if auto or manual (but no CVT please, I'm not entirely a fan of mine) but the slight loss of power and gentler acceleration of the tires actually helps when you're on stuff like sand. You don't want to instantly spin your wheels, even in tiny pulses. You want as even of a power profile as you want to stay on top and not dig yourself down like the Cybertruck did.

They don't have center diffs or transfer cases on electric vehicles because range would be harmed too much. Battery capacity is a real bottleneck that creates a lot of engineering challenges (must have an efficient drivetrain, efficient aero). Seems like they can program their way out of the lack of low gearing if they wanted too since you have good torque at low rpm with electric.

Do Subaru offer electric trucks?

Both Cybertruck and F-150 are trucks, not cars or SUVs.

Well, the criteria seemed to be not getting stuck in sand is why I asked.

Tesla have benefitted for years from their association with Musk. Deliberately so, their marketing has never been afraid to associate the two very closely when he’s perceived as a genius inventor, the real life Tony Stark, yadda yadda. It’s just come back to bite them. Specifically drawing a circle around “politics” seems like a very convenient opt-out clause.

> We need to change the law to treat political views as a protected trait

Just as soon as someone can define what “political views” are and aren’t, I guess? To choose an extreme example: if I’m a racist that’s bad but if I believe in the political concept of a whites-only ethnostate is that protected?

It’s very, very difficult to define where “politics” starts and stops.

> if I’m a racist that’s bad but if I believe in the political concept of a whites-only ethnostate is that protected?

Bad views are protected. That's the point of it. Not difficult.

So racists are a protected class in this world? I’m alright without, thanks.

Those professing unpopular beliefs and belonging to unpopular religions were the very first 'protected class' listed in the constitution.

Not really a 'class' though, since the protection applies to everybody.

So racism is just an “unpopular belief” now? Got it, got it. Still a no from me though, thanks.

It's not the first time that California government officials have held Elon Musk's political beliefs against him and his companies...

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/10/california-reject-m...

It's absolutely disgusting whether you agree with his politics or not. As Americans we're better than this.

But...you're not, this is entirely normal politics now. DeSantis has been waging open war on Disney for years, Cruz has gone after everyone from Blackrock to Target for political reasons. The incoming administration has made no secret it intends to use any and every lever to hurt any opposition. At some point you need to stop pretending to be surprised by entirely quotidien events and accept this is in fact precisely who you are.

There will also be exceptions for any general principle. Remember, Americans still allow TikTok despite mainland China banning almost every major US social network. Citing a few events and calling them "quotidien" doesn't make it so.

E.g, Twitter/X is still flourishing in the US while regulators in the EU frequently threaten it.

Correction: China has never banned any US social network. That said social network decided not to comply with local laws is their decision. Even Tiktok does not work in China

Yes, those examples you gave are also disgusting, but do not make politically motivated actions against Elon Musk right.

Is it right? That's endlessly debatable. But is it unusual, unexpected or 'not who we are'? No, that is clear and if anything this is at the mild end of recent weaponisation of political office against businesses.

no, but they do make them normal.

You've moved the goal post. You said "we're better than this". You got several instances where, clearly, we are not.

Take the L here. Acknowledge we're not better than this and arguably never have been. Next time consider, "we should aspire to be better than this".

And to be clear, I didn't vote Harris or Trump, both parties do this gross stuff.

In the examples you're listing, those actions were overwhelmingly supported by Floridians and Texans respectively, and worked to increase the overall support of those politicians.

Is this the sort of action that Californians would broadly support? If so, then more power to them. If not then this is the political class playing petty games to the detriment of the people they're supposed to be representing.

So you’re asking if the majority of Californians would gladly see Musk be excluded from these benefits? Seems like the recent election results would be a pretty good indicator of how that would go. And assuming that they would, then you’re okay with it, right?

Also, don’t confuse gerrymandered elections with overwhelming support. Texas turned disenfranchising people into an art form. What the voting lines say and what the people want are rarely aligned. The Texas government knows this. The people know this (ex Texan here). Its cleverly and not secretly crafted to make it nearly impossible for the state to go blue.

Musk makes $0 directly from these benefits. He only gains from those who buy a Tesla with the perk, but wouldn't otherwise, and that number is going to be quite small. The primary beneficiaries, by far, are normal citizens of California. And I really doubt they're thrilled about paying more because of petty political games.

Ted Cruz is a Senator - gerrymandering plays 0 role in his victory, which was far more dominant in 2024 than 2018.

> concerns that all SpaceX launches would be considered military activity, shielding the company from having to acquire its own permits, even if military payloads aren’t being carried.

If that's accurate then the way they're holding it against him is making him follow the existing rules. But maybe that's a smokescreen? I'm unsure how to judge that situation.

But for the topic article, if he's going to be inside the group of people that are cutting federal EV subsidies, I don't think he gets to complain about not getting EV subsidies.

EV subsidies were intended to backstop the EV supply chain buildup. EV subsidies should be retired when EVs are economically viable on their own merits. We have had EV subsidies for 16 years.

In my opinion 16 years is long enough for the experiment, and it is an appropriate time to discuss the usefulness of EV subsidies going forward.

I think tax rates should be higher. So does that mean I should have to pay extra taxes by myself and the rates for everyone else should stay the same?

Are you a billionaire?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com