Tesla owners are no stranger to aftermarket modifications. Whether they are performance-based or cosmetic, owners of the electric vehicles are always looking for ways to set their cars apart from the others. While the cosmetic modifications are usually pretty simple because they only change the appearance of a vehicle, the performance adjustments are a bit more complicated because they completely revise the way the system operates. Tesla decided to put a stop to the performance revisions altogether by releasing a software update that would inhibit the simple plug-in systems from functioning correctly.
Thinking about it, it reminded me of a previous newsletter that I wrote a few months ago. I talked about how Tesla was blocking salvaged vehicles from Supercharging in an attempt to make them less appealing to those who were interested in buying them and fixing them up for a discounted price. While it was a great project for some people, Tesla had to realize that salvaged vehicles are rarely fixed “perfectly” and that they usually have some small issues even after they are deemed to be functional. Tesla had to think about themselves first, and for a good reason. If someone were to crash a salvaged Tesla that was not wholly “fixed,” it would be blamed on them and not on the person who attempted to repair the vehicle. The headlines would blame the company, and it would add to a long list of misunderstandings with Tesla’s cars. It was merely smarter for them to try and make the vehicles less appealing through no Supercharging.
Tesla, when you think about it, really had to do the same thing with these aftermarket upgrades. While the company released a $2,000 Acceleration Boost for the Model 3 a few months back, they have ultimate control over what the vehicle’s new capabilities are. They decide how much extra horsepower to give the car, and how much speed the car should be capable of. This puts the risk into the company’s hands as much as the driver’s hands.
If a third-party company comes along and decides to manufacture a simple plug-in that will take the performance of a Tesla to new heights, it is sure to attract some buyers. Owners of the Performance variants of the car are surely going to be more interested in upping the already lightning-fast speeds the vehicle is capable of. While this is all good and fun for the owners, Tesla, as a company, assumes a lot of risks, and it is only reasonable to think that stopping it is the best strategy.
Think about a scenario here: Imagine a Tesla Model 3 Performance owner deciding that what their car is capable of is not enough anymore. They decide to go online and purchase a plug-in for their Model 3 that will increase acceleration and top speed, and they choose to put it to the test one evening. While traveling at speeds over 130 MPH, the driver loses control of the car and crashes into another vehicle, hurting someone in the car.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
I use this newsletter to share my thoughts on what is going on in the Tesla world. If you want to talk to me directly, you can email me or reach me on Twitter. I don’t bite, be sure to reach out!
The first thing that is synonymous with Teslas and car accidents is the overwhelming flood of people who immediately think the car was on Autopilot. Mainstream media outlets will talk about how the car could have been traveling on Autopilot and TSLAQ will immediately eat it up without any confirmation. The NHTSA would be the only agency that would be able to tell if the car was traveling on Autopilot through an investigation. However, that could take days, weeks, or even months to happen.
Then, you’d have some people complaining about Tesla’s performance standards, and why some of their cars equip unnecessary amounts of speed and acceleration. Not that it is anyone’s business, but when someone buys a car because it is fast, they more than likely know that they are putting themselves at risk, especially if they chose to drive it quickly. This argument would more than likely be small and not based off of much logic, to begin with, because fast cars exist everywhere and every car company makes them in some form or another.
However, Tesla would have to deal with the issues and speculation that would suggest that their cars are too fast for the owner’s good. The company is already under a microscope because every time a Tesla is in an accident, it seems like someone somewhere is talking about it.
These aftermarket plug-ins are also tricky because while the company that makes them probably knows what they are capable of, they are not entirely “compatible” with a Tesla powertrain to begin with. Only Tesla knows everything that goes into their cars and the software that helps them function. There really isn’t much of a reason to gamble on ruining the powertrain of a Tesla all for a few extra miles per hour, but that is just me. I would think that it is too much of a risk, and I wouldn’t want my hard-earned money going to waste, especially if a plug-in can compromise the way my vehicle works.
I think the update to keep these plug-ins from functioning is entirely understandable. Tesla is playing damage control. Ultimately, anything that happens to malfunction on the plug-in, or if the driver were to make an error and it would result in an accident, the blame would go onto Tesla.
Please consider Subscribing and joining me next week as I go ‘Beyond the News’
Elon Musk
Musk forces Judge’s exit from shareholder battles over viral social media slip-up
McCormick insisted in a court filing that she harbors no actual bias against Musk or the defendants. She claimed she either never clicked the “support” button, LinkedIn’s version of a “like,” or did so accidentally.
Many Tesla fans are familiar with the name Kathaleen McCormick, especially if they are investors in the company.
McCormick is a Delaware Chancery Court Judge who presided over Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s pay package lawsuit over the past few years, as well as his purchase of Twitter. However, she will no longer be sitting in on any issues related to Musk.
Elon Musk demands Delaware Judge recuse herself after ‘support’ post celebrating $2B court loss
In a rare admission of potential optics issues in one of America’s most powerful corporate courts, Delaware Chancery Court Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick stepped aside Monday from a cluster of shareholder lawsuits targeting Elon Musk and Tesla’s board.
The move came just days after Musk’s legal team highlighted her apparent “support” on LinkedIn for a post that mocked the billionaire over his 2022 tweets about the $44 billion Twitter acquisition.
McCormick insisted in a court filing that she harbors no actual bias against Musk or the defendants. She claimed she either never clicked the “support” button, LinkedIn’s version of a “like,” or did so accidentally.
She wrote in a newly published memo from the Delaware Chancery Court:
“The motion for recusal rests on a false premise — that I support a LinkedIn post about Mr. Musk, which I do not in fact support. I am not biased against the defendants in these actions.”
Yet she granted the reassignment anyway, acknowledging that the intense media scrutiny surrounding her involvement had become “detrimental to the administration of justice.”
The consolidated cases will now be handled by three of her colleagues on the Delaware Court of Chancery, the nation’s go-to venue for high-stakes corporate disputes. The lawsuits accuse Musk and Tesla directors of breaching fiduciary duties through lavish executive compensation and lax governance oversight.
One prominent claim, filed by a Detroit pension fund, challenges massive stock awards granted to board members, alleging the payouts harmed the company. The litigation also overlaps with issues stemming from Musk’s turbulent 2022 Twitter purchase.
McCormick’s history with Musk made her a lightning rod. In 2022, she presided over the fast-tracked lawsuit that ultimately forced Musk to complete the Twitter deal after he tried to back out.
Then in 2024, she struck down his record $56 billion Tesla compensation package, ruling the approval process was flawed and overly CEO-friendly. The Delaware Supreme Court later reinstated the pay on technical grounds, but the ruling fueled Musk’s long-standing criticism of the state’s judiciary.
Musk has repeatedly urged companies to reincorporate elsewhere, arguing Delaware courts have grown hostile to visionary leaders. Monday’s recusal hands him a symbolic victory and underscores how personal social-media activity can collide with judicial impartiality standards.
Delaware law requires judges to step aside if there’s even a “reasonable basis” to question their neutrality.
Court watchers say the episode highlights growing tensions in corporate America’s legal epicenter. While McCormick maintained her impartiality, the appearance of bias proved too costly to ignore. The cases will proceed without her, but the broader debate over Delaware’s dominance in business litigation is far from over.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk has generous TSA offer denied by the White House: here’s why
Musk stepped in on March 21 via a post on X, writing: “I would like to offer to pay the salaries of TSA personnel during this funding impasse that is negatively affecting the lives of so many Americans at airports throughout the country.”
Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk made a generous offer to pay the salaries of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees last week, but the offer was denied by the White House.
In a striking display of private-sector initiative clashing with federal bureaucracy, the White House has turned down an offer from Elon Musk to personally cover the salaries of TSA officers amid an ongoing partial government shutdown. The rejection, reported last Wednesday by multiple outlets, highlights the legal and political hurdles facing unconventional solutions to Washington’s funding gridlock.
The impasse began weeks ago when Congress failed to pass funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), leaving TSA employees, essential workers who screen millions of travelers daily, without paychecks while still required to report for duty.
Frustrated travelers have endured record-long security lines at major airports, with reports of chaos and delays rippling across the country.
Musk stepped in on March 21 via a post on X, writing: “I would like to offer to pay the salaries of TSA personnel during this funding impasse that is negatively affecting the lives of so many Americans at airports throughout the country.”
I would like to offer to pay the salaries of TSA personnel during this funding impasse that is negatively affecting the lives of so many Americans at airports throughout the country
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 21, 2026
But it was not for no reason.
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson responded on behalf of the Trump administration, expressing appreciation for Musk’s gesture.
However, the legal obstacles, which would be insurmountable, would inhibit Musk from doing so. Jackson said:
“We greatly appreciate Elon’s generous offer. This would pose great legal challenges due to his involvement with federal government contracts.”
Musk’s companies hold significant federal contracts, including NASA launches through SpaceX and potential Defense Department work, raising concerns about conflicts of interest, ethics rules, and anti-bribery statutes that prohibit private payments to government employees. Administration officials also indicated they expect the shutdown to end soon, making external funding unnecessary.
The episode underscores deeper tensions in Washington. Musk, who has advised on government efficiency efforts and maintains a close relationship with President Trump, has frequently criticized wasteful spending and bureaucratic delays.
His offer came as airport security lines ballooned, drawing public frustration toward both parties. TSA officers, many of whom rely on paychecks to cover mortgages and family expenses, have continued working without compensation, a situation that has drawn bipartisan concern but little immediate resolution.
Critics of the rejection argue it prioritizes red tape over practical relief for frontline workers and travelers. Supporters of the White House position counter that allowing private funding sets a dangerous precedent and could undermine congressional authority over the budget.
The White House eventually came to terms with the TSA on Friday and started paying them once again, and lines at airports instantly shrank. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said that TSA staf would begin receiving paychecks “as early as” today.
Elon Musk
Tesla FSD mocks BMW human driver: Saves pedestrian from near miss
Tesla FSD anticipated a BMW driver’s lane drift before the human behind the wheel could react.
A video posted to r/TeslaFSD this week put a sharp spotlight on Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) software being able to react to pedestrian intent than an actual human driver behind the wheel. In the Reddit clip, a BMW driver can be seen rolling through a neighborhood street completely unaware of a pedestrian stepping in to cross. At the same time, a Tesla driving on FSD had already begun slowing down before the pedestrian even began their attempt to cross the street The BMW kept moving, prompting the pedestrian to hop back, while the Tesla came to a stop and provide right-of-way for the human to safely cross.
That gap between what the BMW driver saw and what FSD had already processed is the story. Tesla FSD wasn’t reacting to a person in the street, rather it was reading the signals that a person was about to enter it based on the pedestrian’s movement, trajectory, and their trajectory to telegraph intent.
Tesla’s FSD is now built on an end-to-end neural network trained on billions of real-world miles, learning to interpret subtle human behavioral cues the same way an experienced human driver does instinctively. The difference is consistency. A human driver distracted for two seconds misses what FSD does not.
Tesla sues California DMV over Autopilot and FSD advertising ruling
Reddit commenters in the thread were blunt about the BMW driver’s failure, with several pointing out that the pedestrian was visible well before the crossing. One response put it plainly that the car on FSD saw the situation developing before the human in the other car had registered there was a situation at all.
Tesla has published data showing FSD (Supervised) is 54% safer than a human driver, accumulated across billions of miles driven on the system. Elon Musk has said FSD v14 will outperform human drivers by a factor of two to three, and that v15 has “a shot” at a 10x improvement. Pedestrian safety is where the stakes are highest, and where intent prediction closes the gap fastest. At 30 mph, a car covers roughly 44 feet per second. An extra second of awareness from reading a person’s body language rather than waiting for them to step out is often the difference between a near miss and a fatality.
Video and community discussion: r/TeslaFSD on Reddit
FSD saves man from becoming a pancake. BMW driver nearly flattens him.
by
u/Qwertygolol in
TeslaFSD
Musk forces Judge’s exit from shareholder battles over viral social media slip-up
Elon Musk has generous TSA offer denied by the White House: here’s why
Tesla FSD mocks BMW human driver: Saves pedestrian from near miss
Elon Musk says Tesla is developing a new vehicle: ‘Way cooler than a minivan’
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
