The meager data suggests that the limit seemed to be triggered by extreme outlier use cases, and the limit seemed to be a reasonable engineering trade-off. You seemed to come to different opinions: namely that the software limits were a moral wrong against every buyer of PxxDs (whether it did or could or was even likely to affect them or not) and buyers should be outraged, and Tesla was a lesser company and untrust worthy because of it. I was merely pointing out that the data doesn't support your position but if you were eager to support those opinions -- you need more data.
It seems that your jihad to criticize Tesla and conclude that they did something morally outrageous with the software limits forces you to have blind spots to the reasonable conclusions to be drawn (or at least reasonably entertained) from the incomplete, but still useful, data points that we do have.
Separately, (a different point!) I suggested that if you yearn to be outraged against Tesla for something, pick a better issue. Namely the issue re disclosure about what is really going on with our cars -- what sort of use causes what sorts of risk of failure or wear etc. That would be a better topic to agitate for. And that would be helpful to us to know how to best drive our cars to strike best balance between performance and risk of excessive wear.
I suppose you can continue to carry out your jihad against Tesla engineers trying to balance giving us both kick ass acceleration and experiment with software and maintenance trade-offs to help us not break our cars for those who operate in outlier use cases. I'm just trying understand and consider things from their perspective.
