Because I have actually worked in vehicle R&D, I would never buy a Tesla. But rather than get into that, which is a separate issue, I would suggest that the Intel case is rather different, as were the ss/ds floppies.
Intel’s problem was yield. A lot of dice had bad coprocessors. In those days lithography wasn’t what it is today, nor were clean rooms. Binning for the same part was necessary. Rather than dispose of parts with good cpus and bad coprocessors, design to disable faulty coprocessors with a laser and then sell them as the non-FP version. I think the independent coprocessor was a different design due to the need for I/O, so they couldn’t reuse dice with bad cpu and good fpu.
The same with floppies. During the production of the film used as the disc, imperfections could occur on one side but not the other. Solution: use the material with faults on one side for ss floppies. As with the 486 this meant less wastage and so a more competitive product.
The level of flaw at which a disc surface is rejected means that many discs would have zero flaws - it’s not worth trying to isolate down to the 8 inch or 130mm level. However, many would not and so using them as ds could result in data loss when you least expected it.
Tesla however…well, let’s just say I am unsurprised. It’s basically the IBM mainframe technique; deliver machine able to be uprated by a jumper change because it isn’t worth having two kinds of motherboard (since, unlike a 486, a defective motherboard can simply be reworked.) Ethics? It’s not as if buyers don’t know about it, but some of them, from their postings on tech websites, seem to treat Tesla as a religion.