That Tesla Data: What It Says and What It Doesn’t

The "fundamental attribution error" refers to our tendency to overattribute others' behaviors to their dispositions, while reversing this tendency for ourselves.

From: http://lesswrong.com/lw/hz/correspondence_bias/

Also, this:

We tend to see far too direct a correspondence between others' actions and personalities. When we see someone else kick a vending machine for no visible reason, we assume they are "an angry person". But when you yourself kick the vending machine, it's because the bus was late, the train was early, your report is overdue, and now the damned vending machine has eaten your lunch money for the second day in a row. Surely, you think to yourself, anyone would kick the vending machine, in that situation.

The more people that track your movements, the more potential for security breaches or malicious use.

A quote: "About three hours into the trip, I placed the first of about a dozen calls to Tesla personnel expressing concern about the car’s declining range and asking how to reach the Supercharger station in Milford, Conn. I was given battery-conservation advice at that time (turn off the cruise control; alternately slow down and speed up to take advantage of regenerative braking) ..."

This is unbelievable. The advice is quite wrong, what remains is to discover whether Broder actually got this advice from someone at Tesla or made it up (or misremembered it). If Tesla offered this advice, someone needs an education in electric car technology (stop-and-go driving can only hurt battery life compared to driving at a steady speed). If Broder made it up, it casts into doubt the remainder of his account.

For the record, regenerative braking is not something that one can take advantage of -- it's always less efficient than not losing the energy in the first place. It's only a way to minimize the energy loss involved in braking, it can't eliminate the loss.

As to cruise control, in level terrain, it can only help the car's range by preventing the driver from wastefully changing speeds.

"... that was later contradicted by other Tesla personnel."

Ah. Well, then. Tesla should have phone records, but probably didn't record what was said (in many places, recording phone conversations is illegal without explicit consent).

There are profound differences, but let me focus on one:

Jobs and Apple tried to make the claim that people were holding the phone wrong, without ever making the claim about the proper way to hold the phone. They never said anything about the "right" or "wrong" way beforehand, so while the comment is strange it isn't hypocritical.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/24/apple-responds-over-iphon...

It's a very strange response, and clearly foolish, but Apple never made a claim before the launch that the phone could be held that way. And of course, we can be generous in retrospect because Apple eventually gave free bumper cases. But Jobs didn't make a claim on the website which was contradicted by the behavior.

In contrast, Tesla claimed that leaving the car out for a long time shouldn't cause much battery loss: "The Model S battery will not lose a significant amount of charge when parked for long periods of time. For example, Model S owners can park at the airport without plugging in."

http://www.teslamotors.com/models/facts

It strikes me odd because the claim, prima facie, suggests that you can leave the car for multiple days without charging. Musk is contradicting Tesla literature here, which is why you should always be careful about the marketing material.

I cringed when I read Musk's charge that he circled the parking lot, suggesting it was done out of a desire to kill the car that just wouldn't die on its own. Who among us hasn't circled a parking lot a few times? There are so many other possible reasons that making a charge like that, something that if true could forever tarnish a journalist's career, was inappropriate.

I don't blame Musk for his desire to reply and "clear his name." (I'd be surprised if he didn't identify personally with Tesla). But I think he let his inner-geek shine through too much. That post of there's was in the classic slashdot style of point-by-point refutation. You don't win friends that way.

Maybe a better strategy would've been to politely refute the conclusions about cold weather -- since when is this guy a batter scientist -- but then suggest that some bad luck and confusion had more to do with Broder's experience than the cold weather, and possibly invite somebody to spend a little longer with the car -- a week, a month -- to come to conclusions not as tainted by circumstance.