The headline should be updated to begin with "The Atlantic Wire claims..."
Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery
11–20 of 262 posts
Re: Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery
#12"Convincing? No. His other chart shows the mile range dipped below zero, which would indicate the car could not move. " Wow, I wish I could be as sloppy and awful at my job as these journalists are. Had he actually bothered to truly read the response he is commenting on, he would see that Musk states that, when the car's range dips below zero, it is running on reserve power. It takes some miles after "zero" for the c…
I was written by a woman actually. :)
Can I add on argument 6.: >>No. That wasn't the point of the article. Broder wanted to see how the car would do on a long range road trip relying on Tesla's two official Supercharger stations. Ok, he wanted to rely on only official stations, but did he really have to completely discharge the car? Why couldn't he just stop and charge when he was super low at any normal charge station, and explain in the article that the two supercharge stations, failed? Well that's because then he couldn't post a nice article titled >>Stalled Out on Tesla’s Electric Highway<<
Re: Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery
#13The most interesting point on the range graph isn't mentioned in Tesla's repsonse (or anyone else's), which is the huge drop in range overnight at mile 400, fron 80 miles of range to approximately 20. That is the Achilles' heel of the Tesla that caused the car to run out of juice in this (possibly contrived) example.
BTW, running out of range and bricking are not the same thing. One requires recharging and the other requires $40,000.
Thank you; Google agrees with you. I've changed the wording.
Re: Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uhm … what do you expect? I thought this was all pretty convincing. What are your complaints?! I really don’t get it. How would you suggest measuring distance? Is Google Maps really not a good tool for doing so? Plus, Google Maps wasn’t really the centerpiece here, for any argument.
This "defense" basically amounts to: See, Broder didn't lie, he exaggerated. That, and the things Broder did to try and get stranded were fair game. In that, they are making valid points, supported by facts. That it's the best they can do is telling. I look forward to replication attempts.
You and your weird wishes for replication. Not gonna help.
Plus, your framing is completely out of whack. You charge in there with your preconceived notions.
As far as I can see, the only thing weird or unusual in the data is the speed. It’s not at 54 mph, it’s higher. That’s pretty inexcusable in itself.
The rest seem like total non-issues to me. He never said he turned the temperature down at exactly mile so–and–so. The drop in estimated mileage from 90 to 45 actually happened (plus he is not contradicted by Tesla in his claim that customer support told him just driving even if the estimated range is so low would be ok). He did slow down to 45 mph. The explanation of being unable to find the charging stations and circling around is completely coherent and makes lots of sense. (Have you seen photos of those charging stations? They are pretty small.)
So, the speed is the only issue here. We can ignore all the rest as FUD from Musk. Sad, really.
Re: Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery
#15"Convincing? No. His other chart shows the mile range dipped below zero, which would indicate the car could not move. " Wow, I wish I could be as sloppy and awful at my job as these journalists are. Had he actually bothered to truly read the response he is commenting on, he would see that Musk states that, when the car's range dips below zero, it is running on reserve power. It takes some miles after "zero" for the c…
[deleted]
Re: Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery
#16It has to be asked, given the tone and rapidity with which this article went up: what relationship does Rebecca Greenfield (or maybe the editors at The Atlantic) have to Broder? This really feels like a "got your back" kind of thing. Media figures don't, as a general rule, write stories with the sole purpose of knocking down criticism of other media figures.
Media figures try to write timely articles in an effort to get as many pageviews as possible. This is a perfect example of that phenomenon- I would bet that this will be The Atlantic's most popular article of the week.
Sometimes the reality is simpler than the conspiracy.
Re: Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
This "defense" basically amounts to: See, Broder didn't lie, he exaggerated. That, and the things Broder did to try and get stranded were fair game. In that, they are making valid points, supported by facts. That it's the best they can do is telling. I look forward to replication attempts.
You and your weird wishes for replication. Not gonna help. Plus, your framing is completely out of whack. You charge in there with your preconceived notions. As far as I can see, the only thing weird or unusual in the data is the speed. It’s not at 54 mph, it’s higher. That’s pretty inexcusable in itself. The rest seem like total non-issues to me. He never said he turned the temperature down at exactly mile so–and–so…
> You and your weird wishes for replication.
The fact that you find replication weird, is weird. It would give me pause if I were in any empirically based project.
Re: Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery
#18The headline should be updated to begin with "The Atlantic Wire claims..."
So should the Tesla one, right?
Re: Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery
#19The problem I have with "he made it up": unless you have a computer keeping track of miles, speed and temperature, you are going to be "lying" about it. For example, I could easily say that I was riding at 67 mph but the computer point out that I actually went as high as 72, as low as 52 a lot of the time. Was I lying? Who the hell is going to remember or write about every speed change on a 500 mile trip? Was it a scientific study or a review for the average user to understand? But let's look at the big picture: I, personally, would NOT want a car that is so specific about the speed, cabin temperature and so on, or call a tow truck because the battery died out on you. 45 mph or 52mph, it's the same crap to me.
Tesla, thanks to the tracking, may have every tiny detail, but their users generally agreed with the reviewer--at a Tesla site forum no less.
Restaurant reviewer: Service was great but the food took an hour to arrive!
Restaurant owner: He is a liar, food was on the table with 50 minutes and I have order slips to prove him wrong.
Me: underwhelmed at the "evidence," 50min and an hour is essentially the same to me when waiting for food to arrive and I didn't expect the reviewer to hold a chronowatch.
Re: Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery
#20"Convincing? No. His other chart shows the mile range dipped below zero, which would indicate the car could not move. " Wow, I wish I could be as sloppy and awful at my job as these journalists are. Had he actually bothered to truly read the response he is commenting on, he would see that Musk states that, when the car's range dips below zero, it is running on reserve power. It takes some miles after "zero" for the c…
I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Broder might not have wanted to "be evil". He might be like the guy who doesn't actually want to hurt the company he is working for but still spends all his day playing games at work.
Given that his job was to write an accurate review, the fact that he didn't really want to wait until the car is fully charged and was bored driving the car at normal speed and so on, we can say he did a poor job with the review.