Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery

theatlanticwire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 262 posts

Re: Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery

#71

Post by OGinparadise »

zevyoura wrote: post #57
OGinparadise wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would that work with traffic police? who cares, but usually yes, at least in US (you go fast, you slow, fast...and police are looking for the worst offender) . My point is: a car that has to be driven with a gazillion, million, billion specific instructions or else it's a brick, maybe it isn't for me or many others. "Your car died and you're in the middle of nowhere because you went 5mph over the recommended by Tesla…

You're arguing a straw man point; while the speed difference may have contributed to the discharge, I don't believe anyone's arguing it made the difference.

Not really, if you look at Tesla's blog post, they even highlighted that went at 80mph for a while or once.

Why did they do that? To prove that he didn't write a book (a story wouldn't fit it) and detail every speed he drove or because they speed matters?

Re: Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery

#72

Post by danso »

This whole controversy has been a little depressing to read...not that the Tesla vs. NYT discussions here have been worse than on other forums, but just because it shows how technical minded people are as easily swayed by preconceptions and alliances as more ostensibly non-scientific minds.

How many words have been expended in the other HN thread to allege that Broder -- after most have already established that he is a charlatan -- is receiving oblique funding from his Big Oil paymasters? It may very well be that Broder got a swimming pool full of BP-money in his offshore hideaway...but isn't it possible that just maybe, that Elon Musk has a vested interest in advocating for Tesla? Like, just a little bit?

It doesn't have to be that Musk is trying to cover up the truth. It could just be that this is his big project and he is overly sensitive to (some of it admittedly unfair) criticism to the point where he'll see malice where there is none. It's possible: bias from sentimental influence is not unheard of in the scientific community.

One of the most disappointing things about Musk's response was how he closed it with an out-of-context anecdote:

In his own words in an article published last year, this is how Broder felt about electric cars before even seeing the Model S: "Yet the state of the electric car is dismal, the victim of hyped expectations, technological flops, high costs and a hostile political climate.”

If you read that article, Broder was clearly referring to the controversy behind the Chevy Volt, which he also compared unfavorably to a "lawnmower".

Oh wait, that was Elon Musk who said that: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-05-11/green_sheet/2...

So basically, if you think Musk knows what he's talking about, then Broder spoke the truth about the Volt. Yet Musk uses Broder's assessment as a closing statement of damning circumstantial proof that Broder is decidedly anti-electric car.

Oh I know, this kind of cheap rhetorical trick is what all politicians and businessmen do, and it's OK if someone we all really admire does it, as long as his heart's in the right place. Maybe so, but I don't think it hurts to be a little more objective towards our heroes and realize that they can be prone to misjudgment too.

Re: Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery

#73

Post by mikemoka »

The articles about this event clearly explain in my opinion not who is wrong or right here but how much even the most smart reader's opinion can be guided or misled by what a specific author writes, whether by omissions, incomplete data or other rethorical techniques

Re: Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery

#74

Post by scarmig »

naftaliharris wrote: post #49
adastra wrote: post #24

The "Norwich Charge" data point is all you need to understand what happened here. Notice how vague Broder is in his original account: "After making arrangements to recharge at the Norwich station, I located the proper adapter in the trunk, plugged in and walked to the only warm place nearby, Butch’s Luncheonette and Breakfast Club, an establishment (smoking allowed) where only members can buy a cup of coffee or a pla…

> Elon might have been better off concentrating on this point more, rather than some of the smaller inaccuracies. I agree. Often when you're arguing, you have a really strong argument and a few weaker ones. You'd think that making both the strong argument and the weaker ones would be the best case, (ie, that the strength of your case equals the sum of the strength of its components). In fact, in public discourse ofte…

Worse than that: imagine you have one absolutely damning issue and four weak ones. If the weak ones are swatted away one-by-one or muddled, the reader doesn't even remember the damning one that remains. It even comes off as "well, the person making the accusation prefered to spend time talking about the weak ones while he could have been talking about the ostensibly strong one, so how strong could it really have been?"

I would argue it's nearly always best, both rhetorically and analytically, to reconstruct your opponent's case as generously and sympathetically as possible, and then bear down very hard on your strong point.

Re: Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery

#75

Post by bigiain »

OGinparadise wrote: post #35
DanBC wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say you are limping along at 45 mph you shouldn't be driving at over 50 mph. > 45 mph or 52mph, it's the same crap to me. Would that work with traffic police?

Would that work with traffic police? who cares, but usually yes, at least in US (you go fast, you slow, fast...and police are looking for the worst offender) . My point is: a car that has to be driven with a gazillion, million, billion specific instructions or else it's a brick, maybe it isn't for me or many others. "Your car died and you're in the middle of nowhere because you went 5mph over the recommended by Tesla…

No, the car died because it clearly didn't get charged adequately.

I find people's claims that the car is somehow "inadequate" because it needs a full charge every 200 miles to be strange. I guess probably because I ride a motorcycle which gets pretty much exactly that range from a tank, and when I'm riding I've always go a pretty good idea of how much further I can go, and while I'm on a long trip I've always got in my head not only the furthest possibles fuel stop I could make, but also the "sensible" stop before that - on the off chance tha the max-range fuel stop is closed or empty. (and that happened a few weekends ago the other way round - my intended "second last" fuel stop had a blackout so the pumps weren't working, so I safely made it ~20 miles to the next town. No problem.)

Re: Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery

#76

Post by [deleted] »

gfodor wrote: post #21

I guess it's time to muddy the waters. The truth is in the middle! Of course, the entire debacle can be summed up with the following exchange: Q: "How many miles did you have left to drive on the final leg?" Broder: "61" Q: "And how many miles did your car tell you that you could travel before recharging?" Broder: "32" Of course, Broder claims that Tesla told him it was OK to leave. I think this is bullshit, but will…

[deleted]

Re: Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery

#77

Post by VMG »

fleitz wrote: post #30

This is a huge PR win for Tesla, what started out as one NYT review has blossomed into 4 or 5 articles and a he said she said drama.

Yeah companies love it when somebody calls their product unreliable and consumers are uncertain. That's what FUD is all about after all!

Re: Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery

#78

Post by haberman »

gfodor wrote: post #21

I guess it's time to muddy the waters. The truth is in the middle! Of course, the entire debacle can be summed up with the following exchange: Q: "How many miles did you have left to drive on the final leg?" Broder: "61" Q: "And how many miles did your car tell you that you could travel before recharging?" Broder: "32" Of course, Broder claims that Tesla told him it was OK to leave. I think this is bullshit, but will…

Yeah, I think it's a little unfortunate actually that Elon Musk threw in so many other more minor points of contention. While they did help him spin a narrative of intentional malice (useful for his purposes but debatable as truth), they are also easier to quibble about (well maybe the driving around the parking lot was just trying to find a spot, etc).

The most sensational part of the article was the photo of a cutting-edge luxury car on a flat bed. That situation was directly caused by ignoring common sense. That's the main point Tesla's blog entry should have made; the rest is noise.

Re: Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery

#79

Post by stcredzero »

arrrg wrote: post #26
stcredzero wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There is nothing wrong with replication, it’s just that it’s wholly unable to clear anything up in this case. The main important points of contention aren’t even disagreed over here. Those you could figure out by replication. It’s the interpretation of those results that’s the sticking point here. Some details that cannot be replicated are also disagreed on (heat, circling in parking lot, …), but replication won’t he…

> There is nothing wrong with replication, it’s just that it’s wholly unable to clear anything up in this case.

Sorry, but not only John Broder's intentions are in question here. If a bunch of other journalists replicate the trip, but come out with results more in line with Tesla's view, then this calls into question Broder's accuracy, intent or no.

You know, there's an empirical context underlying everything here.

Re: Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery

#80

Post by duaneb »

jlgreco wrote: post #55
duaneb wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, I've never driven a car with a digital gas meter before, but on all the cars I've driven they always have tens of miles when the gas light comes on. EDIT: To be clear, it is extremely stupid to do so.

Similarly, the car traveled 19 miles past it's projected range, and still has reserve power when it claims to be empty.

I'm not trying to claim that it doesn't, but perhaps the tester was a little optimistic about the mileage he would get after it emptied.
Post reply on HN