Slashdot Mirror
NY Times' Broder Responds To Tesla's Elon Musk
DocJohn writes "NY Times' John Broder responded to Elon Musk's blog entry. Accused of driving around a parking lot for no reason, for instance, Broder notes he was simply looking for the poorly marked charging station. Worst of all, much of Broder's behavior can be attributed directly to advice he received from Tesla representatives — something Musk fails to mention."
The groupthink here already decided Broder is in the pocket of big oil. No explanation will change that.
You can bet what you want, but I read the original article, the rebuttal and the rebuttal of the rebuttal and I see no basis for Musk's accusations, the charts support the reporter's story better than Musk's. There is no indication of lying, of large detours, of the reporter trying to "run down" the battery, etc. For all intensive purposes the conclusions of the original report -- that the car performs poorly in cold weather, that it takes longer to fill up and that much more careful planning is needed driving it -- stand.
Assault rifles are good, they supported by the Second Amendment as a bulwark against government tyranny.
Church is fine, I mean if you believe in that sort of thing. I think it's a little silly, given that clown in the Vatican, but whatever floats yer boat.
Destroying the planet? Oh, I doubt he believes deliberately destroying Tesla will have much impact either way.
However, Tea Party rallies?
Ok, now you are getting somewhere. No, he probably doesn't attend the rallies, but the Tea Party is just an astro-turf organization funded by Big Oil and specifically the Koch brothers. The Koch Brothers are probably bribing either Broder or the NYT as an organization as well.
As T. Boone Pickens has stated, "The biggest deterrent to an energy plan in America is Koch Industries, They do not want an energy plan for America because they have the cheapest natural gas price they've ever had, and they're in the fertilizer business and they're in the chemical business. So their margins are huge. And they do not want you to have an energy plan, because if you had a plan, then natural gas prices would come up."
With the kind of economic resources the Brothers grim can bring to bear, getting a test scuttled in a major newspaper is nothing. At any rate, someone decided to skew the test, and I doubt it was because Broder has a personal grudge against electric cars or Tesla motors.
As always, follow the money and ask, "who benefits?"
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
Tesla, you make expensive toys for people who just want posh toys, stufu your customers dont care, they can afford not to
NY times, go fuck yourself, your not worth even looking at IF I could look at you
EV car nuts, its nothing new ev's have been around since before gas cars were popular, they still suck 100 years later + charging stations are a serious random pain in the ass to geocache
A reporter can fabricate facts (or forget details), and logs can be fabricated (or erroneously-recorded in the first place).
Considering that the logs agree with Broder's take on the story much better than Tesla's take, I think round 1 goes to Broder.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
No, stupid, charts are not data. I can make my own charts with data. I can't, however, deduce as much about the data from the charts.
What raw logs? They've release a few graphs. There are various ways to construct a graph to present data in a favourable light.