Good thing Musk is willing to "stand up to them" given that he's the truly unbiased one in this situation, right? He's playing an angle here too. And the other article (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/02/elon-musks...) casts some doubt on his loud protestations. And they've only released their summarized charts, not the raw log data, anyway. It's already a "he said / she said" situation, it's just that much of the HN crowd is more apt to be on one side vs. the other.
> it's just that much of the HN crowd is more apt to be on one side vs. the other.
I don't think so, it's just that one part of the HN crowd likes data more than 'someone said'.
So now it is up to Tesla to provide even more data, preferably with an exact re-run of the conditions in the presence of said journalist. That should clear up any kind of difference and would establish whether or not there is either a bug in the system, a bug in the procedures or a systemic problem with the car. If the problem can't be reproduced with proper handling of the car then there should be a retraction. Regardless of which it is the bickering should stop.
The whole thing hinges on whether you're stupid enough to leave Norwich without sufficiently charging.
Do the same run a hundred more times, and nobody will fail as long as they exercise that basic amount of care. In that sense, reproduction is pointless. We already know the result, within a margin of error.
I just don't think that's fair. If Tesla Engineers tell you "an hour's charge will bring the battery back" then I think many people would just take that at face value.
HN has a deeper problem. I don't think the entire crowd is biased, but due to the karma system a few people have louder voices (their posts show up at the top and stay there for a long time, even when they aren't the best responses). Some of those people are very opinionated and their opinions happen to be sticky. The algorithm should change.
On the other hand, Brody has known record of exaggeration and distortion of truth. Whereas Musk is an honest, no-nonsense engineer. (Although I'd be interested if you could point me to a situation where Musk was caught blatantly lying about something.)
If that is that case, Musk would have known about his alleged "agenda" before handing over the keys for the review and could have acted accordingly. But he didn't.
I don't think Musk has the time to do background checks on every media person who wants to test-drive a vehicle. And the supposedly credible reputation of NYTimes may also have led him to trust Broder. In his blog post however he admits that he made a mistake there.
>> Good thing Musk is willing to "stand up to them" given that he's the truly unbiased one in this situation, right?
Fair enough, but let's not pretend that now that this reporter is in the spot light for possibly fabricating a story, his career isn't on the line. He (also) has every incentive to be extremely unbiased in his own defense.
