* Posts by protection money

1 post • joined 16 Feb 2013

Tesla's Elon Musk v The New York Times, Round 2

protection money

Re: The Balance Of Evidence

"Musk's rebuttal (...) is very clearly supported by graphically presented, factual data,"

You seem to be blinded by "not contestable evidences".

You don't know how these data were produced, if they were tampered, and more importantly, how to understand them.

A specific point which makes me sympathetic to the journalist (for a time, since is not usual of me) :

Musk says the battery was "never ran out of charge".

However, Broder says that "the car spontaneously shut itself down anyway and had to be towed", a fact which has been confirmed by the towing company.

That the battery system preserves a minimum level of charge in order to remain rechargeable is a technical detail. As a conceptor of the vehicle, Musk knows full well the difference between "there is not an electron left in the battery" and "the car shut itself down". For any normal being, the second sentence is equivalent to "my battery ran out of charge", while the first is equivalent to "my battery is flat dead".

That Musk tried to tamper evidence interpretations by deliberately mixing distorded technical details tells a lot about its mood and honesty.

This makes me look all other elements of his "not contestable evidence" with a bit of scepticism.

Besides, Tesla is known for aggressively suing any media company which does not say nice things about them. Ask BBC, ask "Top Gear". They even sue their own users when they have a bad experience and tend to be too vocal on public forums. Musk also attempted to "erase from history" one of Tesla co-founders and went to court on this. This is a terrible pattern, and tells a lot about the company's mind.



Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017