3 ms·

> You ignored clear text from me saying that it didn't necessarily indicate GM was at fault. What am I supposed to infer from that? I didn't ignore anything.

by rnovak 11y ago

> You ignored clear text from me saying that it didn't necessarily indicate GM was at fault. What am I supposed to infer from that? I didn't ignore anything. I said the source of data is not irrelevant. That's my entire argument. And I was specifically refuting your thesis that the source of data is irrelevant. and, "as to the matter at hand", yes, driver habits can account entirely for the discrepancy in numbers. Flawed data can account for it. Poor sampling can as well. The report seems to have come from a self reporting site in the EU. Are you asserting that a US car manufacturer has sold a uniform distribution of make/model/engine cars across the globe? Are you also asserting that this site is getting a proper randomized sample of the car-buying population, such that they don't all have a similar complaint? In my experience, the people who report such things are one of two cases 1) Extremely Satisfied, or the much more common 2) Extremely Dissatisfied. Are you then also asserting that if GM optimizes for test conditions, which they believe to be similar to normal driving habits, that their engines would be optimized to perform well under conditions that people actually drive in? That's just sloppy. That's like comparing data from your Dev environment to that from Production, I believe there have been a few academic articles to refute that as well. But, ultimately, are you asserting that we should just accept the source of data as a source of truth, and never question whether or not that it's valid? Should I just go buy a bunch of tabloids and take that as my "new news", since.....the source is irrelevant, right?

kbenson 11y ago
> And I was specifically refuting your thesis that the source of data is irrelevant. Please stop trying to tell me what my thesis is, as you've misunderstood my statements. The portion of the comment I was responding to is "In my anecdotal experience, drivers tend to get much lower than the manufacturer mileage because they optimize for things other than fuel economy (e.g., speed)." That, by itself, is irrelevant to the question as to why one manufacturer has vastly different numbers than another. As to testing methodologies, yes, this could entirely be testing error. I've never stated my opposition to that possibility. I have repeatedly stated my only intention was to say these numbers need more investigation. I'm done trying to discuss this with someone who ignores what I actually state in favor of what they decide I must be implying.
- rnovak 11y ago
  Oh for christs sake, if your statements are misunderstand-able, there's a word for that: ambiguous, something I already pointed out. This entire argument would have been over had you clarified what you thought was irrelevant, instead of arguing over stupid minutia. Now that you clarified, I actually agree with your point, that the data points need to be investigated.

by rnovak 11y ago

kbenson 11y ago

> And I was specifically refuting your thesis that the source of data is irrelevant. Please stop trying to tell me what my thesis is, as you've misunderstood my statements. The portion of the comment I was responding to is "In my anecdotal experience, drivers tend to get much lower than the manufacturer mileage because they optimize for things other than fuel economy (e.g., speed)." That, by itself, is irrelevant to the question as to why one manufacturer has vastly different numbers than another. As to testing methodologies, yes, this could entirely be testing error. I've never stated my opposition to that possibility. I have repeatedly stated my only intention was to say these numbers need more investigation. I'm done trying to discuss this with someone who ignores what I actually state in favor of what they decide I must be implying.

rnovak 11y ago
Oh for christs sake, if your statements are misunderstand-able, there's a word for that: ambiguous, something I already pointed out. This entire argument would have been over had you clarified what you thought was irrelevant, instead of arguing over stupid minutia. Now that you clarified, I actually agree with your point, that the data points need to be investigated.