5 ms·

It’s hard to take anything Ben says seriously anymore. He uses his platform to shill Apple and trash Tesla all the time. This time it only took one sentence bef

• mamby 9y ago
  True; he trash everything not apple: tesla, MS, etc. without verifiable evidence ...
• mingyeow 9y ago
  You can judge the post on its own merit - I do think a number of fairly legit and decent points were brought up.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• melling 9y ago
  “but Tesla has yet to build a machine that can manufacture Model 3s efficiently, reliable, quickly and at quality at the scale of the incumbent car industry. ” People love to call out the Model 3, but Tesla makes almost 2,000 cars a week. They obviously are having a problem with the battery for it. As a general problem, they are past making a few hundred cars a quarter.
  • carlmr 9y ago
    >People love to call out the Model 3, but Tesla makes almost 2,000 cars a week. They obviously are having a problem with the battery for it. As a general problem, they are past making a few hundred cars a quarter. They always overpromised by a few months. It's been a pattern since the start. Apart from the delay they have delivered on their promises after a while. I mean you can think of their estimations what you want. It could be a bit too much optimism (although can there be too much optimism for a startup?), it could be a marketing tactic. But they've consistently beaten the skeptics until now.
    • ajford 9y ago
      > They always overpromised by a few months. It's been a pattern since the start. I think this is an endemic problem with Elon Musk himself. He's always very optimistic about all his ventures (Tesla, SpaceX, SpaceX's Texas launch facility, Hyperloop...). He seems to have issues with estimating real-world issues that creep into every project. However, like you said, he does always seem to get there in the end, one way or another.
      • maherbeg 9y ago
        I like to say Elon over promises and eventually delivers.
    • greglindahl 9y ago
      It's kind of fun: Tesla pulled in the mass manufacturing date of Model 3 to 6 months earlier, is late, and is ahead of the original schedule. Everyone complains.
  • dangoor 9y ago
    I think the statement as quoted still works, right? 2,000 cars a week is not approaching the scale of the incumbent car industry. It's too early to tell how the Model 3's reliability stacks up.
• skc 9y ago
  On Twitter he mercilessly blocks anyone who challenges his view on any topic.
  • stevenj 9y ago
    I've long believed that you should be most critical of things you believe in the greatest.
• module0000 9y ago
  Why should we read what he writes or take him seriously? Is he another kiddie with a blog or someone with intellect and accomplishments which command respect?
• perseusprime11 9y ago
  Well, he is great at using numbers to tell stories that everybody already knows.
• mdemare 9y ago
  Oh yeah? https://twitter.com/BenedictEvans/status/938112396668805121 https://twitter.com/BenedictEvans/status/938112396668805121
• jayliew 9y ago
  Ad hominem
  • AJRF 9y ago
    Nice strawman. His one-sidedness clouds his commentary.
    • tomsthumb 9y ago
      It does not, on its own, make him wrong in this case. I don't feel like putting in the effort to figure out if this presentation of "strawman" is meta-ironic in that it is itself a strawman, but I can't tell that it isn't.
    • jayliew 9y ago
      Your comment, which I responded to as "ad hominem" (please look it up), literally has zero substance to challenge the author's position. That, is my case, that that you committed an ad hominem fallacy. Now, you said I straw-man'd you. Care to substantiate?
      • AJRF 9y ago
        > "please look it up" Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear
  • Nomentatus 9y ago
    Reference to personal characteristics that go to the probity (honesty), memory or capacity for logical thought of the speaker are NOT an ad hominen fallacy. "He is a pathological liar, convicted of perjury, you can't trust his 'facts.'" is NOT an ad hominem fallacy. "He is a rapist/teenager/Republican, I wouldn't put any faith in his numbers." WOULD BE an ad hominem fallacy. To quote Wikipedia, which you may not have read before typing, despite your advising others to "look it up": "However, in some cases, ad hominem attacks can be non-fallacious; i.e., if the attack on the character of the person is directly tackling the argument itself." I.E. the personal characteristics cited do impune the argument. A consistent history of blind rejection or enthusiasm is a characteristic that does impune the veracity of the argument, since the world isn't really like that. (Proof not necessary since relevance is what is in question.) That is, manic-depressive characteristics on the part of the speaker obviously do affect the probability that an statement or argument is true and raising them as relevant is thus not fallacious. False, quite possibly, but not fallacious or irrelevant. Yours is a now very common misapprehension of "ad hominem", I've contradicted it here before. I am unsure where it comes from, except perhaps an exaggerated modern "amour propre," since this criticism can be used to deflect various forms of personal criticisms even when directly to the point. I may be wrong but I think this error is quite modern, I don't remember encountering it decades ago, ever. But then, this technical phrase may not have been in common parlance at that time. I would give you this much: a false call of "ad hominem" is technically a red herring (via a false claim), rather than a straw man; since straw men arguments distort, then reject/disprove/falsify others claims; whereas you outright rejected their claim as irrelevant (rather than untrue) with no distortion of the meaning of the other's words (only distortion of the relevance of his words or the meaning of your own words - namely ad hominem) being necessary for that trick.