3 ms·

If I was a butcher selling you a pound of meat, and "surprisingly" was shorting you 10% on a consistent basis, would you say I was just doing more aggressive ma

If I was a butcher selling you a pound of meat, and "surprisingly" was shorting you 10% on a consistent basis, would you say I was just doing more aggressive marketing than my competitors?

tlb 6y ago
Different industries have different standards. Hard disks are several % under advertised capacity. Audio amplifiers ratings are completely disconnected from reality. Packaged meat at places like Wal-Mart contain between 6 and 12% injected saline solution, so what you describe is already common practice.
xeromal 6y ago
EPA estimates are in no way equivalent to weight. lol. Bad analogy. Edit: Yeah, I messed up my point. I was just responding to OP that getting less meat than what you paid for at a store is not equivalent to not getting the EPA rated mileage on your car. No one can really reproduce the EPA range without going to the EPA's test area.
- jsight 6y ago
  In some ways they are. Run the test in one exact way and those are the results that you'd expect. Run it differently and the results will vary in fairly predictable ways too.
  - xeromal 6y ago
    Yeah, I messed up my point. I was just responding to OP that getting less meat than what you paid for at a store is equivalent to not getting the EPA rated mileage on your car. No one can really reproduce the EPA range without going to the EPA's test area.
    - jsight 6y ago
      To be fair, its easier than that. You can get a really close approximation just by using their speeds on a level closed track, ideally on a fair-weather day.
jsight 6y ago
No. The analogy would be that every butcher sells meat by the lb, but some include an extra .1 lb, and others include an extra .05 lb. And then a third party comes along and calls you deceptive because they measured yours at .9lb when measured on an airplane flying a parabolic trajectory, but the others still measured 1.0 lb. Which one was doing good marketing? The ones that gave you what you paid for? The ones that gave you a little extra? Or the ones that got lots of clicks for running a different test? Maybe they all were...
robbmorganf 6y ago
Haha, or e.g. "Welcome to our gas station. We're optimistic that you're getting the number of gallons that you paid for." But in reality I think the other responses get it right. I would say it's a marketing decision to publish the range in best case and worst case. In this case, the other automakers are publishing closer to the worst case or average case, while Tesla publishes best case. By comparison, the mass of meat doesn't really have a best or worst case (unless you market "our packaged meat weighs 1lb when travelling at 0.9c!!")

If I was a butcher selling you a pound of meat, and "surprisingly" was shorting you 10% on a consistent basis, would you say I was just doing more aggressive marketing than my competitors?

tlb 6y ago

Different industries have different standards. Hard disks are several % under advertised capacity. Audio amplifiers ratings are completely disconnected from reality. Packaged meat at places like Wal-Mart contain between 6 and 12% injected saline solution, so what you describe is already common practice.

xeromal 6y ago

EPA estimates are in no way equivalent to weight. lol. Bad analogy. Edit: Yeah, I messed up my point. I was just responding to OP that getting less meat than what you paid for at a store is not equivalent to not getting the EPA rated mileage on your car. No one can really reproduce the EPA range without going to the EPA's test area.

jsight 6y ago
In some ways they are. Run the test in one exact way and those are the results that you'd expect. Run it differently and the results will vary in fairly predictable ways too.
- xeromal 6y ago
  Yeah, I messed up my point. I was just responding to OP that getting less meat than what you paid for at a store is equivalent to not getting the EPA rated mileage on your car. No one can really reproduce the EPA range without going to the EPA's test area.
  - jsight 6y ago
    To be fair, its easier than that. You can get a really close approximation just by using their speeds on a level closed track, ideally on a fair-weather day.

jsight 6y ago

No. The analogy would be that every butcher sells meat by the lb, but some include an extra .1 lb, and others include an extra .05 lb. And then a third party comes along and calls you deceptive because they measured yours at .9lb when measured on an airplane flying a parabolic trajectory, but the others still measured 1.0 lb. Which one was doing good marketing? The ones that gave you what you paid for? The ones that gave you a little extra? Or the ones that got lots of clicks for running a different test? Maybe they all were...

robbmorganf 6y ago

Haha, or e.g. "Welcome to our gas station. We're optimistic that you're getting the number of gallons that you paid for." But in reality I think the other responses get it right. I would say it's a marketing decision to publish the range in best case and worst case. In this case, the other automakers are publishing closer to the worst case or average case, while Tesla publishes best case. By comparison, the mass of meat doesn't really have a best or worst case (unless you market "our packaged meat weighs 1lb when travelling at 0.9c!!")