4 ms·
Be skeptical. But use engineering and science to evaluate the claims, not PR 'optics' thinking and analogies. Nikola was always an obvious fraud if you looked
by schiffern 4y ago
Be skeptical. But use engineering and science to evaluate the claims, not PR 'optics' thinking and analogies.
Nikola was always an obvious fraud if you looked at the technology. Tech claims demand tech analysis.
- tim333 4y agoWe are a bit lacking in data to use engineering and science. For me the biggest reason to take them seriously is their biggest investor, Sam Altman, believes in them and he's smart and presumably can see the data. Maybe they've conned him - who knows? Still I think they'll do ok.
- pfdietz 4y agoSo, refrain from reaching a judgment then? Or at least, use plausibility: try to imagine something that would rule out what they're claiming. If you can't, consider that moderate evidence that their claims are good.
- schiffern 4y agoThat doesn't prevent us from performing a technical (vs PR) "smell test." IMO Helion passes that test, unlike most fusion proposals. Commercial success is one of the possible outcomes.™ That's more than I can say for ITER et al.