3 ms·
It's just tiresome. You know the cars are safe. You want to say they're unsafe. But you can't, because they're safe. So you're yelling about what amounts to
by ajross 4y ago
It's just tiresome. You know the cars are safe. You want to say they're unsafe. But you can't, because they're safe. So you're yelling about what amounts to marketing strategy.
Which, fine. Everyone does bad marketing, there's lots to yell about. Maybe consider yelling about the deceptive marketing practices of a product you do use? There are lots to choose from.
- ra7 4y ago"Our cars are safe" "Show us unbiased data proving it" "If it were unsafe, we would know" Sigh. I own a Tesla and use FSD, but thanks for assuming.
- ajross 4y agoThey did show the data. You want to throw the data out instead of believing it. Nitpicks aren't winning arguments, and you know that. I'm saying that if you want to argue with someone's data, you need to argue with data and not just that some different experiment would be better. What the linked article is doing is just excuse-making, basically.
- ra7 4y agoHuh, what? It's completely reasonable to question the methodology. That's not nitpicking. I get it. You want to take the data at face value without questioning anything.
- ajross 4y agoTo be blunt: I don't take your words here to be a dispassionate "questioning of methodology". If that was your goal, you would at least nod to the numbers and the clear fact that even if the measurements were confounded they probably point to a safe system. I'm not saying take it at face value at all. I'm happy to discuss methodology and to admit that the numbers on Tesla's site amount to something closer to marketing than science. But nonetheless, the cars remain safe. This methodology would have to be outrageously confounded to produce a result like this for an unsafe car, and you know it.