4 ms·
Why is it troubling?
by p1esk 3y ago
Why is it troubling?
- lucideer 3y agoBecause it's obvious enough that those who aren't experts in that field can easily point it out. That a supposed expert in the field missed it raises concerns by proxy about their expertise in general.
- jjulius 3y agoAnd it's not at all possible that someone making a blog post forgot to put the word "passenger" before "ICE" there?
- enragedcacti 3y agothe big mistake isn't missing "passenger", its claiming that 100% of vehicles on the road will be BEV when the regulation says 100% of sales will be BEV. The average age of cars on the road is about 10 years so a substantial number of vehicles will still be ICE in California in 2035.
- jjulius 3y agoEh, I got the word wrong (switch it to "sales") but it doesn't really change my point.
- lucideer 3y agoThe sentence is talking about full switchover- that doesn't happen with sales bans. It's not a missing word, no matter what way you want to try and frame it. The sentence is written as intended.
- p1esk 3y agoSo it’s ok to have a ban on new ICE vehicles, when half of existing vehicles are still ICE?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- thrwayaistartup 3y agothe obvious: the manager is being sloppy. Whether they are correct or not is irrelevant; thinking and writing clearly about these issues is literally this person's entire day job. A sloppy report is the tip of an iceberg of sloppier thinking. The conspiracy: the manager has an axe to grind that aligns with incumbent auto-makers' business strengths, suggesting that the analysis is debased in one way or another. The "mind explodes": the manager is talking their book; behind the manager is a team using mountains of data to design messages that optimally push the market in the direction they want. The purpose of the message is not to be logically coherent to nerds on the internet. The point is to convince a few portfolio managers to behave in one way or another, and perhaps also to signal sentiment analysis algos.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]