4 ms·

While we now get accusations and nice graphs, as long as we don't get provably unaltered source log files, we'll never know who is right. Even if Tesla were to

by pilif 14y ago

While we now get accusations and nice graphs, as long as we don't get provably unaltered source log files, we'll never know who is right. Even if Tesla were to release the log files used to create the graphs, it would still be impossible for them to prove that the logs weren't being altered prior to release. It seems to me that either the reviewer or Tesla (or both) is playing unfairly here, but it's impossible to say who. Instead of coming to articles linked here and commenting how clearly the party not currently defending themselves must have been wrong, lets just just ignore this mud flinging contest and move on.

stcredzero 14y ago
> While we now get accusations and nice graphs, as long as we don't get provably unaltered source log files, we'll never know who is right. What!? Piffle! There's this powerful tool scientists use called replicability. Just have some other journalists make the same trip as stated by John Broder in the article and compare. 3rd parties can also try to replicate the same result achieved by Broder, using the log information as published by Tesla. > Instead of coming to articles linked here and commenting how clearly the party not currently defending themselves must have been wrong, lets just just ignore this mud flinging contest and move on. My money's on Elon Musk. I'm pretty sure his world view is compatible with mine. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5204109 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5204109 "Move along" would only be an effective damage control strategy for John Broder.
michaelgrafl 14y ago
That there are two sides of a story doesn't mean that they're equally likely to be true. I'd wager my house for a donut that Tesla's data is closer to the truth than the vitriol spewed by a guy who's had nothing but bad things to say about electric cars in the past.
lutusp 14y ago
> Even if Tesla were to release the log files used to create the graphs, it would still be impossible for them to prove that the logs weren't being altered prior to release. Think about what you're saying. If the logs were reported dishonestly, someone in Tesla could (and would) make a million dollars by being a "public-spirited" whistleblower. A secret plan to twist the truth about an automatically-generated computer log would eventually unravel. In modern times, there are few truly secret secrets. I can think of just one exception -- where Jimmy Hoffa is buried. But that example only proves that someone was paid more to keep quiet than he would be paid to speak up. > It seems to me that either the reviewer or Tesla (or both) is playing unfairly here, but it's impossible to say who. On the contrary, I think this release shows who was telling the truth. Especially because Broder now has the option to sue Tesla and Musk for defamation of character -- if he dares.
ghshephard 14y ago
"lets just just ignore this mud flinging contest and move on." Let's not. Let's re-run the trip with an actual impartial (neither booster, nor someone out to perform a hatchet job) driver in similar conditions and see how it works out.
demallien 14y ago
Who do you trust more - an engineering company with runs on the board, with multiple good reviews of their product, and a CEO known for attention to detail, or a journalist with a known previous bias against electrical cars? Whilst we will never be 100% sure, I think that Tesla have proven their point beyond reasonable doubt.
- smackfu 14y ago
  That's a silly way to frame it when one side has a clear motive to make the product look good and the other side has no clear motive to make it look bad.
gdeglin 14y ago
Even if you ignore Tesla's side of the story, the NYTimes infographic that was supplied with the article contradicts the contents of the article itself. The article explicitly states that the car fell short of range estimates on the final day, but the infographic clearly shows that the car was driven 51 miles on 32 miles of charge. That detail alone might be excusable as an error, except when you account for all the other variations between the story and the infographic. For example, why did the journalist decide to drive out of Manhattan to a destination that was 73 miles away when the car reported only 79 miles of range left? Why would he claim that Tesla gave him the go-ahead to drive from Norwich to Milford with half the required range remaining. It just doesn't add up.

by pilif 14y ago

stcredzero 14y ago

> While we now get accusations and nice graphs, as long as we don't get provably unaltered source log files, we'll never know who is right. What!? Piffle! There's this powerful tool scientists use called replicability. Just have some other journalists make the same trip as stated by John Broder in the article and compare. 3rd parties can also try to replicate the same result achieved by Broder, using the log information as published by Tesla. > Instead of coming to articles linked here and commenting how clearly the party not currently defending themselves must have been wrong, lets just just ignore this mud flinging contest and move on. My money's on Elon Musk. I'm pretty sure his world view is compatible with mine. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5204109 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5204109 "Move along" would only be an effective damage control strategy for John Broder.

michaelgrafl 14y ago

That there are two sides of a story doesn't mean that they're equally likely to be true. I'd wager my house for a donut that Tesla's data is closer to the truth than the vitriol spewed by a guy who's had nothing but bad things to say about electric cars in the past.

lutusp 14y ago

> Even if Tesla were to release the log files used to create the graphs, it would still be impossible for them to prove that the logs weren't being altered prior to release. Think about what you're saying. If the logs were reported dishonestly, someone in Tesla could (and would) make a million dollars by being a "public-spirited" whistleblower. A secret plan to twist the truth about an automatically-generated computer log would eventually unravel. In modern times, there are few truly secret secrets. I can think of just one exception -- where Jimmy Hoffa is buried. But that example only proves that someone was paid more to keep quiet than he would be paid to speak up. > It seems to me that either the reviewer or Tesla (or both) is playing unfairly here, but it's impossible to say who. On the contrary, I think this release shows who was telling the truth. Especially because Broder now has the option to sue Tesla and Musk for defamation of character -- if he dares.

ghshephard 14y ago

"lets just just ignore this mud flinging contest and move on." Let's not. Let's re-run the trip with an actual impartial (neither booster, nor someone out to perform a hatchet job) driver in similar conditions and see how it works out.

demallien 14y ago

Who do you trust more - an engineering company with runs on the board, with multiple good reviews of their product, and a CEO known for attention to detail, or a journalist with a known previous bias against electrical cars? Whilst we will never be 100% sure, I think that Tesla have proven their point beyond reasonable doubt.

smackfu 14y ago
That's a silly way to frame it when one side has a clear motive to make the product look good and the other side has no clear motive to make it look bad.

gdeglin 14y ago

Even if you ignore Tesla's side of the story, the NYTimes infographic that was supplied with the article contradicts the contents of the article itself. The article explicitly states that the car fell short of range estimates on the final day, but the infographic clearly shows that the car was driven 51 miles on 32 miles of charge. That detail alone might be excusable as an error, except when you account for all the other variations between the story and the infographic. For example, why did the journalist decide to drive out of Manhattan to a destination that was 73 miles away when the car reported only 79 miles of range left? Why would he claim that Tesla gave him the go-ahead to drive from Norwich to Milford with half the required range remaining. It just doesn't add up.