3 ms·

No, I think Broder was describing with words and memory an experience he had with the car and it was probably as accurate as any mortal could write. Our brains

by chimi 14y ago

No, I think Broder was describing with words and memory an experience he had with the car and it was probably as accurate as any mortal could write. Our brains aren't designed to log data like a car. When I read the article and looked at the chart, I could completely believe Broder's recollection of the events. Humans are fallible. Broder may have made some mistakes with the precision of his account, but it doesn't make him a liar. It makes him human and when we consider changing the world, we have to understand that our personal experience with the change is relevant. The important point from the article is that, even with professional help, it's still difficult to fit an electric car in a gas car world. That's a reality. That doesn't mean we don't keep moving forward.

waterlesscloud 14y ago
If he doesn't remember with precision, that's fine. Of course. Report it that way. Simple standard. What isn't fine is reporting precision that doesn't exist. The point of such is to strengthen his reporting in ways it doesn't deserve. That's dishonest. Giving a reporter a pass on that kind of thing is not the way we should go. He's not some casual person casually telling a story to a friend. He's reporting, in "the newspaper of record", and as facts, details that he doesn't have. I honestly don't care one way or the other about Tesla. It's a long way from ready for mass use. But I do care that reporters make up facts they don't have. That matters.
- cremnob 14y ago
  Why are Elon's defenders hung up on this? It's a red herring. The car performed terribly in cold weather. That's the point. Elon accused Broder of faking the review and it's been clear that was the distraction he wanted from the beginning.
  - ericd 14y ago
    Because it doesn't perform terribly if you're not incompetent in how you use it, but that's not the picture that the NY Times article put into everyone's minds, and that's a very large problem for Tesla. It requires that you plug it in at night, and that you charge it to have a longer range than your total trip distance, and add a little range to that if you know you're going to use power for things like the cabin heater. Every Tesla owner is well aware of this before they start driving it, and it's pretty much in line with other battery powered devices, and so should be intuitive to anyone who's very familiar with a laptop. There are a good number of owners in much colder climates who are using theirs quite happily, and don't feel it performs terribly in cold weather. The NY Times has a responsibility to portray things accurately, because they have a huge amount of power. It's not acceptable to have a casual attitude towards factual accuracy in that line of work.
  - therobot24 14y ago
    "If he doesn't remember with precision, that's fine. Of course. Report it that way. Simple standard. What isn't fine is reporting precision that doesn't exist." "Why are Elon's defenders hung up on this? It's a red herring." I don't see how it's fine to just push blatant dishonesty to the side..yea it's understandable for people not to remember with precision - which is why journalists/reviewers take notes. We as the reader accept that when a journalist presents (and later defends) precise numbers that are put toward their argument that there is some basis of accuracy to it. When logs show up refuting these claimed accuracies then you start to wonder where else have similar things been 'skewed'.

by chimi 14y ago

waterlesscloud 14y ago

If he doesn't remember with precision, that's fine. Of course. Report it that way. Simple standard. What isn't fine is reporting precision that doesn't exist. The point of such is to strengthen his reporting in ways it doesn't deserve. That's dishonest. Giving a reporter a pass on that kind of thing is not the way we should go. He's not some casual person casually telling a story to a friend. He's reporting, in "the newspaper of record", and as facts, details that he doesn't have. I honestly don't care one way or the other about Tesla. It's a long way from ready for mass use. But I do care that reporters make up facts they don't have. That matters.

cremnob 14y ago
Why are Elon's defenders hung up on this? It's a red herring. The car performed terribly in cold weather. That's the point. Elon accused Broder of faking the review and it's been clear that was the distraction he wanted from the beginning.
- ericd 14y ago
  Because it doesn't perform terribly if you're not incompetent in how you use it, but that's not the picture that the NY Times article put into everyone's minds, and that's a very large problem for Tesla. It requires that you plug it in at night, and that you charge it to have a longer range than your total trip distance, and add a little range to that if you know you're going to use power for things like the cabin heater. Every Tesla owner is well aware of this before they start driving it, and it's pretty much in line with other battery powered devices, and so should be intuitive to anyone who's very familiar with a laptop. There are a good number of owners in much colder climates who are using theirs quite happily, and don't feel it performs terribly in cold weather. The NY Times has a responsibility to portray things accurately, because they have a huge amount of power. It's not acceptable to have a casual attitude towards factual accuracy in that line of work.
- therobot24 14y ago
  "If he doesn't remember with precision, that's fine. Of course. Report it that way. Simple standard. What isn't fine is reporting precision that doesn't exist." "Why are Elon's defenders hung up on this? It's a red herring." I don't see how it's fine to just push blatant dishonesty to the side..yea it's understandable for people not to remember with precision - which is why journalists/reviewers take notes. We as the reader accept that when a journalist presents (and later defends) precise numbers that are put toward their argument that there is some basis of accuracy to it. When logs show up refuting these claimed accuracies then you start to wonder where else have similar things been 'skewed'.