https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6499111
Musk argued that TSLA was 5x less likely than a petrol car to catch fire on the freeway. That math does not hold up. At the time, TSLA was approximately equally (1x) likely to catch fire under these circumstances. Given two more datapoints, that data is now TSLA is 3x more likely to catch fire, not 5x less likely than a standard car in a fwy accident.
That actually seems like news.
________
82. Tesla: Third Model S fire ...(cnet.com)
32 points by .... 1 hour ago | flag | 68 comments
^^^That has to be a joke.
__________
"For consumers concerned about fire risk, there should be absolutely zero doubt that it is safer to power a car with a battery than a large tank of highly flammable liquid," Tesla CEO Elon Musk wrote on a company blog in early October.
The greates example of "the level of bias and falsehood in the article" seems to be this gem. The rest of the posted article is just a news report on the existence of a fire with a link to a picture.[1]
[1] compare: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-28/tesla-says-model-s-... The CNET guy is not guilty of selectively reading safety reports and pushing misleading stats to the public. That language was a quote from Tesla...
Ditto.
I was not talking about this particulate article( i should have added suffix s to article ), but just my opinion why some articles are quickly flagged of the site.
While I may be wrong on this one, it is still my honest opinion, and I would prefer less aggressive approach in my replyers.