Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by 001sky | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

001sky

Wow, thought police flagged this off the front page?

________

82. Tesla: Third Model S fire ...(cnet.com)

32 points by .... 1 hour ago | flag | 68 comments

View on HN

Criticisms of Tesla are quickly flagged off the front page

The real reason for flagging is not the supposed criticism, but the level of bias and falsehood in the article.

The real reason for flagging is not the supposed criticism, but the level of bias and falsehood in the article.

^^^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...

^^^That has to be a joke.

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.

Just to point out, the analysis I did above is the same anlaysis the Elon Musk did. It is using the same data. I just read his data source slightly more carefully. Then, the next step was just to reflect the news in this article. Nothing in what i just described contradicts your "opinion why some articles are quickly flagged of the site." The issue at hand is your premise is false. The article is a simple news story with a singular data point: what was (1) is now (3). We don't need to do any hand-wavy analysis. We just stick in these numbers and we have a pretty glaring inconsistency. Its not "a bias and falshood" because it uses the same framework (so no bias is added) with a single observed data point that nobody is debating (so no falshood).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com