3 thoughts on “NYTimes v. Tesla Motors (Round 3): Broder responds to Musk”
Wrong sub-title. It should read, “More green on green violins.”
The car may be a brilliant piece of engineering, but until “idiot proofing” enters their lexicon they won’t displace current technology. Anybody that has driven very early cars (e.g. a Model T) can appreciate that the technology was an improvement over hitching up a team of horses to a wagon and navigating across the country, but it took no small amount of mechanical knowledge, physical strength, and basic understanding of a broad range of subjects to keep the car running.
I guarantee that if you drop the typical “driver” into anything more complicated than an “iPhone” they’ll be on the side of the road with some kind of problem by the end of the first full charge cycle.
Even if you stipulate that Musk is 100% right and Broder 100% wrong, it’s obviously a piece of crap car.
Leave a Reply
Discover more from JunkScience.com
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
Wrong sub-title. It should read, “More green on green violins.”
The car may be a brilliant piece of engineering, but until “idiot proofing” enters their lexicon they won’t displace current technology. Anybody that has driven very early cars (e.g. a Model T) can appreciate that the technology was an improvement over hitching up a team of horses to a wagon and navigating across the country, but it took no small amount of mechanical knowledge, physical strength, and basic understanding of a broad range of subjects to keep the car running.
I guarantee that if you drop the typical “driver” into anything more complicated than an “iPhone” they’ll be on the side of the road with some kind of problem by the end of the first full charge cycle.
Even if you stipulate that Musk is 100% right and Broder 100% wrong, it’s obviously a piece of crap car.