Damage
fuckface
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2007
- Messages
- 13,642
- Reaction score
- 21,798
- Points
- 135
Not surprised to hear a big oil honk try to deflate accolades stemming from clean energy. Unfortunately, this is the society we live in. Big money can suppress a lot. What irks me is that clean energy is clearly something we need to keep pushing for as we can't depend on oil forever. Big oil wants us to depend on it forever, regardless of what the ramifications of having no oil left means. Great stuff that Musk had the facts from the vehicle to support his side of the argument. Fucking tool.
Here's the thing: they're both right & they're both wrong (they being Musk and Broder). The technology is brilliant and it is a game changer. Musk is the very type of innovator to pave the way for breakthroughs in technology. He's not some nameless person, working out of a basement, creating a water-run engine (not discrediting Stanley Meyer, as he was brilliant, but he wasn't as well known or as well funded as Musk is). So to discredit Tesla because it's essentially in the birth stage of the product life cycle is asinine.
However, Musk has to know that it is Broder's job to be 100% objective, even if Broder was not (not saying he wasn't, but those logs look damning). Point being, if you're going to throw the new Tesla S out there, you have to be aware of the negatives and the corresponding feedback. What Broder reported isn't new news: Musk has stated that they need a lot more charging stations. Again, one of his goals, along with making these cars much more affordable and for the charge to last longer, is to get them lined up across the U.S.
The biggest issue I have is the conflict of interest with Broder. Let's say he did do this test drive with an awesome, unbiased attitude. It doesn't matter because of the columns he's linked to. Bad job on Broder for accepting the assignment, worse job on NYTimes for assigning him (this is, unless, Musk handpicked him).