From what I've heard, it's a grueling job working long hours and that people get burned out pretty quickly, which is a different issue from saying there are legal, safety, or ethical concerns.
No, none at all, that was my point. The departure of three execs in a week does not imply that it is a fast paced work environment nor does it imply safety issues.
If you’re going to make a claim like Tesla is “playing fast and loose with the rules and compromising safety, and they felt ethically compelled to leave,” its beholden upon you to provide evidence.
If your claim is you have no idea, then you can certainly make that claim which requires no evidence at all.
And we literally do have evidence of one of those things actually existing in the culture. Which tends to increase the plausibility of it being a cause.
The logical process of inductive reasoning uses specific examples of a behavior or event, to formulate more general hypothesis about wider phenomenon. To see specific examples of workplace culture and theorize that it could be resulting in greater executive turnover is a good example of inductive reasoning.
Making up a bad thing that you have zero evidence of happening and arguing it’s theoretically possible it could have been a cause of high executive turnover, therefore this other hypothesis should be dismissed... is simply not a reasoned argument.