Please don't share seekingalpha articles. The site is known for poor-quality articles and highly biased authors.
Plus the article is using difficult to dispute numbers (average cost of gas, cost of electricity Tesla charges, and cost of both vehicle). So I guess when you run out of answers to the critique, just critique the messenger themselves instead, that way you never really have to address the point made.
Their analogy is a lot more apt than contrasting a new Tesla with a 2003 used vehicle. I don't think a contrived analogy nobody was making is a good argument for why the article's comparison shouldn't be made or discussed.
As to electrek, I strongly disagree their quality is "significantly higher." It isn't a good quality publication and is heavily biased.
Look, I like Toyota Hybrid technology. I had a Prius. But I can see when you leave out information that could potentially hurt your thesis. I don't know the maintenance costs of the Tesla vs the Toyota. But this certainly looks fishy to me. I wouldn't place my hands on fire for this guy as you do.
>a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive...
The headline is "Electricity Shock: Toyota Camry Cheaper To Fuel Than A Tesla Model 3".
Then the author assumes the Tesla will always be charged at an (expensive) supercharger.
The math checks out (as in: I assume the simple calculations are not incorrect). The author's assumptions/conclusions do not check out. And do not back up the sensationalist (and incorrect) headline.
My comment was not ad hominem. Not only because I did not attack a human.