Mr Stross appears to be on a mission not to have his content reflect anything other then the tone of that sensationalism title of the article. I investigated his bio, he has written a lot of books, mostly technology related. And he is no stranger to Silicon Valley, which makes me wonder if he is playing out some personal vendetta against the people behind Tesla.

How about the American government making sweetheart deals with the oil industry so that the diesel fuel available in the United States isn't compatible with any of the many fuel efficient automobiles in use all over the world. What would that title be? "Only the Poor/Middle Class & Rich Can Afford It. Should the Collusion Between the Oil Industry & the Government Back It?" Or how about the American government turning a blind eye (or even worse) as the oil giants snapped up many of the patents for battery technology over the last decade so nobody can innovate with them? Is it possible Tesla's initial round of funding would have gotten them a bit of traction if they would have had access to some of this battery technology? This technology that already exists but is being squandered thanks to big oil? What would Mr Stross have used as a title for that one? "Only Everyone Will Be Able To Afford It. But It Is Not In The Best Interest Of The Oil Conglomerates, Should Anybody In Power Bother With It?"

Grow some balls Randall.... what happened to the NYT?