Hacker News Reader

Comment by DennisP | Hacker News Reader

So at first glance this is based on an anonymous second-hand source, and written on the substack of a self-described Tesla short seller. How seriously should we take this?

I'll note that in another article[1], the author claimed that the delay in GigaMexico would push the next-gen model to 2027 and possibly bankrupt the company. According to Isaacson's Musk bio, Tesla moved initial production of the vehicle to Austin so their new production line and their engineers for the car would be in the same place.

[1] https://bradmunchen.substack.com/p/teslas-next-gen-model-may...

View on HN

None. It's hearsay without any corroboration or sources, even for the statements that could be fact-checked (like state subsidies).

Just because it's from a self-described short seller doesn't mean it's not factually true.

Short sellers obviously are incentivized to be uncharitable and focus on the negatives, but that also serves to bring the negatives to light where they might otherwise stay buried.

We benefit from hearing both sides, especially if we're holding TSLA or considering trading.

this is mental gymnastics. i really think HN would be better with a reputation system so that posts like these will be checked for accuracy after the fact. accounts that accumulate tons of wrong predictions can be labeled and easily ignored. it would help with this problem where a huge wave of the same wrong opinion floods the comments and everyone else gets greyed out. why do we let wave after wave after wave happen without any accountability? like when half of HN confidently predicted twitter would crash… im not saying it was a bad guess but lets make it mean something to be wrong!

> i really think HN would be better with a reputation system so that posts like these will be checked for accuracy after the fact. accounts that accumulate tons of wrong predictions can be labeled and easily ignored. it would help with this problem where a huge wave of the same wrong opinion floods the comments and everyone else gets greyed out. why do we let wave after wave after wave happen without any accountability?

I don't understand what your point is - the accuracy in question is in a linked article submission, not an HN comment, no?

Which account would be getting labeled as such? The link submitter? I suspect that's too diversified to really be effective.

the article is an example of an opinion that often shows up in comments. it would make sense to have a rank based on the accuracy of the sentiments of your posted links as well as comments. all of this would be difficult to implement but thats besides the point.

for example, if a guy constantly posted articles that explain why EVs can never be viable, and he did that 2010 to 2020 then it would be nice to have some convenient way of knowing that this persons links are usually not very useful. and if a person posted a bunch of links about a specific therapy years before it became a breakthrough treatment then i would want his links pushed to the top…

Well, in lieu of a forum implementation automating that, you can already scrutinize a submitter's submission history via their profile.

In this particular case, it's their first and only submission, so what you're proposing would do absolutely nothing.

well, no. a reputation system could prevent poor predictors from hijacking threads, attenuate their moderation power, overall decrease the influence they have. and obviously that would take time to have an effect. im not sure how you could not understand that.

i dont understand why you bring up reading peoples comment history. thats totally unrelated

> i dont understand why you bring up reading peoples comment history. thats totally unrelated

Comment history != submission history.

Maybe I just plain don't understand what you're on about at all.

sentiments of comments and posts contributing to a rank… wow

Here's an idea: decide if you believe the article all on your own, through independent research or your gut.

i already do that. my gut cant stop thousands of idiots from greying good coments

> Just because it's from a self-described short seller doesn't mean it's not factually true.

"Not provably false" isn't the standard for believing anything either. Claims require evidence. Evidence requires corroboration, and where that's not possible it at the very least requires trust. Neither is present here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com