Comment by peterisza | Hacker News Reader

Comment by peterisza | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

How old is the Taycan? Less than a decade.

How old is the Model S? More than a decade.

Which one managed to fix the icon problem? The Model S.

What did Porsche do about this "safety problem"? Nothing.

What did the media suggest? That Teslas are unsafe.

Why did I spam the comment section? Because I want more people to see an objective comparison instead of just the sensationalism of these articles.

Why am I shilling for Tesla? Because I think it is a good company.

Explain not being forced -- I think you understand. They could have filed that petition like all the others. Conclude that it doesn't pose risk and just not fix it. (Btw I think the old icons were better.)

Regarding the old vs. new tech analogy -- exactly! Tesla can (and does) remotely make their cars safer. And not just icons but crash safety as well (see the linked video). This is a huge safety benefit.

I think only Tesla and BYD have the level of vertical integration that makes it possible to improve the drive/crash characteristics over the air. Others rely too much on suppliers. Car manufacturers usually don't have access to the proprietary firmware running on parts that they get from suppliers.

Regarding the media: this update is not newsworthy. Just like how you didn't know about Porsche's petition, you shouldn't know about this software update either.

If they wanted to write an article about it anyway, it should be about how Tesla managed to fix an issue no other automaker could fix.

That's a different argument. I agree the news is sensationalist. The point is about process control, not "TSLA vs. Whomever" or sensationalist media. You're hijacking the discussion to shoehorn in your pet peeve rants. Please don't.

All your points have been defeated.

1. You said this icon problem suggests bad process control. Turns out Tesla's process control isn't worse than Porsche's process control, and Porsche produces the highest quality cars. In fact, it is better because Tesla fixed the problem and Porsche couldn't.

2. You said Tesla was forced. Turns out no manufacturer was forced to fix this.

End of debate.

This isn’t Reddit and this isn’t the way to have a HN conversation.

Your first point is only valid if you frame it as “Tesla vs Everybody”. I’ve explained multiple times why that’s not the point I’m making. Other manufacturers can be wrong too, and that doesn’t mean Tesla has good process control. They can be the skinniest kid at fat camp, but that doesn’t mean they’re fit.

Tesla was forced. You constrained this to mean “forced to fix it.” I did not. “Forced to address it” can take many forms, including redesign, waiver etc. People who know quality control understand this.

It’s pretty obvious you aren’t being intellectually curious but trying to “win” a debate. This probably isn’t the best forum for you. Please stop making the discussion worse by refusing to have good-faith arguments.

End of “debate.”

Here's what I replied to: 'Tesla was still forced into making the fix.'

Tesla is clearly better here than the others, but the media portrays it as if it was worse.

The media is so biased against Tesla it is not even funny. This is a problem. This is why the "Tesla vs. others" frame is worth discussing. The fact that others had the same problem but couldn't fix it is indeed a very important detail.

Also, instead of discussing the processes at Tesla, don't you think we should be discussing the processes in the media? Because this article is so misleading, it makes people believe the opposite of the truth. What about the quality of the other articles about other things? Are they any better?

>Here's what I replied to: 'Tesla was still forced into making the fix.'

And waaay back to the top comment in this discussion, I explained that "forced" is a nuanced term. And yet you plowed ahead with your preformed narrative, ignoring that original point. If that's the phrase you're hung up on, you've been debating the wrong person.

The media is fickle. 5ish years ago, they couldn't write enough about how great Tesla was, even though a lot of it was hype. Just like now they like to deride them, even though it's probably unfair. It's a NY Post article and not exactly considered the pinnacle of objective journalism. A savvy reader will take the narrative with a grain of salt.

>the media portrays it as if it was worse.

The only comparison I saw in the article was to BYD, which isn't even a competitor in the US. It seems like you're reading into your own pre-conceived narrative here. You aren't wrong for wailing about how sensationalist the media is, but I'm left wondering if you were doing the same when Tesla was portrayed as darling a few years back? Regardless, you are proving that this type of reporting gets attention just as it's intended, and you play into it by getting outraged, so that makes you part of the problem. It's better to focus on the actual issues, like process control, than sensationalism.

Honestly, I can't remember that darling phase because I have only been following Tesla since 2019. When was it? I remember reading about Tesla fires (which are in fact rarer than ICE fires), I remember my coworkers telling me Tesla's going bankrupt because Elon Musk smoked weed, etc.

By the way, by portraying Tesla as worse than the others, I didn't mean it explicitly in the article. More like the fact that Porsche, Hyundai, etc. didn't get the same treatment from the media for facing the exact same problem which then they couldn't even fix. (And also not mentioning this tiny detail that the icon-problem is not unique to Tesla.)

I know this is only one piece of news. However, I see this as an overarching pattern. I saw so many low-quality articles about Tesla that I even stopped reading the news completely for a while! I can show you many. If you are interested, here's a recent one: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-07/tesla-sol.... This, again, while technically true, is awfully misleading. Tesla had one car sale in South Korea in January 2022, 2023 and now 2024. This is because there are no incentives for EVs in January, which is why people wait until February to buy in the country. It is paywalled, but I am sure the truth, which invalidates the article's very reason for existence, is buried deep somewhere at the end. Or is it?

Sounds like you're trying to "debate" someone who thinks the media isn't biased. That's not me, mate. I had a different point altogether.

Why does this so often get highlighted so strongly as a "tesla vs. everybody" frame? It makes it look like you're tilting at windmills and missing the point.

I'm sorry, the first car brought up was the 2016 CTS-V. I didn't sit through the entire 20 min video. I don't think the Cadillac is a good comparison; I don't know enough about the others to comment.

Just because they decided to change the design rather than submit an non-compliance does not mean they weren't "forced." It means they were caught by a regulator, and did not fix the issue of their own accord. By your logic, I'm not "forced" to pay a speeding ticket because I pay the fine rather than fight it out in court. It could easily be that the fix is just easier than the process of risk-based compliance.

Again, please stop spanning comments. It makes the discussion worse and your point easier to dismiss as being the rantings of someone with an axe to grind instead of a rational argument.

Good question. I wonder what you think. Why does this so often get highlighted so strongly as a "tesla vs. everybody" frame?

Because people’s psychological gets hijacked by sensationalist media while simultaneously lamenting about sensationalist media. Ironic that your railing against it proves that it works. It’s a distraction from more important issues.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com