[Aqueous]

Sorry, but in what world do sales of electric cars going up and market share of electric vehicles increasing lead to the thesis that "fewer people are buying electric cars?"

Oh - I get it. It's the world where this publication wants clicks for ad revenue.

"Sure, electric vehicles are becoming more and more widely adopted, but wouldn't it be better for this article if they weren't?"

[charles_f]

The actual title of the article is "What happened to EVs" and the page title is "Why America's electric car push isn't working". I don't know where the HN title is coming from, whether it's an update of the article's title because of precisely what you're advancing, or if it's heavy editing from the submitter.

Generally speaking the article exposes that the pace of adoption as stated by DoT didn't grow enough to meet their 2030 goal (i.e. The second derivative is going down), and goes on to explain why.

I think the article is fair, I think its title also is, I think the HN title is problematic unless you slap "than required to meet 2030 goals".

[ericjmorey]

Business Insider subsequently changed the subtitle to another false statement as well.

[Aqueous]

So "the fewer people are buying electric cars" canard is still living in a caption under the banner: "Fewer people are buying electric cars — the slowdown hints at a problem at the heart of America's EV push."

[pavon]

The article title matched the HN title when I first viewed the story yesterday.

[hinkley]

We’ve come full circle to Hearst and Pulitzer duking it out for the title of world’s richest liar.

Alfred Nobel at least felt guilty for introducing high explosives to warfare. The prize was his penance.

Everything I learn about Pulitzer says he’s a piece of shit, and I don’t know why anyone would want to win a prize named after either of those two oligarchs. But it does say something very on the nose about the epicycles in news reporting.

[buzzert]

Two quotes you can read between the lines for:

> Instead of seeing EVs as one piece of a plan for more sustainable transportation, America has focused on using EVs as a one-to-one replacement for gas guzzlers. But this one-size-fits-all solution fails to address our broader transportation problems, meaning emissions targets are likely to be missed and other transportation problems will continue to go unaddressed.

and

> People in Norway own more cars than they have in the past, in part because EV incentives encourage people to buy more cars, and the government has no plans to reduce how much people are driving.

"The government has no plans to reduce how much people are driving"? Huh? Obviously, the narrative of this article is anti-car. That's the "broader transportation problems" that they're referring to in the first quote. They could care less if the cars are producing emissions or not, they're just trying to manifest an anti-car future.

[a-posteriori]

Market-share is a cumulative metric, representing the sum of all purchases over several years. Sales is a flow metric, representing the sum of purchases in a given year. Market-share can increase, yet sales can be down in a given year.

Not everything is a conspiracy.

[agloe_dreams]

Sales were actually up, the title is just wrong and is editorialized by the submitter. The article has a different tile.

[ianai]

It changed since they submitted the article. No need to assume ill will.

[Aqueous]

However, it would also be folly to assume good will.