[niggler]

For all the talk about Broder lying and manipulating the record, I would argue that the follow-up is far worse in terms of intentionally misinterpreting the facts.

"Yesterday, The New York Times reversed its opinion on the review of our Model S and no longer believes that it was an accurate account of what happened."

Could not be further from the truth. NYT stands behind the integrity of Broder. And it's clear based on the cherry-picked quotes in the next few sentences that Musk omitted the inconvenient facts. (quoting “problems with precision and judgment," but omitting where NYT stands by the integrity of Broder's account)

The worst part of this is that Tesla still hasn't answered to the actual issue here: the advice that Tesla gave Broder. And until they actually address the issue at hand, Musk is playing games with a public that seems to worship him and want to take down NYT.

[snewman]

Heartily agreed. I am extremely disappointed with Musk over this incident -- and now with the NYT as well, for failing to stand their (valid) ground and failing to call out Musk's blatant lies and manipulations.

As the dust settles, it appears that the worst that Broder is guilty of is being less than lab-test-precise in his reporting. (He did make some unfortunate decisions, such as not charging further on various occasions, but all of these decisions strike me as entirely reasonable given the facts as he understood them at the time, and -- critically -- the advice he was given by Tesla.) It should be noted that the basic thrust of his piece appears to be entirely accurate: everything started out fine; then he started having range problems; he took significant but not drastic measures in compensation; these measures were insufficient. For instance, he may have been a bit sloppy about details such as exactly when he turned down the cabin temperature or exactly what speed he slowed down to, but it's uncontested that he did lower both temperature and speed well below what a normal driver would expect in a normal car.

The car seems to have committed a sin larger than any of Broder's: it "lost" a large amount of range overnight. This was one critical element in the eventual failure (the other being various bits of bad advice from Tesla, in particular the advice to ignore the low range reading after charging for only a short period at the public station that morning).

But the worst sins, by far, are Musk's. He made many sensational accusations. Some seem clearly false, such as Broder "driving in circles" in a supposed attempt to kill the battery (Broder's explanation that he was simply looking for the charging station is far more plausible). Many more of Musk's statements are deliberate distortions of the worst kind. The "battery never ran out of energy"... which may be technically true, but whatever energy may have remained in the main battery, the car was so dead that it couldn't even be towed without a flatbed truck. "Why would anyone do that?" (leaving the last charging station with insufficient charge) when it now appears uncontested that this was under explicit advice from Tesla. "Drove right past a public charge station" -- which he didn't know about, Tesla staff didn't tell him about, and Tesla staff had implied he wouldn't need. And so forth. His entire "most peculiar test drive" piece reads like something Fox News would say about an Obama policy proposal -- nitpicking, distorting, misdirecting, and outright mocking.

I've always been a fan of Tesla, SpaceX, and Musk, but I will never look at him in the same way again.

[robinh]

"I've always been a fan of Tesla, SpaceX, and Musk, but I will never look at him in the same way again."

I felt the same way, and that's why I think it is appropriate to link to the following post:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/31i/have_no_heroes_and_no_villains/

(There are some valid criticisms of LessWrong and EY, but none of the problems really concern the above post, which is simply an excellent piece.)

What we're seeing here is that kind of thing happening.

[tunesmith]

Off-topic, but what sort of valid criticisms of lesswrong and ey have you seen? I'm not aware of any discussion about that community other than at that community itself. Just curious if there are any links/summaries.

[wamatt]

I've found Less Wrong to be somewhat useful and interesting community, and I've made some friends over the past year at a few of the meetups in the Bay Area.

That said, it's possibly slightly ironic that many (perhaps even the majority) of the LW members, (in my personal experience) seem to naturally posses low levels of instrumental rationality, and tend to be unusually self-unaware of their own feelings and unconscious motivations.

Another way to say this: "common sense" is not something (in my experience), that is respected, understood or utilized in spades within the community.

Furthermore, while there are criticisms of LW out there, I agree with Aaron Swartz's central claim[1] about a lack of skepticism. While I'm a huge advocate of Bayes theorem, I would be wary of calling myself a "Bayesian", or other self-reinforcing label. Although calibrated belief networks (eg BBN's)[2] are powerful, they can also fall prone to delusional outputs where there exists a lack of sufficient external feedback.

Much of the rhetoric focuses around the charismatic and arguably pompous (don't mean to sound harsh) character of Eliezer Yudkowsky. IMHO this is considerably more evident, than the level to which HN centers around PG, for example. As for LW, further comparison's have been made to a cult before. [3][4]

In addition, and this is more a personal quibble, there seems to be an inclination towards debate vs dialectic. But that's probably true of nearly any community out there. HTH.

[1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/atm/cult_impressions_of_less_wrongsi...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_network

[3] http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13018494520A...

[4] http://kruel.co/2012/07/29/possible-reasons-for-a-perception...

[tunesmith]

That's a good summary, thanks. I know that with myself, I have a side interest in analyzing communication patterns (and argument patterns) in others - communities in particular. So I start getting analytical and looking at things in terms of rationality and bias. But I find that it might be making me slow down in my personal life - meaning, I start to arrive at things methodically and analytically that could be arrived at much quicker through intuition and common sense. It's frustrating. So I'm not sure it's just ironic - it might even be causal.

[jimwhitson]

Here's an example, but it's hardly scholarly: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/LessWrong.

You're right that it doesn't get discussed much, I think largely because the explanatory material is dense and rather turgid, so would-be critics don't get far enough to make meaningful criticisms; that's certainly the case for me.

[steveklabnik]

I was reading http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk earlier today, and while I don't know that much about EY, LessWrong, and the institute, it was... yeah.

[networked]

A somewhat in-depth discussion of the basilisk can be found here: http://www.reddit.com/r/LessWrong/comments/17y819/lw_uncenso.... Read at your own (possible) risk.

[tunesmith]

Safe to read if you don't subscribe to utilitarianism. :-)

[foobarqux]

"Vern: You know, one of two things happens when you meet your heroes, either they're assholes, or they're just like you are. Either way you always lose."

[alan_cx]

I agree with you main point, but not the last bit.

The "public" don't worship Musk and don't want to take the NYT down. The small group who like Musk do, but a whole bunch of public don't. This forum is very pro Musk, but also intelligently critical, while very much wanting to support him. The frustration here with Musk is very obvious. But that is only a small part of the pie as it were.

See, I have one foot in the hacker/geek/tech world, and one foot in the motor world. The motor world laughs at electric cars and Musk is the main "green hippy idiot" who makes great claims that fail, from their POV. Its worse, they feel threatened by Musk and his electric cars, as he threatens the big sexy V8 and the manly roar of man mobiles. And I can see that too. But any way they can attack him, they will. And these guys are the ones he needs to eventually convince.

Thats a lot of writing for such a small point!!!!

[revelation]

You take the same stance of "false statements are not lying if you make them to the best of your knowledge". That can not be the standard we hold journalists to.

Broder has "problems with precision and judgement" and his method of keeping a log is "casual and imprecise notes" in "a little red notebook in the front seat". He is a hopeless amateur in the 21th century.