[mistercow]

>Having not been told that he took shoddy notes and relied on human memory, perception and so on.

And now maybe he and other journalists will know not to write damaging pieces based on shoddy notes and their vague recollection of what happened. If Tesla Motors had told him in advance that they were collecting data, then he would have been more careful in that specific review, and then when he went to report on a less resourceful company that couldn't keep tabs on him, he'd fuck them like he tried to fuck Tesla.

The fact is that Tesla has been bitten by this kind of thing before (see Top Gear). Who can blame them for wanting to set an example at the nearest opportunity?

[flyinRyan]

There is no evidence he "tried to fuck Tesla". From what I've gleaned, his review is what most non-fanboys would have ended up with. It looks to me like the typical clash of business guys vs. tech guys. The business is saying "hey, this sucks I can't figure it out" and the tech guys are spouting true but useless statistics at them, all the while mocking them for "ignorance".

The customer's perception is more important than the car sellers data.

>Who can blame them for wanting to set an example at the nearest opportunity?

Set an example of what? That if you don't write a glowing review they're going to throw an infantile fit on the internet?

[mistercow]

>Set an example of what? That if you don't write a glowing review they're going to throw an infantile fit on the internet?

Set an example of what happens when you fudge facts to get a better story.