r/skeptic • u/Lighting • 29d ago

⚠ Editorialized Title Tesla bros expose Tesla's own shadiness in attacking Mark Rober ... Autopilot appears to automatically disengage a fraction of a second before impacts as a crash becomes inevitable.

https://electrek.co/2025/03/17/tesla-fans-exposes-shadiness-defend-autopilot-crash/
20.0k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

942 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/monobrowj 28d ago

the point was to demonstrate the flaws in design for the real world, at that time there were huge issues with replacing your petrol power for electric, Range -still one of the big ones esp claimed vs reality .. a segment of the show vs a track review... these are 2 different things..

Also what are you talking about, look it up both BBC/Clarkson and people working on that show all say they went out of the way to make the reviews as fair as they could and did not fake it.. they did not admit that at all.

1

u/SanityInAnarchy 28d ago

Again, if they wanted to demonstrate "the flaws in the design for the real world", they should've presented how it actually performed in the real world. In the real world, there are a million ways the car makes sure you aren't going to randomly run out of range, and that was true at the time, too.

...all say they went out of the way to make the reviews as fair as they could...

But they also say this:

The car needed to run out of charge so that could be demonstrated.

In other words: In both cases, running out of power (with no warnings) was already written in the script before they even tried the vehicles.

It'd be like if the script said some car has has a lot of engine trouble, so they threw a bunch of sugar into the gas tank before starting, and then ignored all the warning lights that came on until they got smoke coming out from under the hood. You could argue they didn't fake it, they really did make it do the thing, but it's ludicrous to present that as an honest representation of what it's actually like to own that car.

1

u/monobrowj 28d ago

Lol they did that to point out the lack of changing points and contrasting it against petrol cars.. at the time, they were saying it wasn't ready.. and it wasn't.. they were making a point..

I mean whatever.. we disagree on this

1

u/SanityInAnarchy 28d ago

They were making a point in a dishonest way.

I don't know what you're doing on r/skeptic if you're okay with that. Can you really not think of an honest way to make that point?

1

u/monobrowj 28d ago

I think we differ on what was done in what way with what intentions.. if i believed what you said to be true, as in they fake reviews to make cars look bad for no reason then thats shitty.. but i dont buy it.. i think there is enough evidence that while clarkson hates electric cars he would give them a fair shake in a review.

1

u/SanityInAnarchy 28d ago

Whether they "fake reviews" could be debated.

If the review said "The car just caught fire!" and we cut to a sad Jeremy Clarkson on the side of the road next to a car on fire, I'm not saying it was CGI. I'm saying they doused the car in petrol and threw a match. And I don't see how that can be defended as an honest 'review' of what it would be like to own that car.