this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2025
716 points (92.3% liked)

News

25189 readers
4042 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

TL;DR: The CyberTruck is 17 times more likely to have a fire fatality than a Ford Pinto

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] generallynonsensical 41 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (4 children)

If the fediverse wants to grow and have the half-intelligent populace take it seriously, it's going to have to start moderating sources. Not censorship. Moderation.

Too many posts I have seen here in popular 'subs' are from a website who got it's name from an Amazon product, looking to rile up the leftists with confirmation bias, turning it all into a misinformed echo chamber.

'Chklafrknozk.biz reports people already is .' Fuck off with the nonsense.

We aren't supposed to be a mirrored version of existing social media. We are meant to be a fair version of it.

Don't insult the intelligence of users. If you want the brains to follow you, stop being yet another version of the problem.

Simply tired of the garbage.

Edit: Grammar

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Since I'm half-intelligent, I won't pretend to understand most what you're saying here.

I don't think the article linked is nonsense, though. It certainly isn't leftist anything, miss me with that.

But... importantly... There is a statistically correct way to complete the following sentence:

"The Tesla Cybertruck is ______ times more/less explosive than the Ford Pinto."

If you disagree with my answer to that question, what is your answer? I showed my math, I even invite the readers to re-run the equation. If you re-run it, what do you come up with? I bet your answer will be informative and helpful to the conversation about EV safety, two elements that are the "sugar," "spice," and "everything nice" about good reporting.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Um yeah I just perused the source website and agree. It's got an obvious anti-EV bias in both article sections, headlines and interpretations of data. The only author they seem to have for all their 'news articles' is a person that doesn't even have the guts to sign off with their real name, instead using the alias 'Kay Leadfoot'. They don't even have an 'about' page, just a contact form.

This is just the blog of some dude that hates EVs. Hot garbage source.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Hey, boss... If you say my name and don't knock on wood, I show up.

This place seems nice! I might post here in the future.

I do not hate EVs. Read my reviews of the Tesla Model 3, the new Dodge Charger EV, and the F-150 Lightning. If you don't like to read, the TL;DR is that I very much like each vehicle. Like many pickup truck people, I specifically do not like the Cybertruck, but that's because it's a lousy vehicle.

You should keep an open mind - just because you disagree with me, doesn't mean I have some unreasonable bias. I may have followed evidence to a different conclusion.

I do smile when Tesla fans ask me to announce my name. I already did! I'm Kay Leadfoot. You can learn more about me on my About page, which has definitely been there since Day 1. Unrelated to anything, please don't call me dude.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Hi, you took the time to respond i feel i owe you the courtesy of a reply.

Reading your website initially I could see a lot of pro gas-vehicle articles and negative EV articles, I didnt really focus on brand - not a fan of Tesla myself, and obviously the CT is a piece of crap. I'll take you at your word that you dont hate EVs but I think if you got a few people to review your site they may also walk away from a quick look through it as 'oh this is an anti-EV site'; lots of loaded language that's positive to gas cars and lots of Tesla bashing. People are not going to read every article and notice that there are a few EVs that you're very fond of before deciding if your page contains useful objective info or if it's a just another biased source.

Regarding your About page (I'm on mobile), if I click the Menu button I get a drop-down that shows an 'About us' with a little down-arrow on it -> if I click 'About us' a menu drops down showing: drop us a line / best of / search / subscribe.

I checked each of those options and couldn't find any info about the organization, or you the writer. Now you say you have an 'about page' so I go back today and I find if I click on the 'about us' drop down menu a second time, it opens a new page. Friend, congrats, you have made a secret About Us page. I have never seen this kind of design in a very long time browsing the internet.

Anyway, now that I'm here there's no credentials or references (some mention of being published on other websites - but no links to those articles), beyond saying you have driven a few hunded thousand miles - and your name is still clearly a pseodonym. Journalists generally build faith in their audience by using their real name, it's a red flag is all.

I hope that clarifies my statements, they were not arbitrary or intended to be malicious or unfair. Even negative feedback can be constructive and that's the spirit of this message.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 hours ago

No worries, boss. Not taken as mean or unfair.

Out of curiosity... what credential would make you trust an automotive journalist more? If it's academic paper, I'm S.O.L.

The About Us, I didn't realize folks would have a hard time finding it if it were in the header! What do I know about websites, right. But I can fix that, I'll duplicate the About Us entry into the dropdown, that should clear up any confusion.

I'm not trying to win you over, that's not really my bag... but you might find this interesting. I've had a couple folks, some with recognizable names, reach out to me through the website. The pitch is a little different each time, but they all seem to want to know my name, they share your view that it ISN'T Kay Leadfoot. I wonder why they're so interested about that? Haha, I'm sure they wouldn't publish it if I told them, they seem trustworthy... Some folks start with a more direct approach, and they just hit me with the threats from the word go, and THEN get to the "we'll see you soon" part. I wonder what those two groups would do if one knew who I was, and the other WANTED to know?

Ain't that funny? I tell jokes about cars, who cares who I am? Apparently, several folks care, some of them real ornery about it. It's less funny when you think about the actual journalists who don't have the same options... the wave after wave of threats probably has a chilling effect on their coverage, god knows what that does for a democracy in general if your press core is afraid to speak their mind and follow facts wherever they go in case some crazies come knocking.

Thanks for the feedback, by the by, it helps.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

While i agree with your intent here i thing we should rather begin with a more thoughtful criticism of the articles, rather than criticizing the websites name or if it's vibe can be considered pandering.

Like how the statistics used is hyperbolic in it's conclusions. While 34,438 produced cars are many, but not loads in car terms (especially when compared to the 3,173,491 built Pintos) and the there have only been two actual accidents with fire fatalities leading to 4 deaths. (The Vegas firebombing should not count.) Sure it's two to many but it's not really significant.

On the other hand the article does point out something here, "only" 27 deaths did lead to a huge recall, and i for one am not sure that a company that have yet to commit for a NHTSA will adhere to a similar standard. And fire safety over all has been a long concern in Tesla cars.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Thanks Iceman. I loved your work in Top Gun.

I think you touch on something important here. Some folks say the sample size is too small, on a strict statistical basis. Automotive safety works on different scales, often fast-paced decisions are made about auto safety and we don't wait around for "statistical significance" in an academically rigorous sense.

Ironically, the smallest production run of cars to receive a recall in the United States (that I could find) was... the Ford Pinto, because the accelerator pedal got stuck! That was its first year of production. All 26,000 were recalled 2 months after the model was released.

DOUBLE ironic... the smallest production run of pickup trucks to receive a recall in the United States (that I could find) was... the Tesla Cybertruck! ALSO because the accelerator pedal got stuck! All 4,000 were recalled a few months after deliveries started at scale, in the first full year of production.

Isn't that funny? History doesn't repeat itself, but it is basically a dirty limerick. And what an awful chapter of automotive history to repeat, our vehicles should be vastly safer in 2025 than they were in 1971.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Considering that statistically sigificant numbers here would be writen in blood a low threashold "better safe than sorry" approach deffintely is for the better.

And these are some crazy stats you found, thanks for posting that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

I just discovered... a scientist tested my findings! Well that's real nice, we held up with statistically significant findings.

https://www.someweekendreading.blog/cybertruck-vs-pinto/