Federal safety agency launches probe of Tesla battery fires

Re:Federal safety agency launches probe of Tesla battery fires by jhayward on Wednesday November 27, 2019 @04:09PM (#21652165)

Ok, I provided one example. It's on you to prove the point then. Please provide relevant facts proving your case. Prove my point is wrong.

Oh, and the majority of present-day ignitions in automobiles are still the exact same mechanical interlock switching types used since the 60's. Higher-end vehicles have solid state switching, but it's not the majority of vehicles.

Also:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/bmw-recalls-million-vehicles-fire-...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Federal safety agency launches probe of Tesla battery fires by OnlineGladiator on Wednesday November 27, 2019 @04:17PM (#21652217)

You made a claim, not me. I just said your argument is flawed. I didn't say you're wrong - I believe you're probably right. But you didn't actually provide any data for your claim.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFalla...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Federal safety agency launches probe of Tesla battery fires by jhayward on Wednesday November 27, 2019 @04:20PM (#21652234)

Perhaps you could contribute positively to the discussion rather than just taking badly aimed potshots. You objected, you do better.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Federal safety agency launches probe of Tesla battery fires by OnlineGladiator on Wednesday November 27, 2019 @04:28PM (#21652296)

I consider criticizing an argument to be a contribution - I did not even say you are wrong. It seems you want me to provide a clearly detailed argument for why you are wrong, but I don't have that because I don't even believe you are wrong. I haven't looked at the data - I just looked at your argument.

Anyway, agree to disagree I guess.

[ Parent | on HN ]