Every single one of his complaints is sourced. Maybe, just maybe, Musk and tesla suck?

I don't think the parent is disputing whether tesla sucks or not, he's saying that the article is poorly written. It's titled "Tesla's Dieselgate", but it doesn't address that specific point until 2/3rds into the article. If the article was titled something like "Why Tesla Sucks", this would be forgivable, but there's no need to preface every anti-tesla article with a lengthy preamble about all the existing reasons why tesla sucks.

It does a pretty good job of laying the foundation of just how much of a liar Musk and Tesla the company are, before pointing out they are once again being liars.

Context is important.

It spends too much time obscuring it's message

Inverted pyramid principle: https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/WC191

Bottom line up front: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLUF_(communication)#:~:text=B....

Not that important.

Sourced with things that show the opposite. Like stating that Teslas are one of the deadliest cars and linked to an article showing 17 deaths out of 44,000 yearly deaths were when Autopilot was on.

My criticism can be summarized in one principle: "Bottom line up front".

It says about Dieselgate. Knowing what dieselgate is I'd expect to see the following:

    Tesla put special check into firmware that detected when car is used for power consumption/distance check in standartized environment and used some trickery to get better numbers (distance) than they are getting in normal usage. Here is the proof by 

Instead of that I scrolled already like 2 screens and there are rants about musk being or not being tesla founder, starlink, tesla subsidies, musk reality distortion field. Then it somehow leaps towards criticism of DRMs and I stop reading those ramblings. I don't own tesla, not have tesla stock, not musk fanboy, and the article did a poor job in convincing that anything is bad. It feels that it is is already written for haters who nod reading every point.

This article is written like modern recipes online, which are almost universally hated on HN. One ones that start with grandmother and childhood memories, then go to beautiful children and that Saturday morning when house is full of smells and author picks her/his favorite knife and Le Creuset dutch oven...

Tesla's range is a complete fiction. To support this fiction it displays an imaginary range substantially higher than actual on the HUD. To avoid blowing the charade or leaving drivers high and dry when it dies with 100 miles on the clock it switches from fiction to reality about halfway through. The difference is so egregious that a huge portion of users think their car is broken. So many that Tesla created a team to mass close those tickets first by running remote diagnostics and blowing smoke up their ass to convince drivers there is nothing wrong. EG you're holding it wrong.

To keep up with volume they stopped bothering actually doing any diagnostics and flagging customers effectively preventing them from creating new tickets which might result in expensive service calls.

So you buy based on inflated numbers realize its not working as expected, call to complain thinking your car is broken, your account gets flagged and now if something really does go wrong you could be stranded in limbo for days unable to use the normal process.

Additional fun if you miss a payment or they misapply a payment or a check gets lost or any of the fun things that happen in the magical world of payment processing they have the ability remotely stop your car and summon a repo man.

Seems like this will eventually be misused to stop protests or be mass misused by hackers eventually.

You should read the rest of the article its worth reading.

Tesla's range is quite accurate, in my experience. The top number gives you a relatively accurate range in good conditions -- aka city driving in the summer. And then if you punch in your destination it'll tell you within a single percent of what your battery will be at your destination.

If you scroll past the 6 feet of regurgitated Musk condemnation, he has a good point: DRM and anti-right-to-repair laws make it easy for manufacturers to scam consumers and allow scummy rent-seeking behavior.

I wish Doctorow eased off on the rhetoric and hyperbole ("mobile gas-chambers", really?) because underneath all that he is still right.

Exactly. We already have RMS, the job of Cassandra is already taken.