How does it _directly_ contradict that? Ok so he mentions how the management system will stop the charge from dropping too low. How does it do that, does have a robotic arm and goes and finds the nearest outlet, does it expand solar panels, because batteries will discharge even if completely disconnected. And it also highly depends on the ambient temperature. So I don't see a direct contradiction I see this post building a straw man and then proceeded to demolish it.
Look at this another way. So let's say this post is correct and those Tesla roadsters were not bricks. Why in the world would Tesla then charge owner $40k then? Is it saying that a routine recharge and tow costs $40k? Or did Tesla, like a shady mechanic decided to scam the guy and make $40k off of him?
Well I am running with what the original post had in it. Yeah it could be an lie, and if it is, it would be very easy to check, it is not a nebulous claim. Tesla just has to respond and say "no we never charged $40k" if it is in fact not true.
This is my frustration with getting news from blogs. Had this appeared in a standard newspaper, I am confident the reporter would have contacted Tesla and asked them directly if they did indeed charge $40,000. Hence, I am not comfortable taking the original post completely at face value, since the author (from what I can tell) did not perform the kind of reporting I expect from journalists. That leads me to doubt basic questions of fact, such as whether or not Tesla charged those people $40,000.
I'm sorry, you give too much credit to "standard newspapers."
They do very little fact checking, if any.
However, being well-established might make them an easier target for libel / defamation. That doesn't seem to scare them into better reporting, though.
That sentiment is popular, but I don't buy it. The original post made no effort (or, he told us about no efforts) to corroborate the anecdotes with Tesla or the people who performed the servicing. That is, he did no reporting. That story would not be run in the NY Times or Washington Post without doing that.
How does it _directly_ contradict that? Ok so he mentions how the management system will stop the charge from dropping too low. How does it do that, does have a robotic arm and goes and finds the nearest outlet, does it expand solar panels, because batteries will discharge even if completely disconnected. And it also highly depends on the ambient temperature. So I don't see a direct contradiction I see this post building a straw man and then proceeded to demolish it.
Look at this another way. So let's say this post is correct and those Tesla roadsters were not bricks. Why in the world would Tesla then charge owner $40k then? Is it saying that a routine recharge and tow costs $40k? Or did Tesla, like a shady mechanic decided to scam the guy and make $40k off of him?