We now have a full year of data for the Cybertruck, and a strange preponderance of headlines about Cybertrucks exploding into flames, including several fatalities. That’s more than enough data to compare to the Ford Pinto, a car so notoriously combustible that it has become a watchword for corporate greed. Let’s start with the data…
Speaking of cherrypicking…the report also counts that Cybertruck in Las Vegas loaded with fireworks and gas canisters, where the driver died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
I’m just copy pasting from above, but here’s my thoughts on that:
“People often ask about me including the Las Vegas case, so maybe I answer that concern, too. That’s the methodology - I set out to count every fire death for the Cybertruck that I could confirm through reliable news sources. And I struggled with that one. I worried if I didn’t include it, I’d be open to the opposite criticism - folks would say “wait these stats suck, I literally saw a guy die on the news in a flaming Cybertruck, and y’all didn’t count it, so these numbers can’t be right.” So, sort of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation. It was controversial, I knew it would be, so I flagged it in the article so folks could make their own decision about it. Ultimately, it didn’t meaningfully change the final findings. I’ve run the numbers with and without it, and the story is fundamentally the same either way.”
If it’s a difficult choice to not include the guy who shot himself in the car he exploded then I want to know what is considered an easy one:D
How can we be sure pinto data from 70s is anywhere near perfect either?
If you don’t trust the pinto numbers then you’re going to have to talk to ABC about that.
Im sure pinto numbers from fuckin 70s have some unreliable addons as well that do not skew the overall data, like the dumpster ones.
Yeah, he even calls it out as controversial but then “fuck it I’m gonna include it anyway”.
No, that’s not what I said at all. Get your quote right. I said “fuck it, we ball.”
Serious tho, if you’re curious why I did that, read up the thread, I explain it. Nothin nefarious (I hope)
“damned if you do, damned if you don’t” isn’t a reason. You’ve provided the exact reason why it shouldn’t be included and then just 🤷♂️.Even sympathetic readers on lemmy are pointing out how dishonest it is…
LOL, I dishonestly flagged it for the reader to review themselves? Wow, I must be a real piece of shit.
So anyhow, you’re an honest person, so if I’m a lying bastard with some non-specific ulterior motive (or I just really fuckin suck at math), what’s your number when you run the stats with one fewer fire fatality in the Cybertruck column? Does it change the overall meaning of the study, or nah?
“This death was not caused by fire, but I’m going to include it in a list of deaths caused by fire.”
I don’t know what to tell you buddy. If it doesn’t effect your results then leave it out?