djehh3r7d

That didn't leave the controversy behind at all, most of the controversy is far past their valuation. Tesla is only interesting as a car company to people who are willing to lower their expectations below those placed on the actual car companies.

They market themselves as environmentally friendly while representing a comedically small percent of global emissions reduction. And within the auto industry itself the increasing efficiency of ICE vehicles has reduced emissions by far more than Tesla and their electric car hype.

At the same time, they advocate infrastructure expansions to accomodate their vehicle's needs while handwaving away the emissions and environmental consequences this process would create. And every time this is mentioned people just blubber some line about the long term while covering their ears to the tide of environmentalists saying that we need change /now/.

They might conquer Europe through legislation but the only reason that's practical is because European countries are tiny so the range issue is less relevant to them. Tesla hasn't actually cleared their hurdles, they've surrendered to them.

Meanwhile, they drum up this idea that Tesla's can be more than toys for rich people even though no one blue collar who isn't already a hard fan chooses a Tesla. In fact, speaking of legislation, they're so uncompetitive that Europe has to ban ICE engines for them to gain ground.

Even you framed this as Tesla competing against luxury brands, key word being luxury. This world where they've paved the way for cheap mainstream electric vehicles is a fantasy. They've paved the way for novelty in the luxury market and since doing so have shown little aptitude beyond their ability to wield that accomplishment as a shield to deflect criticisms.

Most lawyers would still say not to do this to a small client with limited resources to defend themselves. A more well funded client would be walked through a process that combines obfuscation with plausible deniability. Being scrutinized is just as bad as being put on trial when the alternative is a zero risk position. So when you collect the data you need a strategy that minimizes being noticed (or being noticed by a party that is allowed to act), executes in a way that produces minimal evidence (or the kinds of evidence a lawyer can't have dismissed), and which might violate the spirit of the law but not its letter (unless you're European because they find writing real laws cumbersome).

Can we ban Gizmodo and Vox while we're at it? I constantly see Gizmodo peddling the kind of fake news where the headline, the part every journalist knows most readers stop after, is a flat out lie that only becomes defensible because of weasel wording nested midway through the article. And Vox for just being Vox, the only rag I see posted here that abuses histrionics more than them is commondreams.