Tesla has showrooms where you can get information (and there may be basic service and a supercharging station in them), but the only way to purchase one is through their website.

>if it had been GM, or Ford, etc., who made the first bold steps to EVs the resistance wouldn’t have been so strong,

They made a movie about how the rightwing killed GM’s electric car.

“I dunno what anti EV people have against em moraly or rationaly.”

Maybe because the push didn’t start with the companies the right is familiar with — it could be that if it had been GM, or Ford, etc., who made the first bold steps to EVs the resistance wouldn’t have been so strong, but the fact that it was one of these newfangled “startups” ruffled their feathers.

There is also something strange going on — at least in Michigan. The right here took money from the established car dealerships and passed a law prohibiting companies like Tesla from selling cars here, since they don’t have a traditional dealer network. (They also attached an appropriation to the bill: they have no intent of spending the money on anything, but we have another law, also pushed through by the right, that says things they pass that have appropriation items attached can’t be overturned by public vote.) Since then they have begun to paint Musk himself as a fundamentally bad guy — it’s starting to take on the same form as all of the fake accusations against George Soros, the guy who has been the right’s favorite target in spite of doing nothing to deserve it. It could be the fake crap being spread here about Tesla has its roots in some asinine dislike of Musk.

“… typical person absolutely sucks at judging risk.”
Very true.
Id like to clarify something. Not sure if corruption is being alledged. Or funny book keeping.

Either way, science aint affected.
If people can challenge the science behind electric motors and battries, and wheels , thats great, and science will advance.
Aint gunna fucking happen though.
Theres nothing wrong with it. Its as established as all fuck.
Like the science behind nukes.
Like the science behind AGW.

The morality or rationality of EVs, or nukes, or AGW, is really whats at issue.
I dunno what anti EV people have against em moraly or rationaly.

Blows my mind how objections to nukes are ignored by pretty much everyone.

Some of that has to do with dishonesty, but more (at least for the general public) has to do with the fact that the typical person absolutely sucks at judging risk.

– Survey people about how they rate their driving ability to that of others and they will overwhelmingly say they are better than others
– Much of the public (aided by click-baity articles, I will admit) is on heightened concern about the “dangers” of self-driving cars after the recent case of an Uber test vehicle striking and killing a cyclist. It is a tragic accident, but using a single extremely rare event (the data that has been collected here, and in Europe, in autonomous driving testing, shows them to be far more safe than cars with humans at the wheel, even when you correctly adjust for the different population sizes)) to condemn the entire endeavor is unfounded — especially when there is no concern at all for the much higher number of deaths that day from accidents that happened with people at the wheel
– I conducted informal surveys in my undergraduate classes this year: I asked whether they would be comfortable riding in an autonomous car (most said no because they would never be safe). There were some other questions, but the one I use for comparison was whether they would feel comfortable being on an international flight (almost all replied yes — the few that didn’t stated that they are uncomfortable flying at all, so their objection was not due to the length of the flight but anxiety over any flight). After we talked about the results I presented data on accidents resulting from distracted driving as well as the amount of time a human pilot is actually controlling an airliner on an international flight. (And yes, we know flying is safer than driving: the point is the disconnect between being concerned with a car not having a driver while not caring about the lack of human control in an airplane.)

Re mikeN’s yelling about Tesla: you can ignore all of his objections — they aren’t based on anything resembling facts. Tesla just seems to be another of the “left wing” things people like him enjoy spreading conspiracies about. Are they perfect? Probably not. Are they guilty of what he says? Certainly not.

What dogs hear:

Yadda yadda fraud yadda Tesla.

Mmmm.
Interesting idea. Well articulated . I can see it.
However i worry about ” noise “.
Noise can be fucking valid.
Blows my mind how objections to nukes are ignored by pretty much everyone. ( just a noisy bunch of hippies and doctors and scientists, and most hippies and doctors and scientists dont give a stuff either! )

I dont think people care to much about facts. Which is a bit of a problem for democracies. Can get really messy. Quickly.

Corruption is such a debilitating thing. Allegations should be investigated.
If this Tesla company is corrupt, fuck em.
If they aint, goodo.
Corruptions got fuck all to do with how valid
science is in electric cars.

ARB seemed to agree with the idea. They thought it would promote EVs and the industry to single out Tesla and let others share in the credits instead of letting it be gamed. I would think someone who wanted to promote the industry would care about that. If Tesla has fraudulently gained credits, then this artificially increases the supply of credits for sale, lowering the price, and reducing incentive for others in the industry to get these credits.