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…
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?