Tesla is recalling 2,431 Cybertrucks, and this time there’s no software fixTodd Bonzalez@lemm.ee to Technology@lemmy.world – 319 points – 4 days agoarstechnica.com archive.org ghostarchive.org archive.today 20Post a CommentPreviewYou are viewing a single commentView all commentsShow the parent commentProportions and context. 200K of Jeep is nowhere close to the percentage of the total Cyber trucks produced.How about “Honda is recalling nearly 1.7 million vehicles due to a steering issue that could increase the risk of a crash”?Can you at least see how both statements are whataboutism? Yes that should be more talked about. So that makes this article invalid?Hang on, give me a few minutes to craft an excuse for why that shouldn't be considered comparable.
Proportions and context. 200K of Jeep is nowhere close to the percentage of the total Cyber trucks produced.How about “Honda is recalling nearly 1.7 million vehicles due to a steering issue that could increase the risk of a crash”?Can you at least see how both statements are whataboutism? Yes that should be more talked about. So that makes this article invalid?Hang on, give me a few minutes to craft an excuse for why that shouldn't be considered comparable.
How about “Honda is recalling nearly 1.7 million vehicles due to a steering issue that could increase the risk of a crash”?Can you at least see how both statements are whataboutism? Yes that should be more talked about. So that makes this article invalid?Hang on, give me a few minutes to craft an excuse for why that shouldn't be considered comparable.
Can you at least see how both statements are whataboutism? Yes that should be more talked about. So that makes this article invalid?
Proportions and context. 200K of Jeep is nowhere close to the percentage of the total Cyber trucks produced.
How about “Honda is recalling nearly 1.7 million vehicles due to a steering issue that could increase the risk of a crash”?
Can you at least see how both statements are whataboutism?
Yes that should be more talked about. So that makes this article invalid?
Hang on, give me a few minutes to craft an excuse for why that shouldn't be considered comparable.