It seems as they can't reliably analyze the decisions.
>highlighting areas where Tesla needlessly added weight with things like excess metal flanges and overlapping layers of steel. "This adds weight without value," he said.
it feels rather presumptuous to assume that the added value isn't safety.. which isn't something you can assess in a teardown.
In the next paragraph:
"He was also puzzled by Tesla's unconventional use of multiple welding techniques in close proximity to one another. "I don't get it," he said. "There's a lot of technology [used] here, but what we don't understand is why they used the technology they did."
For a lay person, sure. But these are experts at automotive engineering. Imagine if you were reviewing a new developer's code, and you were puzzled by a particularly non-idiomatic implementation where you can't see the reasons for avoiding the idiomatic version. Are you going to think that maybe this is some technique you're unfamiliar with, or that the person who'se still quite new to developing might not be aware of the idiomatic verions?
In this case it is a technique for swapping two variables without using a third variable. But it really serves no efficiency purpose in most applications (however it is fun to use).
> Your example would be more akin to assessing someone's code and pointing out potential flaws without ever executing it.
You've just described a code review, which is standard practice and not controversial. If an expert doesn't understand your code, maybe the criticism is informed by their experience.
On the other hand: "take note that I have only proven this code correct, not tested it." Code review is performed in the understanding that its results are basically heuristic. Everyone knows that actual behavior trumps anything you get from just looking at something.
>highlighting areas where Tesla needlessly added weight with things like excess metal flanges and overlapping layers of steel. "This adds weight without value," he said.
it feels rather presumptuous to assume that the added value isn't safety.. which isn't something you can assess in a teardown.
In the next paragraph:
"He was also puzzled by Tesla's unconventional use of multiple welding techniques in close proximity to one another. "I don't get it," he said. "There's a lot of technology [used] here, but what we don't understand is why they used the technology they did."
Not understanding something != bad