I have a problem with log data being released with analysis being imposed over it. I understand there need to show that they are in the right and NYTimes is in the wrong but as it stands now this is just pure marketing. If they had released the data plain and unadulterated i might feel differently, but at least as of the link provided i saw no link to the raw log material. So as it stands this is marketing, and that is really sad. If this data were indeed true(and i am not saying it isnt) it should be able to stand on its own up to 3rd party analysis. One can always make data look the way they want for there cause, and this goes for the NYTimes review as well.
As someone who can manipulate charts to say what you want, I assume you are familiar with what manipulated charts look like. Does anything stand out to you?
You can only tell if you get the raw data. Omission of data is the biggest problem.
Another good way to manipulate data is how you pick your axes. like having the x-axis be miles instead of time. Both are valid, but they show very different pictures. A miles x-axis emphasizes the parts where you were driving fast, while a time x-axis emphasizes parts where you are driving slow.
I posit that if you had the raw data, you would be demanding something further, access to the sensors, internal communications about the data, whatever.
