Alright, imagine you're at a picnic with your friend. You both have bikes, but only one outlet to charge them with an extension cord.

1. **Your bike (EVject)**: You want to be able to still use your bike while it's charging. So, EVject made a special cord that lets you disconnect your bike quickly if someone needs the charger next.
2. **Your friend's bike (Tesla)**: Your friend is worried about the cord getting too hot when it's plugged in for a long time. They think it might be AIgerous and want to make sure it's safe.
3. **The fight**: Your friend, Tesla, gets upset because EVject made their cords without a temperature guard. They say they're not safe. EVject says they are fine as is, but agrees to add a temperature guard later to make your friend happy.
4. **The good thing**: Even though there was a fight, now lots of people at the picnic know about EVject's special cord. A big company even wants to meet with them!
5. **EVject's plan**: Now, EVject wants to sell many more cords and become a really big company that's worth a lot of money. Read from source...

Based on the provided text on EVject and Tesla's lawsuit, here are some potential criticisms from a fact-checking or analytical perspective. However, please note that these points do not constitute a personal attack on the author, but rather an examination of the content itself:

1. **Lack of Direct Quotes**: The article uses statements like "according to Peeler" without providing direct quotes. Having direct quotes would make the information more credible and allow readers to form their own interpretations.

2. **Bias**: There is a possibility of bias in favor of EVject, as the article tells the company's story entirely from its founder's perspective. While Peeler's views are interesting, presenting a counterpoint or additional expert opinions could provide a more balanced narrative.

3. **Omission of Tesla's Perspective**: The article does not include any direct quotes or arguments from Tesla or Elon Musk after their initial lawsuit request. Providing their current stance would balance the story and allow readers to understand their motivations better.

4. **Emphasis on Drama over Facts**: The focus on the drama surrounding the lawsuit might distract from the core issues at hand, such as the safety of EVject's products and its business sustainability.

5. **Lack of Technical Details**: While it discusses the key issue of overheating, the article doesn't delve into the technical aspects of how EVject has addressed this concern or how their thermal sensor works.

6. **Future Predictions**: The article quotes Peeler stating ambitious goals for the company's future (e.g., selling millions of units by 2030 and being worth a billion dollars), but it doesn't provide any evidence to support these claims or discuss potential challenges they might face in achieving them.

7. **Reliance on X (Twitter) for Key Interactions**: The story relies heavily on interactions between Peeler and Musk on Twitter (X). While this platform can be useful for gathering information, it's important to verify its credibility as a primary source for news articles.

8. **Missing Context for Industry Trends**: The article doesn't connect EVject's story to broader trends in the electric vehicle industry, such as the growth of public charging infrastructure and increasing consumer demand for safety features.

To strengthen the article, addressing these points could provide more well-rounded insights into the situation and enable readers to make more informed judgments.

Based on the provided article, here's a sentiment analysis:

**Sentiment:** Generally **Positive**

**Reasons:**

1. The company, EVject, has received significant market exposure and awareness due to Tesla's lawsuit, which is seen as a benefit by the founder, Kreg Peeler.
2. Several players, including Volkswagen, have shown interest in EVject's connector device.
3. EVject has already shipped 3,500 units of its breakaway connectors and aims to sell millions of units by 2030.
4. The company is looking to expand its product range with new ideas when they have enough cash flow.

**Negative aspects:**
1. Although EVject is profitable per device, the corporation as a whole is not yet profitable.
2. Tesla's lawsuit initially led to an extra cost of around $30,000 for EVject to retrofit thermal sensors into their connectors.