Judkins said that after the finger test, a lead cybertruck engineer at Tesla said he did the video wrong.
The engineer told him the frunk increases in pressure every single time it closes and detects resistance, Judkins said. It’s going to assume you want to close the frunk and maybe something like a bag is getting in the way, which would make it close harder.
Are you kidding me? You did the test wrong on a safety critical feature? No you dumbass engineer, you designed it wrong. Why in the holy fuck would you make a safety critical algorithm keep applying more pressure on subsequent attempts??? That’s literally the opposite of what you do for safety.
This is why, as a software developer, I’m against designing any system that assumes what the user wants and tries to do it for them automatically. On the occasions where the assumption is right, it’s a mild convenience at best. When it’s wrong, it is always infuriating if not dangerous.
Yeah, I’m an embedded software developer myself and yeah, when we architect our code we have safety critical sections identified with software safety reviews and we always go with the assumption that we’re going to run into that one guy who’s the living embodiment of Murphy’s law and go from there with that design to minimize the potential for injury and death.
Can’t imagine who the hell is in charge of the software safety reviews there that let that pass.
You think a company run by Elon has an extensive software safety review system?
They did, but Elon asked one of them for a latte and they brought him one with 2% instead of oatmilk so he gutted the whole department.
/s, because it might be to be specified.
Are you certain you’re wrong, though?
Not anymore they were all fired.
Whose company that sends a poop emoji as a response when the PR department is emailed? Hmm, this us a tough question. . .
Same in the medical devices industry. We have whole teams of non-developers whose job is to find out when and why a surgeon can be a moron. The code is more difficult to write, but it’s way better and more robust.
“Smart” may as well be synonymous with “unpredictable”. I don’t need my computer to be smart. I need it to be predictable, consistent, and undemanding.
“Oh my, the cake box/finger/dog was in the way, but thanks for automation, the door didn’t close!”
And also every additional kind of complexity (which stacks BTW) makes you more dependent on the vendor (good for them, bad for you) and on doing things exactly as their imagined user (because it’s disproportionately your problem as laws don’t seem to work in making it theirs).
Distributism is actually a very good political ideology. Sad it’s associated with Catholic religion, because it correctly generalized the principles making democracies and markets and cultures work.
The engineer told him the frunk increases in pressure every single time it closes and detects resistance, Judkins said. It’s going to assume you want to close the frunk and maybe something like a bag is getting in the way, which would make it close harder.
What the fuck kind of idiots are leading things over there? “Something’s in the way. Better crush it!” What a bunch of morons putting everyone in danger.
“If it encounters resistance, the brushless motor increases in pressure until it closes fully.” Guess the company:
- DeWalt
- Milwaukee
- Makita
- Tesla
Sounds like a job for the torque test channel.
Musk seems to be increasingly infecting the whole company with his idiocy.
The sane people were fired or left. I’m sure most of who’s left are either stuck or like to lick elons taint.
Why the hell would it close harder if there is something in the way? That’s not the correct behavior for a lid, that’s the correct behavior for powered shears.
Tesla Cyber Truk* *includes free shears with every purchase
Maybe because they want the degradation of some mechanism to be less noticeable over time. And because they’re dumb.
Never tried to force the closing of your trunk lid because there is a bag that is slightly over the limit and you need a little more pressure, even if the bag is a little pressed down ?
The assumption here is that if it is your finger which is in the way, you take it out the way and you are not that stupid to try to close it again if for some reason you are not able move it away, which to me seems to make a lot of sense.
We built it wrong as a joke
Cybertruck owners can have a finger guillotine. as a treat
Needs a lockout/tagout before putting your hands in the powered shears to get out your bags.
As if it wouldn’t just close and break off the lockout anyway.
How many miles? Would you say, ten million?
My finger points.
- Not that cybertruck owner
Gentlemen, you will now refer to me as Betty.
I wonder if the guy that designed autopilot had the same idea. “So when the car detects resistance up ahead in the form of a crowd or wall, it will accelerate to make sure it goes through!”
We deliberately made it fail critical. It’s your fault for expecting fail safe!
I know I’m old school and all that, but why do people want to pay for automatically closing doors of any kind? Automatic opening of cargo spaces I get, if you have your bags full of hands or whatever, but once you put the stuff in there… Seem like such an incredibly unnecessary and costly feature, that also have a high chance of failing in the future. I don’t get it.
Because taking stuff out is like putting stuff in, only in the reverse order.
Except when the stuff is in, you have free hands to close doors and hatches
I think we’re on two different wavelengths.
Put stuff in: Stand next to closed car with no free hands, could use automatically opening doors.
Take stuff out: Open car. Pick up stuff out of the car. Stand next to open car with no free hands, could use automatically closing doors.
In the case where you took everything out though, there’s no bags for it to get stuck on. There’s no need for it to slam itself
Good question. My wife’s RAV4 has a rear door that will only close if you press a button. You can’t close it manually. Furthermore, it’s on the door while it’s open and my five foot tall wife can barely reach it. It’s ridiculous.
Wouldn’t your wife have a hard time closing it manually too then?
You know, that’s true and it didn’t even occur to me. I guess she just wouldn’t have bought it? (I would have been fine with that, I hate SUVs, even hybrids.)
We’ve got a 2019 Rav and I can’t remember how, but you can adjust the height that the door opens to by some series of button pushes. We had to lower it so that it doesn’t hit the frame of the garage door when opening it inside the garage. Maybe just adjust it so that it doesn’t open all the way and it’ll be easier for her to reach the button?
I’ll let her know about that. Thanks.
I actually sell these. You can manually lower the door to the height that works comfortably, then hold the automatic door button down for about 3 seconds. That should program the door to a new maximum height.
How do I set the height on my vehicle’s adjustable power liftgate?
When the liftgate reaches the desired height, push the rear liftgate close-button once (button is located on the doorjamb of the rear liftgate, and only accessible when the liftgate is open). Press and hold the button until it beeps 4 times. Click here to view a video.
😎
On older Toyotas the rear door has a strap inside that hangs down for people to grab onto and pull the door down to close.
My Subaru has a similar setup, and there’s a feature for changing the max height of the tailgate. You might wanna see if the same thing exists for you.
Because like you said, it’s a nice to have feature. I like my wife’s auto closing hatch for when I have a handful of boxes for that final grocery run and just walk away and it closes. It’s literally just really nice convenience feature and if it fails, you go back to closing it manually.
I get it’s nice to have, and if it somehow cost nothing I wouldn’t mind having it in a car, if it’s pretty much guaranteed that when it fails it doesn’t prevent me from open/close manually. But I’d much rather not pay for neither the R&D, engineering, parts and manufacturing of it, only to end up with a more complex door mechanism that is more expensive to repair and more likely to break. When all it does is give me the slightest of conveniences. Best example of this is the motorized charging port lid on the Rivian. Like, whyyyy? Cheaper and longer lasting vehicles, please.
Wow-effect and nobody gets punished if it goes left.
It strikes me as exactly the kind of engineering call that Elon has tended to make, time after time. With zero training in an area, he gets a solution in his head crufted up from some set of pre-existing notions or points of view and then pushes to have them implemented. He will also go on to fire anyone who disagrees with him. I spoke with an engineer who worked on the gull wing doors, which the team had objected to, and not only did he force them through, he burst in on one of the finalization meetings where they had finally reached a design consensus and insisted they change the hinge. Given similar reports on his behavior regarding other products (including especially twitter), I have no reason to disbelieve this person.
5 year old me after it bounces back from my finger I accidentally put there- agaaaain! agaaain!
And the stupidest of all car owners is not smarter than a 5y old kid.
Must… break… finger… push mooooaaaa. ~Tesla
Lols. Tesla logic.
The customer is always wrong.
Safety critical? I’d rather have a trunk I can get to close than one I can stick my finger into four times in a row without pinching it. What do you think happens when you slam down a normal trunk on someone’s finger?
Hey, @Killing_Spark, found a member of the Tesla software safety team!
Lol. Nah, the trucks are super dumb. I just know I’d want a trunk that would be able to close more than an overly sensitive pressure detection permanently preventing it. For that matter, I think it’s dumb to attach a motor to a trunk.
It’s like you didn’t read or did read and didn’t actually comprehend what the article or linked video was actually taking about.
You sure would make a great fit at Tesla’s engineering and safety team.
Friendly challenge: respond to that user again, in no more words than the first time, but address his question :)
No thank you. I refuse to engage with a person trying to straw man and change topics from a software safety argument to a personal preference that goes nowhere but you feel free to engage if you wish.
Maybe you didn’t comprehend it? The close force attempt increases with each unsuccessful attempt at closing. That way seems better than it eventually not working at all a few years down the line as all the electronics get more jankety be cause something gets a bit bent or worn out and it always detects a small amount of resistance so it quits closing all together.
Nobody wants to discuss the logic involved with having to open the door and then close it again for it to attempt to close harder and why that isn’t the dire safety hazard that people are trying to make it out to be. These people are the reason why we have to have “no smoking” signs at gas pumps because apparently they’d leave their hand in the door after attempting to close it 3 or 4 times.
Feel like this could have been demonstrated with a hot dog
Or a chicken drumstick for somewhat similar bone strength.
Is this the dipstick that tried it with a carrot, it cut the tip off and then said he was going to try it with his finger to be sure?
I don’t see “dipstick” in the wild very often, but I always appreciate it. Are you English by any chance?
I am not. I had a vulgar word there, and decided to tone it down a little.
A baby carrot
It takes about the same force to bite through a baby carrot as it does to bite through a finger
As long as the carrot is pretty close to the size of the finger you’re wishing to stimulate
I wish I didn’t know that
You need calcium.
Having done my time as an Army medic, this is incorrect. It takes more force than that, but less than you might think. A good 25 kilos with some velocity behind it will easily sever a phalange. Up it to 50 or 80 kilos and you can claim an arm or shin. Mass is the real killer. I’ve seen a vehicle at comically slow speed absolutely yeet someone because it had several tons of momentum behind it.
Casual readers might remember a recent very low-speed collision that nonetheless caused a catastrophic failure due to the tens of thousands of tons of weight. The MV Dali vs. the Francis Scott Key Bridge, if you didn’t guess. It struck the bridge at about 8 mph.
Fortunately I don’t think that’s strictly accurate. Try biting through a chicken wing its not as easy as a carrot.
Yeah and bird bones are hollow
Unless you’re talking about a loon.
They’re talking about a chicken. Source: they wrote the word “chicken”.
But loon is an alternative fact chicken therefore chickens have carrot bones
You’re full of it. This isn’t true.
Everyone who read this just tried to bite their own finger
Just doing my part
I wish I didn’t read that, and then read it again repeatedly trying to process what I just read. Lol. I’m sorry.
He did demonstrate it that way, specifically with a carrot. And it somewhat worked. The problem is they programmed it to do more and more pressure every time it fails meaning that doing the carrot first actually caused a safety issue. He only moved onto his finger because the safety feature seemed to be working.
The engineer told him the frunk increases in pressure every single time it closes and detects resistance, Judkins said. It’s going to assume you want to close the frunk and maybe something like a bag is getting in the way, which would make it close harder.
Geniuses.
Because I am the bag commander. If I want the bag to fit, and it doesn’t fit, I’d better crush it!
With that association - can Apple, Tesla etc marketing be generalized into something to be put into law?
To fucking ban those companies and make their patents public domain (or make them expire, not sure of the term).
I don’t care if a Google or two get stomped as a bonus.
Penis, got it!
No, it has to be something bigger than the panel gap
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
He tested it with multiple similar objects.
Then he wouldn’t get nearly as many views. Or have articles written about him
Or a penis.
Wouldn’t get so many YouTube views right…
There’s plenty of dumb to go around, but the word frunk by itself is the dumbest thing about this story.
I figured that was a fucking typo at first
A frunking typo
Let me guess: Front trunk? Please tell me I’m wrong.
I could, but then I’d be a liar.
It’s actually short for “fore bunk” because you can sleep in there
Yeah, I’d totally trust this deathtrap to let me back out in the morning 🙄 /s
Then it will be a frasket
A froffin
FRIP
There’s no way I’m sleeping in an area that needs lockout/tagout to enter safely.
A monkey: Front trunk? That’s what I call my penis!
Because it’s obviously a froot, right?
So much dumb I’m inspired to re-write old song lyrics, like:
What they dunna goo with all that junk All that junk in side that FRUNK
or
My trunks / fore bunks / My stupid cyber FRUNKS
Don’t kink shame. There is nothing wrong with ‘frunking’. Come closer, I’ll get the lube.
So a hood. Or a bonnet.
Man youtubers are dumb as hell. Use a stick or something
He used a banana, an organic dildo, and a carrot. It snapped the carrot and then he decided to try with his arm, hand, and finger.
It snapped the tip of the carrot, which wouldn’t be a lot of resistance
Based on what it didn’t cut through, his finger should have been safe but apparently Tesla designed the thing to keep increasing the pressure if it detects resistance each time until it can close, which is absolutely baffling. I don’t know of any other safety feature that turns down the safety the more it activates. The fact that it reacts to the exact same conditions differently each time should, in itself, be deeply concerning for any safety feature.
It might have been dumb of him to try it, but that doesn’t change that it’s still unsafe.
I wonder if FSD backs up after running over a pedestrian to confirn that ‘Yup, it was something with the road there’ before continuing to drive forward again.
Not say I agree but here is the logic. Self closing trunks are pretty common on many vehicles. A problem that is/was (I think a lot of manufacturers have mostly fix it) happen was the trunk lid would detect the resistance from a grocery bag or something. You know the stuff that in the past you could have just shut the lid with a little force. When this resistance was felt the lid would open back up. A good thing for safety but it can lead to the trunk never closing.
I bet when Tesla wrote the code they forgot to give it a maximum pressure it could close with regardless of how many times it closed. Or they set the maximum pressure way too hard.
organic dildo
He slammed his peantus in the hood?
No, that would ruin the steel of totally high quality.
Someone somewhere is going to do this now. They’ll probably be from Florida.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/9ywnLQywz74
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Then it’s his own damn fault. Even if he tries suing, he will lose.
That’s why you get “don’t put living animals in the microwave oven” in the instructions.
If Tesla didn’t explicitely wrote “don’t put your f***ing finger in the way on purpose after multiple attempts to close it!” he may have a chance.
He will plead a trauma from the loss of trust in his beloved car brand and the credibility damage on his Youtube channel and ask for M$.
No, it snapped the carrot before the update. After the update, it only snapped the very tip. That’s a pretty important detail imo.
So you’re confirming that it snapped the carrot? And then he tried it with body parts.
Yes, it snapped the thin tip of the carrot. I didn’t watch the video, but it sounded like he went from safest to least safe, so produce first and body parts afterward (arm, then hand, then finger).
I think hot dogs are good test subjects
We live in an age where the notion of “thinking something through before doing it”, also known as “common sense” has been replaced with the need to get it out there onto the internet as fast as possible before someone else beats you to it. The need for social gratification on the internet beats the need for self-preservation.
The first time I recall realizing this what when another YouTube dipship picked up a Portuguese Man-o-war and people got pissy when it was pointed out how lucky he was to not have been stung and how it was sheer dumb luck that he was still alive
People defended him saying “He didn’t know it was dangerous, he didn’t know what it was…” And that’s the whole fucking point… We used to live in a society were people were smart enough to not touch shit that they don’t know if it’s dangerous or not. The concept of erring on the side of caution is now abandoned because of stupidity and social media credits.
“we used to” No the fuck we didn’t. Humans have always been dumb, shortsighted, and curious. The internet just makes it really easy to see the ones that fuck up enough to be entertaining.
Yeah. You’re right that we’ve always been dumb and stupid and would do stupid shit to impress our peer group
But I firmly believe social media has inflated the definition of “peer group” to include “internet followers”, which jacks the whole stupidity up to 11.
For example, you’re a nineties kid walking through the mall with your friends in your JNKO jeans and your slap-it watch. One of your friends decides he’s going to be an idiot by balancing on the railing of the second floor and you all have a good laugh. Edit: If his friends hadn’t been there, would he have done it? I doubt it. But now his “friends” don’t have to be there, because they’re just random followers to give him social media points.
That’s sort of what I meant. Its not the we didn’t do dumb shit as kids, its that social media credit has motivated people to do dumb shit when they normally wouldn’t.
Edit: also, WE grew out of it. Nowadays they are socially and financially incentivized to NOT grow out of that phase.
Yeah. No one ever gave me AdSense dollars for nearly busting my fucking head.
Truth. As an 80s kid / 90s teen, I feel pretty lucky to be alive. I’m grateful for the few times in my life when common sense kicked in, and I said no.
Same. Was thirteen in 89. Graduated in 94. Hit Y2K at 23. Basically peak Clerks/Dazed and Confused generation.
To make matters worse I grew up in a small town where there was nothing better to do THAN do stupid shit with friends.
Natural selection will find a place to strike.
Its the same wirh Being First To Market.
But in the financial world your failed risk hurts more than your family.
Sticks don’t get clicks.
Dicks get more clicks.
I would have preferred a ‘will it blend’ format with the ultimate test being the Cybertruck’s own keyfob (you have one job!)
The keyfob is either just a credit card sized thing, or your phone. There is no fob.
Didn’t the model 3 have one that was a miniature car? You’d think they would allow that as an option for the cyber truck.
A Tesla engineer said the test was done wrong because the frunk increases in pressure every time.
“You are holding it wrong!” 🤣
Of course it just keeps hitting harder when things are in the way.
Literally Tesla’s response
I’m sure these “engineers” were confused everytime they saw an elevator door not mercilessly crush people.
This breakthrough technology could finally provide a way to teach people on the MTA not to hold the doors.
Nope, but they probably know that an elevator doors and a car lid are two completely different thing with different use cases and security concerns.
They sure did not know about the “not crushing human limbs” part.
Obviously.
But let’s face it: if the car lid would never close if something is in the way, some other dumb youtuber would have made a video about it and here there would be a discussion about how stupid are the engineers to not let the lid close even if a bag in slightly on on the way and the user know what they are doing.
You’re missing the point of a safety feature. The car shouldn’t, by itself, close the lid if something’s in the way. It should allow the user to push it down, or disable it temporarily, to do so.
The point of a safety feature in any system is to prevent unexpected situation from having unexpected consequences, not to be a magic solution that accommodate for brainless people. In one direction, you can make the judgement call and force the thing down, in the other direction you lose a finger.
You’re missing the point of a safety feature. The car shouldn’t, by itself, close the lid if something’s in the way. It should allow the user to push it down, or disable it temporarily, to do so.
I get the safety feature. The point is that here I am saying to the car to close the lid even if something is in the way. I made a conscious decision to do so, and more than one time, so I expect the car to do it. But I agree that it could have been designed in a better way.
The point of a safety feature in any system is to prevent unexpected situation from having unexpected consequences, not to be a magic solution that accommodate for brainless people. In one direction, you can make the judgement call and force the thing down, in the other direction you lose a finger.
Which is exactly what happened here. He made the judgement call to ignore the safety feature (and probably ignored how the feature works)
They learnt about consent from Elon.
Probably “graduated college” the same way as Elon too
It that point why not just have some blades slide out on the third try?
Why bother when the door itself is an effective guillotine?
The vehicles deny reality, same as their creator…
He did the test wrong because he’s experimenting with “safety” algorithms that the manufacturer has provided little-to-no documentation on and is having to come up with answers on his own. Maybe he wouldn’t be “doing it wrong” if Tesla hadn’t over-engineered every aspect of their piece of shit truck in the first place. This thing is a solution in search of a problem, and it’ll chop your fingers off until it finds it.
This thing is a solution in search of a problem
Most general question, what is the main purpose of this car? Why should people buy it?
It is a tank.
Steel walls for rich guys who want to protect their asses from masses of poor people around.
What should the door of your tank do if you want to close it, but some bonehead does not move his fingers out, repeatedly?
Now hurry, finally! This rich guy wants to get away from here! BAM!!
If it increases in pressure every time, I’m now curious how many times you need to close the trunk to cut a finger off
That was very nearly my exact same thought. Maybe not for curious children with carrot-sized fingers, but for adults, how convenient! Business competitor’s body won’t quite fit in your fancy frunk? Just while away on your phone for about 10 minutes, let the cat do its magic, and off go the legs! Travel-sized!
I wonder if you can get the frunk to critical velocity at the touch of a fly by constantly pumping it up like a pump action gun.
Escape velocity? 😉
He forgot to turn on Finger Safe Mode™️ before closing the trunk
But this feature requires an extra monthly subscription, that wasn’t included with the package of the YouTubers
Well to be fair, that functionality is a pretty pricey add-on.
They’re gonna add this in and call it “Jeremy mode”, just like the existing Joe Mode
That’s why Apple gave up on designing a car. All of the potential customer base has already been captured by Tesla.
Judkins said that after the finger test, a lead cybertruck engineer at Tesla said he did the video wrong.
lmao
Well apparently it’s programmed to bypass the safety system after 3 attempts under the assumption that the user knows best.
This seems like a really dumb choice, but I can see why an engineer would want to point out that it’s not incompetent engineering but an incompetent business department.
If you’re implementing it, it’s your responsibility, end of story.
if you don’t implement it, it will get implemented by someone else anyway and you’re putting your job at risk
Someone will be blamed, if you carry it out then you share the blame.
That’s called accountability and that’s why engineers get paid extra. Ethic classes are not the part of engineering degrees in the USA very obviously, I shouldn’t be surprised
How can you talk about personal responsibility while blaming engineers for the fact that this guy intentionally closed his finger in a car door?
Please read the comment I was originally answering to.
I did read it and I’m also reading it in the context of the article and the rabid group-think here claiming that a potential injury after closing your hand in a door four times in a row is somehow the companies fault or the fault of the engineering department.
Judkins said that after the finger test, a lead cybertruck engineer at Tesla said he did the video wrong.
Our truck doesn’t work as advertised but that kids video skills are just shit.
-tesla rep
If you read the article, it’s not a statement with entirely no merit.
The engineers prioritized an algorithm which is far more likely to be useful in real world scenarios where you keep trying to cram a bunch of stuff in the frunk and close it (who hasn’t done this?) rather than the edge case of repeatedly testing it with vegetables until you stick your finger in it.
Anyway, I suppose it’s back to the drawing board.
This is why you keep your safety features consistent. If they want bag close mode, then make it where you hold instead of press a button or something. It “happening automatically” is just unpredictable to most, not magical
In addition, what if the person noticed the obstructions and then moved them away, and then accidentally got a finger in there? That’s a realistic scenario too.
Fair point.
There should be no algorithm. It should be done by a human. There are no amount of lines of code I will ever make up for knowing intent and what the current situation is.
If it’s going to be closed by software it needs to prioritize safety 100% of the time. If more pressure is needed and that pressure needs to come from a human.
I think an algorithm that sounds unprepared to deal with children is insufficient.
Youre constantly forcing your trunk closed? That doesn’t sound normal to me actually, and sounds like the opposite of what I would want. Hello, groceries, important things, stuff I don’t want stolen so goes in the trunk?
That engineer was channeling Steve Jobs.
“… and if I were you, I would try not to make the same mistake again, mister”.
You know what they say… Don’t stick your finger in crazy
Title: Idiot Cybertruck Owner.
That’s all you need for the title.
I don’t think you even need idiot, it’s kinda redundant.
Saw a video of the other day of some guy that bought a cybertruck, and his review can basically be summarized as “it has a ton of issues, there’s rust all over it, it’s incredibly dangerous, definitely worth the $100,000”
Updated title: Most Cybertruck Owner Ever?
Bought it to begin with so his intelligence is suspect at the outset
What person with an automated cargo door closure mechanism has thought “stop protecting my stuff and just fucking close”?
I’ll admit it annoys me when there’s something in the way that keeps my door from latching and it reopens, but I’d rather have to clear the door and shut it manually than it force itself closed and jams the door or break my shit.
Its just like elevators, really. You put your hand in to stop the doors closing, they open again before touching your arm. Next time they close gently on your arm. Third time, the doors snap shut and the elevator ascends without further warning, resulting in traumatic amputation.
Wait what? Are there actually elevators “programmed” this way‽ (can this behavior even be changed in the controller?)
Because I have never “tested” this behavior per se (I mean you mostly want your elevator to move anyway so you ideally remove the obstruction the first time it didn’t fully close…)
I’ve seen cases where it takes some time to the group of people in the elevator to figure out the obstruction. Because it won’t even touch the object, just reopen again and again.
So no, elevators don’t do that, and I assume the parent comment is sarcastic.
Thats what I was hoping, but it was presented so deadpan that theres enough countries in the world that this could theoretically be true for some of them
I was joking, commenting on the absurdity of a safety system that deliberately gets less safe each time it triggers. Can you imagine the crush injuries and lawsuits if that were true? Not to mention all those movie scenes where someone repeatedly stops the elevator so they can confess their love to someone? They would end in tragedy.
No, elevators are infinitely patient, and will never close the doors on any object large enough to be a crush hazard. Dog leashes, yes sometimes, but not arms and feet.
It’s a joke about how the safety system on the car works. From another comment in this thread:
Based on what it didn’t cut through, his finger should have been safe but apparently Tesla designed the thing to keep increasing the pressure if it detects resistance each time until it can close, which is absolutely baffling. I don’t know of any other safety feature that turns down the safety the more it activates. The fact that it reacts to the exact same conditions differently each time should, in itself, be deeply concerning for any safety feature.
Satire is dead.
I, for one, still love it, and I’ll keep kicking its corpse until I’ve had my fill.
… …No.
Is there a hidden /s? I actually cant tell
If you look really hard, you’ll find it. It’s right there next to the gnat.
What person with an automated cargo door closure mechanism has thought “stop protecting my stuff and just fucking close”?
The same person that sometime need to force the door to close because even if his things are in the way, he know there will not be damages, just a bag a little more pressed. Or some more trashed trash you are taking to the landfill
I’ll admit it annoys me when there’s something in the way that keeps my door from latching and it reopens, but I’d rather have to clear the door and shut it manually than it force itself closed and jams the door or break my shit.
Which is what the system assume in this case. It stops 3 times, the 4th it suppose that the human know what he is doing.
Someone should tell this guy that hot dogs exist.
Well, he tried a carrot, cucumber, and banana before trying any body parts.
Can I get uhhhh 🅱️oneless finger
Or that they can get things like chicken feet that could help estimate force
The cybertruck is the dumbest tech product and that’s after you compare it to the Vision Pro and AI pin
It could be a lot better if it were able to get through tough terrains like wet beach sand. Or if the body didn’t rust after touching moisture. Or if it was able to survive a car wash.
Also it would have been neat if they had some automotive professionals working there to tell them that the accelerator pedal needs to come back up when your foot is off it.
Instead, we got…
Except Homer also runs the company.
A Tamagotchi has a better lifespan.
Just some minor flaws… For a supposedly high end car. My old Subaru is better for off roading than it is.
Do we also have something like r/dontputyourdickinthat on lemmy?
that car looks like shit
I saw my first cybertruck in person the other day. It looks incredibly dumb in promotional photos, but it’s astonishing how much stupider it looks in traffic surrounded by normal vehicles.
The stupidest thing about it to me is that it’s not really functional as a truck but look at it
I love when owners show off how “practical” that truck bed is - when it has about the same carrying capacity as my roadster’s trunk.
are owners actually doing this or is it just haters like me saying that they are? I assume they are all getting stuck in sand
yeah but look
likeat all the space you have in the trunk! almost two bags
