• inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    501
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    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.

      • inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        119
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

          • Serinus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            57
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

          • puppy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Whose company that sends a poop emoji as a response when the PR department is emailed? Hmm, this us a tough question. . .

        • best_username_ever@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          33
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

      • hersh@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        59
        ·
        7 months ago

        “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.

      • toofpic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        “Oh my, the cake box/finger/dog was in the way, but thanks for automation, the door didn’t close!”

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

    • Ech@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      136
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • barsquid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        46
        ·
        7 months ago

        “If it encounters resistance, the brushless motor increases in pressure until it closes fully.” Guess the company:

        1. DeWalt
        2. Milwaukee
        3. Makita
        4. Tesla
    • barsquid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      93
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        7 months ago

        Maybe because they want the degradation of some mechanism to be less noticeable over time. And because they’re dumb.

      • gian @lemmy.grys.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      53
      ·
      7 months ago

      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!”

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      7 months ago

      We deliberately made it fail critical. It’s your fault for expecting fail safe!

    • Plopp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

        • toofpic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          Except when the stuff is in, you have free hands to close doors and hatches

          • CerealKiller01@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

            • ReveredOxygen@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              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

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        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.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.)

            • jaamesbaxterr@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              7 months ago

              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?

                • BaseModelHuman@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  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.

                • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  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.

                  😎

            • Zier@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.

        • kibiz0r@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

      • inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        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.

        • Plopp@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

    • PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

    • froh42@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      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.

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      7 months ago

      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?

        • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

          • inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            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.

            • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              Friendly challenge: respond to that user again, in no more words than the first time, but address his question :)

              • inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                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.

            • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.

              • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                7 months ago

                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.

      • nocturne@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        54
        ·
        7 months ago

        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?

        • essteeyou@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          I don’t see “dipstick” in the wild very often, but I always appreciate it. Are you English by any chance?

      • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        45
        ·
        7 months ago

        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

    • CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      56
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

        • toofpic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          7 months ago

          Because I am the bag commander. If I want the bag to fit, and it doesn’t fit, I’d better crush it!

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

    • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Then he wouldn’t get nearly as many views. Or have articles written about him

  • tedu@azorius.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    130
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    7 months ago

    There’s plenty of dumb to go around, but the word frunk by itself is the dumbest thing about this story.

  • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    112
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    A Tesla engineer said the test was done wrong because the frunk increases in pressure every time.

    “You are holding it wrong!” 🤣

      • cley_faye@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        7 months ago

        I’m sure these “engineers” were confused everytime they saw an elevator door not mercilessly crush people.

        • barsquid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          7 months ago

          This breakthrough technology could finally provide a way to teach people on the MTA not to hold the doors.

        • gian @lemmy.grys.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

            • gian @lemmy.grys.it
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.

              • cley_faye@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                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.

                • gian @lemmy.grys.it
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  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)

    • Chozo@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        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!!

    • ozymandias117@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      7 months ago

      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

      • Nepenthe@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        7 months ago

        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!

      • oleorun@real.lemmy.fan
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

      • filister@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        7 months ago

        But this feature requires an extra monthly subscription, that wasn’t included with the package of the YouTubers

      • LiveLM@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        They’re gonna add this in and call it “Jeremy mode”, just like the existing Joe Mode

    • Adderbox76@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • Halosheep@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        44
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        “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.

        • Adderbox76@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          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.

          • Ryru Grr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            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.

            • Adderbox76@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.

      • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Its the same wirh Being First To Market.

        But in the financial world your failed risk hurts more than your family.

      • bcron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        I would have preferred a ‘will it blend’ format with the ultimate test being the Cybertruck’s own keyfob (you have one job!)

        • xthexder@l.sw0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          The keyfob is either just a credit card sized thing, or your phone. There is no fob.

          • atrielienz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

    • saigot@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • Miaou@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        7 months ago

        If you’re implementing it, it’s your responsibility, end of story.

        • OrekiWoof
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          if you don’t implement it, it will get implemented by someone else anyway and you’re putting your job at risk

          • Miaou@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            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

            • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              How can you talk about personal responsibility while blaming engineers for the fact that this guy intentionally closed his finger in a car door?

                • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  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.

  • ShortFuse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Judkins said that after the finger test, a lead cybertruck engineer at Tesla said he did the video wrong.

    • Dkarma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Our truck doesn’t work as advertised but that kids video skills are just shit.

      -tesla rep

    • realitista@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • cooltrainer_frank@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        59
        ·
        7 months ago

        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

      • CaptPretentious@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        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.

      • Zoot@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        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?

      • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 months ago

        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”

  • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    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.

    • Agent641@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • reinei@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        7 months ago

        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…)

        • erwan
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

          • Kedly@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            7 months ago

            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

            • Agent641@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              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.

            • Clandestine@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.

    • gian @lemmy.grys.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

  • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    The cybertruck is the dumbest tech product and that’s after you compare it to the Vision Pro and AI pin

    • barsquid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

    • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • nutsack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        The stupidest thing about it to me is that it’s not really functional as a truck but look at it

        • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

          • nutsack@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            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