• inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year 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.

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year 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
          0
          ·
          1 year 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
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year 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
              0
              ·
              1 year 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
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year 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
              0
              ·
              1 year 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
                0
                ·
                1 year 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.

    • barsquid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year 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.

      • gian @lemmy.grys.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year 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.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

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

    • froh42@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year 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.

    • Plopp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year 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.

      • inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year 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.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year 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.

        • kibiz0r@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year 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.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year 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.)

            • Zier@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year 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.

            • jaamesbaxterr@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year 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
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year 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
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year 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.

                  😎

          • CerealKiller01@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year 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.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year 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!”

    • PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year 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.

    • Ech@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year 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.

      • inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year 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.

        • best_username_ever@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year 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.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year 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.

      • hersh@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year 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
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

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

  • Emerald@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    The crazy part to me is that he tried a carrot and it didn’t open for it. Yet he thought it was a good idea to try his finger which it about the same size.

      • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year 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

      • nocturne@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year 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
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

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

    • CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year 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
        0
        ·
        1 year 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.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year 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.

        • toofpic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

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

    • saigot@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year 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
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

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

        • OrekiWoof@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year 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
            0
            ·
            1 year 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
              0
              ·
              1 year 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
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year 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.

      • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year 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”

    • cerement@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Cave Johnson here. Fact: the key to any successful cooperative test is trust. And as our data clearly shows, humans, cannot be trusted. The solution? Robots!”

      • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        "An update: It turns out the robots learned how to lie and can no longer be trusted. They tried to take over the testing mainframe and I’ll be damned if I let them get their hands on my equipment! So I sent in a couple of interns to take care of it. Go earn those recommendations! I told them.

        “Anyway, it’s back to humans. This time new and upgraded with our state-of-the-art Aperture brain chips. The boys out-did themselves this time, increases testing compliance by 150%! Let’s see those humans just try to lie now!”

  • Bonesy91@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is sad. The cybertruck is a deathtrap on wheels and somehow “money” got it to pass any “money” to safety tests is beyond me…

    • Reddfugee42@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      somehow “money” got it to pass any “money” to safety tests is beyond me…

      This sentence brought to you by Stroke™️. Have you had a stroke lately?™️

    • Emerald@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      When I initially heard about the Cybertruck I was really hoping it would stay a concept and never get made.

      • You999@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Imo manufacturers need to do the opposite and release more concept cars. Some of the coolest looking cars you can never own. Just look at these masterpieces

        Hyundai N vision 74

        Mazda Furai (rip)

        • Psythik@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I was so upset when Hyundai said that they weren’t actually going to release the N Vision. I was really excited for that one cause they put so much work into making it look like an actual car you’d see on the road. I thought for sure it was coming out.

          There’s always the new 400Z if you want a modern sports car with retro styling. But even that one still looks too modern… :/

  • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year 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
      0
      ·
      1 year 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.

  • 𝓔𝓶𝓶𝓲𝓮@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is live example of how IQ doesn’t correlate with „success” though who knows if this funny test would even correlate with what we mean when we think of intelligence in this example

    Maybe the greed for views and fanboism wins over no matter the brains

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The YouTuber started the video by closing the frunk on produce like a carrot, cucumber, and banana before the update was installed. The frunk chopped all of the produce when it was placed in the frunk.

      The YouTuber then tried the same test with the update installed and was impressed with the improvement.

      “With just a software update, the Tesla Cybertruck frunk is way safer,” he said. “We witnessed it destroy a ton of vegetables, and then post-update did nothing.”

      He didn’t do a finger until building confidence first. He also tried an arm and then his hand before finally trying his finger.

      So not as crazy as the article made it out to be, and his finger wasn’t seriously hurt either, but it hurt enough that he didn’t want to try it again after getting info from the engineer about it getting stronger after each failed attempt.

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        getting stronger after each failed attempt.

        Why would that be a decided upon outcome? There’s gotta be a reason for that intention

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          If a bag or something is blocking the latch, then you may want it to try again harder. Or if the latch is a little bent, it may need more force to close properly.

          That said, I honestly don’t like automatic latches and whatnot, I prefer to close doors myself because there’s less stuff to break.

    • Hemingways_Shotgun@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year 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
        0
        ·
        1 year 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.

        • Hemingways_Shotgun@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year 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
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year 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.

            • Hemingways_Shotgun@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year 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.

    • bitchkat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • bitchkat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          So you’re confirming that it snapped the carrot? And then he tried it with body parts.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            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).

      • Laurel Raven@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • matlag@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          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$.