The Cybertruck Appears to Be More Deadly Than the Infamous Ford Pinto, According to a New Analysis
-
This post did not contain any content.
Do they have emergency releases on the outside? I know a locked door of a car with traditional latching mechanisms won't open. But an unlocked vehicle where a bystander cannot render aid in an emergency seems so.... Short sighted.
-
Do they have emergency releases on the outside? I know a locked door of a car with traditional latching mechanisms won't open. But an unlocked vehicle where a bystander cannot render aid in an emergency seems so.... Short sighted.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O2fUhCCuTto
Not in the outside, but the rear releases are hidden in the door well under a vanity mat
-
And the answer is"What is the Poisson Distribution" Alex.
There is literally a distribution that describes the occurences of low probability events in large populations. It was developed to study deaths by horse kick in the Prussian army. So confidence intervals never come into it. You're applying Stats for Communications Majors reasoning to an adult problem.
Well, the problem is, even if I take the single case where this one guy exploded himself with his truck and compare it to the Pinto data, the poisson distribution difference will probably be statistically significant, yet the measure would be absolutely useless from a real-world perspective, because it has nothing to do with the vehicle's design.
I'd also argue that many of these events might not even be entirely occurring independently from each other when people do all sorts of stupid shit with these rolling garbage cans like shooting at them, submerging them, etc. in a meme-like fashion for Tiktok views. So 4 events might very well be influenced by non-design/human-based factors, which applied to other cars could generate similar results, and if the analysis were serious, they would have reviewed how these whopping 4 events happened.
And I know the more condescending the responses the better, but seriously, you should understand these things as a stats teacher.
-
You just literally said (interpretive paraphrasing),
"I like big butts and I cannot lie"They're just paraphrasing Chaucer
-
A rocket is not fundamentally new and hasn’t been for almost 100 years.
Rockets perform correctly when they deliver their payload to the correct orbit.
You can calculate the energy density of fuels, the efficiency of your engines at various atmospheric pressures, and determine the payload size you can deliver with your engines and fuel. Blowing up rockets for “tests” is so 1950s. We have whole college programs on rocket design. We have desktop computers more powerful than anything available in the 1960s, and NASA managed to design the Saturn V, a rocket of similar size to starship, with the computers of the time and fucking slide rules. The Saturn V had its problem, but each rocket managed to deliver its payload and perform its part of the mission without blowing up.
Your comment is classic tech bro. No understanding of real engineering principles and only a desire to shove some shit out of the door as fast as possible.
There are two American rocket projects in the works that can carry a significant payload to the moon. One is using existing parts in a new configuration. It had one successful launch and cost $4B ($2.5B in launch costs alone). One is building a largely new system and improving existing elements and is estimated to have cost less than $2B so far, although it hasn't reached the moon yet. That said, they have done 7 tests, at least 3 with a full configuration. How is that not better than the other option?
Also, you are acting like there are no fundamental advances happening in space engineering. Sure, the physics is pretty well-known, but the engineering problem of landing and reusing stages/rockets commercially has only been done since the Falcon series, so I think it's safe to assume the technology and associated product lines is still maturing.
-
Do they have emergency releases on the outside? I know a locked door of a car with traditional latching mechanisms won't open. But an unlocked vehicle where a bystander cannot render aid in an emergency seems so.... Short sighted.
It is on purposes. He wants a cyberpunk fantasy car. You know what you can do in many cyberpunk games? Blow up cars with the slightest of ease. They're made of explodium in some games, and in Cyberpunk 2077 there is a quickhack (like a magic spell, but cyberpunk) that can cause the car to literally explode.
Can you imagine for one second if someone managed to find a way to consistently connect to Tesla vehicles AND found a way to cause the battery to overheat and burn? The door autolock will cause the passengers to be trapped and be burned alive.
I don't think this is an accident. No one can be that stupid to make something like that by accident.
-
I would be surprised for a lot of reasons. The main one being, they'd have to be dirt cheap and have an exceptional warranty agreement attached in order to compete with other automakers who make bulletproof vehicles. And, further there's too many other problems with the amount of information they collect that the DHS would not have full and direct control over. Tesla's are well known for recording anything and everything. We learned when they blew one up outside that Trump Hotel that they can be remotely locked by Tesla the company. A private company should not have that kind of direct access to government vehicles or any kind.
I think that really underestimates how corruption would work. Tesla might make a show of a "government edition" software loadout, whether because they had to or even as theater to pretend they catered to government requirements when in actuality it's largely the same but maybe with some branding.
In terms of pricing, I'm sure that any actually "bulletproof" vehicles cost plenty. Which is why even departments like the DHS have largely unarmored fleets. Tesla wouldn't meet those standards, but the marketing might be sufficient to serve as a bullet point over the current non-armored vehicles they use.
-
Let me simplify it for you... Musk has been targeting agencies that stood in the way of SpaceX. Did you hear he started targeting OSHA this week because of the spotlight on Musk's intentional dismissal of safety regulations? Or that he is also targeting the consumer protection agency? Everything that protects regular citizens is being shut down as "wasteful", and his only criteria is anything that costs him money or prevents him from exploiting workers.
Don't forget the revelation that USAID was looking into Starlink in a critical way...
-
This post did not contain any content.
I was driving out of a parking lot yesterday just as a Cybertruck started to pull in off the street from the left. The driver was white-knuckling the wheel and was frantically looking around as I assume he could barely see out of the goddamn thing as he swung so wide he nearly clipped my car. He needed almost the entire driveway to make his turn.
I cannot imagine dropping so much money on something so useless and so hideous.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I believe 4 of the Cybertruck fatalities were from a single crash. While the truck may indeed be dangerous, there is hardly enough data yet to draw conclusions.
-
Cybertruck will have 14.52 fatalities per 100,000 units — far eclipsing the Pinto’s 0.85.
Holy shit, that means the Cybertruck fatality rate is around 17 times higher than the Pinto's!
Do you realize how fucking insane that is? From 1921 to 1951 the rate of auto deaths dropped by around 50%, and from 1921 to 2011 the rate dropped by 90%. This is not just due to regulations on cars and pedestrian travel, but also in very large part due to crash safety in cars that steadily improved. With crash safety becoming a science, and crash test dummies being invented, and crumple zones, and air bags and seatbelts and the laws thereof.
Musk, asshole motherfucker that he is, is trying to destroy all of that.
-
Safety belts are a waste of precious money!
Safe at any speed!
-
A rocket is not fundamentally new and hasn’t been for almost 100 years.
Rockets perform correctly when they deliver their payload to the correct orbit.
You can calculate the energy density of fuels, the efficiency of your engines at various atmospheric pressures, and determine the payload size you can deliver with your engines and fuel. Blowing up rockets for “tests” is so 1950s. We have whole college programs on rocket design. We have desktop computers more powerful than anything available in the 1960s, and NASA managed to design the Saturn V, a rocket of similar size to starship, with the computers of the time and fucking slide rules. The Saturn V had its problem, but each rocket managed to deliver its payload and perform its part of the mission without blowing up.
Your comment is classic tech bro. No understanding of real engineering principles and only a desire to shove some shit out of the door as fast as possible.
You are 100% correct about modeling being more advanced. It proves just how stupid Musk is. Musk at one point asked for the code that twitter uses to be printed on paper... on fucking paper! Like what the hell is this? The 1970s? I wrote code in the 90s and I never heard of anyone printing out raw code before him.
-
I love Elon Bad posts, but I think it's worthwhile to examine why Elon bad in this case.
Like many reactionaries, Elon's business philosophy is pure tech-bro-libertarianism. And like all libertarians, he's stuck in the neoliberal mindset of less regulation (don't scrutinize) and more efficiency (let me be cheap), in order to create the safe space that industrialists need to
extract, er create.He's literally said things like (paraphrasing)
When I see a specification for three bolts I ask: why can't we do it with two?
His transparent reasoning is that if he's allowed to cut corners, he'll save money today and consequences can be dealt with when they arise.
He's following the software model of release a minimally viable product and patch it later. Only instead of user frustration at being beta testers, you fucking die maybe.
oh god that quote. he's so lame and fucking stupid.
I'm sure corner cutting is a concern but also he's so insecure he probably read things about Steve Jobs or something, and tried to ape him. I remember something about Jobs supposedly telling employees to reduce steps in some processes or whatever. this idiot doesn't understand anything so he thinks asking for fewer bolts is the same thing.
why can't we do it in two? cause that's how you secure things you fucking dumbass. your proud fascination for "fewer bolts" is why your hypercuck tried to kill a driver.
-
I was driving out of a parking lot yesterday just as a Cybertruck started to pull in off the street from the left. The driver was white-knuckling the wheel and was frantically looking around as I assume he could barely see out of the goddamn thing as he swung so wide he nearly clipped my car. He needed almost the entire driveway to make his turn.
I cannot imagine dropping so much money on something so useless and so hideous.
well i hate to say this (really i do), turning is actually one of the only strong points about the CT. It can do a u-turn in the same-ish radius as a model 3, much better than most vehicles in its class.
that driver was just a fucking moron
-
I believe 4 of the Cybertruck fatalities were from a single crash. While the truck may indeed be dangerous, there is hardly enough data yet to draw conclusions.
yeah certainly not enough to have statistical significance
-
well i hate to say this (really i do), turning is actually one of the only strong points about the CT. It can do a u-turn in the same-ish radius as a model 3, much better than most vehicles in its class.
that driver was just a fucking moron
that driver was just a fucking moron
I mean, he bought a cybertruck lol
-
You mean that dog killer lady and Nazi weirdo care about competition and data security?
They aren't the only people who have a say in what happens. It's funny to me that y'all clearly don't know how the government works or how much red tape there is. Tesla is an overvalued and under performing company that barely deserves to be called an automotive manufacturer.
The government has already signed contracts with other car manufacturers for the purposes of armored vehicles. Those manufacturers will absolutely sue for breach of contract in the event that the government doesn't pay them and utilize their vehicles. Further, there are still regulations and specifications that are required to be met. They can't fire everyone no matter how much they think they can. And Congress will not jeopardize their cash cows.
It's a lot of different echelons of the government that this type of thing has to go through and it's definitely not going to happen overnight. I'm not saying it can't happen. I'm saying that it'll take time and the other automotive companies will fight back against anything they see as a conflict of interest.
I can understand that people think things look bleak. But like half of what's going on right now is scare tactics to make the general populace capitulate without a fight. The people who know how things work are very rarely ever at the top of anything. The people who get shit done are rarely at the top.
The budget is already signed sealed and delivered. Where's DHS gonna get this money? Because I would bet other car manufacturers have already bid for the contract for new vehicles. So unless you've got something that says Tesla won the bid, quit playing with me.
-
Because the way the world worked changed a few months ago. Trump is immune and has pardon powers.
You'd be surprised at how little it's changed. Oligarchs are still oligarchs. You think the Ford and GMC CEOs are just gonna let Musk come in and eat their lunch when they have a whole swathe of legal teams just waiting for the government to breach a contract?
-
I think that really underestimates how corruption would work. Tesla might make a show of a "government edition" software loadout, whether because they had to or even as theater to pretend they catered to government requirements when in actuality it's largely the same but maybe with some branding.
In terms of pricing, I'm sure that any actually "bulletproof" vehicles cost plenty. Which is why even departments like the DHS have largely unarmored fleets. Tesla wouldn't meet those standards, but the marketing might be sufficient to serve as a bullet point over the current non-armored vehicles they use.
I think we can count on the corruption and legal rights of other companies more than you think apparently. Tesla's not the only car company. They certainly don't have the same pull in the government as Ford and GMC and Dodge. Tesla is a brand new player who cannot be trusted to follow the rules and deactivate or unequip any sensors and components for tracking that the government would require (on trucks they have already manufactured for the civilian market. The government don't have the qualified personnel to upkeep these vehicles, and that's assuming they even have a place to store a fleet of them that's covered parking.
A government software load out is not going to be enough. When the government buys vehicles they specifically have them manufactured to a spec and that spec would have to involve the removal and or lack of installation of most of the sensors and capabilities the vehicle comes with stock. So they either have to buy them as is and modify them (which requires personnel with a specific set of training and qualifications, or they have to be manufactured to that spec at the Tesla factory (or retrofitted to remove the unwanted components).
DHS's armored and unarmored fleets can be washed, can be parked in an uncovered lot, can be maintenanced by the personnel they already have. There's way more to buying a fleet of vehicles than just the price tag for individual units.
I work on planes for a living including government planes when we get the contract for those and let me tell you, they differ quite a lot from conventional civilian planes even when the base plane is the same. Tesla doesn't already have a contract and even if they get one that money isn't allocated to them in the budget. There's plenty of other reasons why I think this is a BS take, but man even corruption has a shelf life. Trump may be out of office in a couple of years but the entire government won't just up and retire with him.
