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)
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.
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.
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…