"frunk"ing frunk!
Seriously, did fhe same designer proofread fhis?
Just the tip to see how it feels bay bay
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.
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.
Its just like elevators, really. You put your hand in to stop the doors closing, they open again before touching your arm. Next time they close gently on your arm. Third time, the doors snap shut and the elevator ascends without further warning, resulting in traumatic amputation.
Wait what? Are there actually elevators “programmed” this way‽ (can this behavior even be changed in the controller?)
Because I have never “tested” this behavior per se (I mean you mostly want your elevator to move anyway so you ideally remove the obstruction the first time it didn’t fully close…)
I’ve seen cases where it takes some time to the group of people in the elevator to figure out the obstruction. Because it won’t even touch the object, just reopen again and again.
So no, elevators don’t do that, and I assume the parent comment is sarcastic.
… …No.
Satire is dead.
The worst part of the article is them using the term frunk unironically.
I think frunk is a good word. What would you call a trunk that is in the front of the car.
A normal trunk in the back isn’t a “bunk”.
Why is frunk a good name for the front? It’s silly.
Well traditionally, cars only had one trunk, now it is common that they have two. The need arose to distinguish them, and ‘front trunk’ easily collapses into a nice single syllable portmanteau that makes communication simple and concise; the language evolves and a new word is born.
A trunk. There’s nothing about that word that indicates location.
It’s implied at this point
No not really. Plenty of rear and mid engine cars have had a trunk up front.
A Trood or Tronnet for the British folk.
Frussy
Yes.
Trussy
That’s just a normal word a this point, I’ve seen it in use for years in car tests.
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’s next? When you press the brake padel the car is going to assume that you want to slow down? Wow, that’s some fantastic wisdom from Tesla!
Are there any crashes already involving pedestrians? I really wonder how broken those pedestrians are after the hit. I think the chance to survive a hit from a Cybertruck is minimal.
And I am even surprised that it is allowed on your streets.
To be fair, the survivability of being hit by any big US pickup is pretty small. Perhaps the cybertruck is even worse though.
Pickups are explicitly exempted from a lot of crash/pedestrian safety laws in the US (I think related to them being classed as commercial vehicles), despite every other car on the road there being a pickup.
Murica, vehicles with sharp edges and assault rifles at walmart is where freedom is at.
Oh no I saw a video where it chopped a carrot without stopping
I don’t have the courage to click the link….
THAT’S THIS!!!
He went through a bunch of vegetables and, admittedly, it was pretty impressive how it handled them. But then with no hesitation it took off the tip of the carrot and he still decided to try his finger
So that’s incredibly stupid, lol if it crushes and cuts a carrot why couldn’t do it with a finger
Feel like this could have been demonstrated with a hot dog
Penis, got it!
He tested it with multiple similar objects.
Then he wouldn’t get nearly as many views. Or have articles written about him
Or a penis.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
He did demonstrate it that way, specifically with a carrot. And it somewhat worked. The problem is they programmed it to do more and more pressure every time it fails meaning that doing the carrot first actually caused a safety issue. He only moved onto his finger because the safety feature seemed to be working.
The engineer told him the frunk increases in pressure every single time it closes and detects resistance, Judkins said. It’s going to assume you want to close the frunk and maybe something like a bag is getting in the way, which would make it close harder.
Geniuses.
Because I am the bag commander. If I want the bag to fit, and it doesn’t fit, I’d better crush it!
Judkins said that after the finger test, a lead cybertruck engineer at Tesla said he did the video wrong.
That engineer was channeling Steve Jobs.
Our truck doesn’t work as advertised but that kids video skills are just shit.
-tesla rep
Judkins said that after the finger test, a lead cybertruck engineer at Tesla said he did the video wrong.
lmao
Well apparently it’s programmed to bypass the safety system after 3 attempts under the assumption that the user knows best.
This seems like a really dumb choice, but I can see why an engineer would want to point out that it’s not incompetent engineering but an incompetent business department.
“Data sent to HQ. Thank you for your participation”
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.
We deliberately made it fail critical. It’s your fault for expecting fail safe!
This is why, as a software developer, I’m against designing any system that assumes what the user wants and tries to do it for them automatically. On the occasions where the assumption is right, it’s a mild convenience at best. When it’s wrong, it is always infuriating if not dangerous.
Yeah, I’m an embedded software developer myself and yeah, when we architect our code we have safety critical sections identified with software safety reviews and we always go with the assumption that we’re going to run into that one guy who’s the living embodiment of Murphy’s law and go from there with that design to minimize the potential for injury and death.
Can’t imagine who the hell is in charge of the software safety reviews there that let that pass.
You think a company run by Elon has an extensive software safety review system?
Whose company that sends a poop emoji as a response when the PR department is emailed? Hmm, this us a tough question. . .
Not anymore they were all fired.
They did, but Elon asked one of them for a latte and they brought him one with 2% instead of oatmilk so he gutted the whole department.
/s, because it might be to be specified.
Are you certain you’re wrong, though?
“Oh my, the cake box/finger/dog was in the way, but thanks for automation, the door didn’t close!”
The customer is always wrong.
I know I’m old school and all that, but why do people want to pay for automatically closing doors of any kind? Automatic opening of cargo spaces I get, if you have your bags full of hands or whatever, but once you put the stuff in there… Seem like such an incredibly unnecessary and costly feature, that also have a high chance of failing in the future. I don’t get it.
Because taking stuff out is like putting stuff in, only in the reverse order.
Except when the stuff is in, you have free hands to close doors and hatches
I think we’re on two different wavelengths.
Put stuff in: Stand next to closed car with no free hands, could use automatically opening doors.
Take stuff out: Open car. Pick up stuff out of the car. Stand next to open car with no free hands, could use automatically closing doors.
Good question. My wife’s RAV4 has a rear door that will only close if you press a button. You can’t close it manually. Furthermore, it’s on the door while it’s open and my five foot tall wife can barely reach it. It’s ridiculous.
Wouldn’t your wife have a hard time closing it manually too then?
You know, that’s true and it didn’t even occur to me. I guess she just wouldn’t have bought it? (I would have been fine with that, I hate SUVs, even hybrids.)
We’ve got a 2019 Rav and I can’t remember how, but you can adjust the height that the door opens to by some series of button pushes. We had to lower it so that it doesn’t hit the frame of the garage door when opening it inside the garage. Maybe just adjust it so that it doesn’t open all the way and it’ll be easier for her to reach the button?
I’ll let her know about that. Thanks.
I actually sell these. You can manually lower the door to the height that works comfortably, then hold the automatic door button down for about 3 seconds. That should program the door to a new maximum height.
Because like you said, it’s a nice to have feature. I like my wife’s auto closing hatch for when I have a handful of boxes for that final grocery run and just walk away and it closes. It’s literally just really nice convenience feature and if it fails, you go back to closing it manually.
I get it’s nice to have, and if it somehow cost nothing I wouldn’t mind having it in a car, if it’s pretty much guaranteed that when it fails it doesn’t prevent me from open/close manually. But I’d much rather not pay for neither the R&D, engineering, parts and manufacturing of it, only to end up with a more complex door mechanism that is more expensive to repair and more likely to break. When all it does is give me the slightest of conveniences. Best example of this is the motorized charging port lid on the Rivian. Like, whyyyy? Cheaper and longer lasting vehicles, please.
Must… break… finger… push mooooaaaa. ~Tesla
We built it wrong as a joke
How many miles? Would you say, ten million?
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.
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.
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.
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.
…the frunk?
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.
At least he didn’t try with a cylinder.
A Tesla engineer said the test was done wrong because the frunk increases in pressure every time.
“You are holding it wrong!” 🤣
He forgot to turn on Finger Safe Mode™️ before closing the trunk
But this feature requires an extra monthly subscription, that wasn’t included with the package of the YouTubers
Well to be fair, that functionality is a pretty pricey add-on.
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
Of course it just keeps hitting harder when things are in the way.
Literally Tesla’s response
It that point why not just have some blades slide out on the third try?
I’m sure these “engineers” were confused everytime they saw an elevator door not mercilessly crush people.
This breakthrough technology could finally provide a way to teach people on the MTA not to hold the doors.
Nope, but they probably know that an elevator doors and a car lid are two completely different thing with different use cases and security concerns.
They sure did not know about the “not crushing human limbs” part.
Obviously.
But let’s face it: if the car lid would never close if something is in the way, some other dumb youtuber would have made a video about it and here there would be a discussion about how stupid are the engineers to not let the lid close even if a bag in slightly on on the way and the user know what they are doing.
You’re missing the point of a safety feature. The car shouldn’t, by itself, close the lid if something’s in the way. It should allow the user to push it down, or disable it temporarily, to do so.
The point of a safety feature in any system is to prevent unexpected situation from having unexpected consequences, not to be a magic solution that accommodate for brainless people. In one direction, you can make the judgement call and force the thing down, in the other direction you lose a finger.
You’re missing the point of a safety feature. The car shouldn’t, by itself, close the lid if something’s in the way. It should allow the user to push it down, or disable it temporarily, to do so.
I get the safety feature. The point is that here I am saying to the car to close the lid even if something is in the way. I made a conscious decision to do so, and more than one time, so I expect the car to do it. But I agree that it could have been designed in a better way.
The point of a safety feature in any system is to prevent unexpected situation from having unexpected consequences, not to be a magic solution that accommodate for brainless people. In one direction, you can make the judgement call and force the thing down, in the other direction you lose a finger.
Which is exactly what happened here. He made the judgement call to ignore the safety feature (and probably ignored how the feature works)
The vehicles deny reality, same as their creator…
They learnt about consent from Elon.
Probably “graduated college” the same way as Elon too
