At the current rate of horrible fiery deaths, FuelArc projects the Cybertruck will have 14.52 fatalities per 100,000 units — far eclipsing the Pinto’s 0.85. (In absolute terms, FuelArc found, 27 Pinto drivers died in fires, while five Cybertruck drivers have suffered the same fate, at least so far.)

  • yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    128
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    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.

    • paraphrand@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Him and his libertarian friends fuck up left and right. Crashing startups and just getting more money for another. Constant recalls. Blowing up rockets until it works.

      Yet they hold the government to a standard of being perfect and high performing with no room for failure. NASA can’t be blowing up rockets. As soon as they do the world comes down on them.

      And Trump is the biggest fuckup of all these guys.

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

          The issue isn’t the way of testing, but the two standards. If Musk blows up rockets in testing it’s a genius move with rapid iteration. If NASA does this it’s irresponsible handling of tax payer’s money on risky endeavors.

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

        Blowing up rockets until it works is a far better approach than trying to get everything to work on the first try and ending up with a hugely overpriced white elephant.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      7 months ago

      I think it’s also worth noting that Elon Musk is a scammer. Every other word out of his mouth is likely a lie. He’s been claiming to already have technologies available for his Tesla cars, his SpaceX rockets, etc, all ready to go and… it never happened. Tesla full self driving? The Tesla taxis? SpaceX on Mars? The Tesla laughably stupid robots? Even those were faked.

      Claims after claims for decades and literally no results

      The guy is a full on bait and switch yet everyone seems to lap up everything this scammer says.

    • x00z@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      You can’t use “literally” and “paraphrasing” like that.

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

      Also, normally the cost savings should go to the client, not into some billionaires bank account.

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

      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.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.worldBanned
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      is pure tech-bro-libertarianism

      Tech bros are usually not libertarian. Being excited about a failed solution to only one of libertarian problems (blockchain) doesn’t make one libertarian, too.

      And like all libertarians, he’s stuck in the neoliberal mindset of less regulation (don’t scrutinize) and more efficiency (let me be cheap)

      That’s not libertarianism, more like Ayn Rand and her inverse bolshevism with good mighty benevolent industrial aristocracy and bad stupid mischievous everyone else. She even reads like one of Valentin Pikul’s “historical novels”, only with inverted good and bad guys. That ideology is radically different from libertarianism, instead of freedom, voluntarism, non-aggression and such, resulting in a free society with free contracts, Ayn Rand says that some people are better than the others and thus freedom, voluntarism, non-aggression etc are measures by relative value of the offender and the victim. It’s jungle law.

      Anyway, it’s not “neoliberal” either, anti-monopoly regulations are part of the “ideal” free market model. And I think Elon likes patents and trademarks, which are not necessarily there (and in libertarianism are not a thing).

      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.

      You might have seen the recent news about Tesla sales falling. Maybe it took so long because of accumulated trust into regulators not allowing car makers to make dangerous crap. So - then maybe in other reality, where Elon came to an industry already allowed to cut corners, he’d go bankrupt by now because of consumers understanding who he is.

      Life is complex, I’m not saying he’s right, just that.

      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.

      The way software industry works, a lot of people have died due to its failures. One has to count people who’ve committed suicide due to events cause by some bug or even UX problem, people who failed to communicate something in time, thus possibly saving someone, people who disclosed what they shouldn’t have, thus possibly causing a criminal death, medical errors due to software problems, wars, catastrophes.

      But yes, it’s already allowed to do that and Elon wants such wonders in other industries, so that we’d have a bit of natural selection in our daily lives. Dystopian cyberpunk is called dystopian because it’s not utopian, but being a billionaire, I guess, one would dream of living in such instead of utopian version of boring past.

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

    I’m guessing that some people at the National Transportation Safety Board are about to get fired by Elon Musk.

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

    And some people wonder why the cybertruck is barely sold outside the US.

    Everything I hear about this thing is bad.

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

          I have no problem with something looking stupid. The problem for me is not just that it looks stupid, but that it is stupid. It’s a stupid thing that shouldn’t exist.

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

      It’s barely sold outside the US because other places (like the EU) also care about the safety of people outside the vehicle. That’s why European and Asian cars (except the models explicitly for the US market like the Tacoma) are designed for pedestrians to be deflected, while US cars are a moving brick wall which will squish them like a bug.

      Also, I suspect you’d need commercial plates and a special license to drive it most other places, due to the weight.

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

      It’s only available in North America / Mexico. It won’t fly with many vehicle regulations outside of the US.

      I imagine the sharp edges are more than enough to keep it out of Europe forever. Pedestrians need to be able to roll onto a vehicle in an EU pedestrian collision. The Cybertruck will lop you in half.

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

    The thing is a very obvious death trap to anyone that knows simple physics. There are videos testing what happens when a Cybertruck hits a hard wall at certain speeds. That thing didn’t crumple at all until speeds greater than 35 mph. And even then it only barely crumples at all. The damage it could produce hitting another vehicle would be catastrophic and fatal.

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

    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.

  • bus_factor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    7 months ago

    Was the Pinto really that bad, though, or did Mother Jones do them dirty?

    In the numbers above, the Pinto is hardly a standout deathtrap; I mean, by modern standards, sure, everything on that list is a horrible deathtrap, but the Pinto was safer than the Toyota Corolla or the Beetle or the Datsun 210, and none of those cars are as burdened with the oppressive fiery deathtrap narrative as the Pinto is. In fact, the Pinto’s overall deaths per million vehicles is better than the average!

    https://www.theautopian.com/its-long-past-time-to-stop-making-fun-of-the-ford-pinto/

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

    It seems obvious in hindsight. Sheet metal doors will crumple in a way that can’t be opened, trapping occupants. The fire doesn’t need to start in the relatively safe and armored battery system. It could be pinched wiring causing a short that ignites plastic interiors, or a fire from another vehicle spreading to the cybertruck.

    I’m sure someone mentioned all this to them during design.

  • notsoshaihulud@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Reads like clickbait. There’s 34K Cybetrucks, so the actual number of fire fatalities is rounded to 5, one of which is the trumptower guy (so 20% is already intentional). Not that these are encouraging numbers, but you can’t draw conclusions from an N of 4.

    • Dr. Bob@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      You can draw conclusions because there’s only 35,000 on the road. That is a terrible rate.

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

        that’s how confirmation bias works, not statistical probabilities.

        EM’s still a nazi and the CT is a horrible joke, but this is still insufficient data.

        • Dr. Bob@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Are you telling me that 35,000 vehicles is not a sufficient sample size to assess safety? Are you for real?

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

            No. Incidence is a measure of probability of events over time (or with cars alternatively over miles). If the number of events is low (and 4 is low), your confidence intervals are extremely wide (which is the statistical way to say, we have no idea what the real number may be). The comparison is striking, the pinto had 27 fires over 9 years in >3M vehicles. https://fuelarc.com/evs/its-official-the-cybertruck-is-more-explosive-than-the-ford-pinto/

            Let’s add that idiots buy cybertrucks who disproportionately think it’s bulletproof…

            Again, “analyses” like this make great clickbait but contribute very little to our understanding, and that will remain the case even regardless of you getting angry at me about it or not.

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

              It’s so great to be able to find comments such as yours, unfortunately it feels uncommon in Lemmy specially when certain names are mentioned, the bias and willfulness to shit on those are making people a bit blindsided and easy to guide through bad data usage. My first thought reading the title was about the statistical value of the numbers given, which doesn’t detract from the actual quality or lack thereof of the vehicle. At the moment using elon musk or tesla in a title of an article will increase the traffic automatically. Which is why we constantly get every single shitty comment made by him reported with useless data.

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

                Yeah it’s part of the enshitification process. This is why Lemmy appears superior to reddit thus far. On reddit, the quintessential early “are you stupid?” response is enough to shut down the conversation. I’m glad it didn’t happen here.

                And it’s not even that I disagree that Teslas have major safety design faults, you cannot put door opening mechanism on an electric actuator, because you’ll get trapped. I’d never buy a car that doesn’t have a mechanical door latch at hand (it’s hidden on teslas). Interestingly Teslas used to be considered one of the safest vehicles, but I think a lot of it is, the early EV adopter demographic is simply characterized by much safer driving, and as this demographic shifted, more and more reckless drivers obtained Teslas. (I’ve been driving EVs since 2017 and around 2022 the demographic shift, at least for Teslas, became very obvious)

            • Dr. Bob@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.

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

                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 (i.e., some of the key assumptions of Poisson are incorrect here) 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-based, non-random human factors, which applied to other vehicles could generate similar results, and if the analysis were serious, they would have individually reviewed how these whopping 4 events happened, accounted for reporting bias towards EV fires (especially Tesla) and compared it to the F150 or the Ford Lightning as an analogous vehicle.

                And I know the internet tends to conflate condescension with competence, but seriously, you should understand the above-listed things as a stats teacher.

                edits for clarity

                edit 2: also, in the times of the prussian army they did not have to account for stuff like people suddenly starting to pull the horses’ tails for social media views.