• tedu@azorius.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    There’s plenty of dumb to go around, but the word frunk by itself is the dumbest thing about this story.

    • saigot@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months 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.

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

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

    • MamboGator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months 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.

          • Serinus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            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.

      • nocturne@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months 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?