• saigot@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      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.

      • Miaou@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        If you’re implementing it, it’s your responsibility, end of story.

  • inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    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.

    • MamboGator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      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
        2
        ·
        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.

      • hersh@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        “Smart” may as well be synonymous with “unpredictable”. I don’t need my computer to be smart. I need it to be predictable, consistent, and undemanding.

    • Ech@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      What the fuck kind of idiots are leading things over there? “Something’s in the way. Better crush it!” What a bunch of morons putting everyone in danger.

        • T00l_shed@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          The sane people were fired or left. I’m sure most of who’s left are either stuck or like to lick elons taint.

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

        “If it encounters resistance, the brushless motor increases in pressure until it closes fully.” Guess the company:

        1. DeWalt
        2. Milwaukee
        3. Makita
        4. Tesla
    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      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
          1
          ·
          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.

            • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Friendly challenge: respond to that user again, in no more words than the first time, but address his question :)

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

                No thank you. I refuse to engage with a person trying to straw man and change topics from a software safety argument to a personal preference that goes nowhere but you feel free to engage if you wish.

            • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              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
                2
                ·
                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.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I wonder if the guy that designed autopilot had the same idea. “So when the car detects resistance up ahead in the form of a crowd or wall, it will accelerate to make sure it goes through!”

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

      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.

      • gian @lemmy.grys.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

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

      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.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            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.)

          • CerealKiller01@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            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.

  • Emerald@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

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

    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!

    • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      By tesla’s logic, it’ll assume that you want to slow down, and will speed up to make you slow down faster

  • nfsu2@feddit.cl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    I get the idea automation, its great when it saves time and effort but when it represents a minuscule chance of chopping a limb off you it should never be implemented to the public.

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

    A Tesla engineer said the test was done wrong because the frunk increases in pressure every time.

    “You are holding it wrong!” 🤣

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

        I’m sure these “engineers” were confused everytime they saw an elevator door not mercilessly crush people.

        • gian @lemmy.grys.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

            • gian @lemmy.grys.it
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              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.

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

                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.

                • gian @lemmy.grys.it
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  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)

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

      • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        A baby carrot

        It takes about the same force to bite through a baby carrot as it does to bite through a finger

        As long as the carrot is pretty close to the size of the finger you’re wishing to stimulate

        I wish I didn’t know that

        • muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Fortunately I don’t think that’s strictly accurate. Try biting through a chicken wing its not as easy as a carrot.

        • gregorum@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          This isn’t true, and I know it as a fact. I’m not gonna tell you how I know, but I know.

          Biting through a human finger bone takes much more force than it does to bite through a fucking carrot.

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

      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.

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

        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.

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

          Because I am the bag commander. If I want the bag to fit, and it doesn’t fit, I’d better crush it!

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

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

  • Wispy2891@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Oh no I saw a video where it chopped a carrot without stopping

    I don’t have the courage to click the link….

    • EdibleFriend@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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

      • Wispy2891@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        So that’s incredibly stupid, lol if it crushes and cuts a carrot why couldn’t do it with a finger

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

      I saw my first cybertruck in person the other day. It looks incredibly dumb in promotional photos, but it’s astonishing how much stupider it looks in traffic surrounded by normal vehicles.

    • Adderbox76@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      We live in an age where the notion of “thinking something through before doing it”, also known as “common sense” has been replaced with the need to get it out there onto the internet as fast as possible before someone else beats you to it. The need for social gratification on the internet beats the need for self-preservation.

      The first time I recall realizing this what when another YouTube dipship picked up a Portuguese Man-o-war and people got pissy when it was pointed out how lucky he was to not have been stung and how it was sheer dumb luck that he was still alive

      People defended him saying “He didn’t know it was dangerous, he didn’t know what it was…” And that’s the whole fucking point… We used to live in a society were people were smart enough to not touch shit that they don’t know if it’s dangerous or not. The concept of erring on the side of caution is now abandoned because of stupidity and social media credits.

      • Halosheep@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        “we used to” No the fuck we didn’t. Humans have always been dumb, shortsighted, and curious. The internet just makes it really easy to see the ones that fuck up enough to be entertaining.

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

      He used a banana, an organic dildo, and a carrot. It snapped the carrot and then he decided to try with his arm, hand, and finger.

      • laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        It snapped the tip of the carrot, which wouldn’t be a lot of resistance

        Based on what it didn’t cut through, his finger should have been safe but apparently Tesla designed the thing to keep increasing the pressure if it detects resistance each time until it can close, which is absolutely baffling. I don’t know of any other safety feature that turns down the safety the more it activates. The fact that it reacts to the exact same conditions differently each time should, in itself, be deeply concerning for any safety feature.

        It might have been dumb of him to try it, but that doesn’t change that it’s still unsafe.

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

          I wonder if FSD backs up after running over a pedestrian to confirn that ‘Yup, it was something with the road there’ before continuing to drive forward again.

        • matlag@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          That’s why you get “don’t put living animals in the microwave oven” in the instructions.

          If Tesla didn’t explicitely wrote “don’t put your f***ing finger in the way on purpose after multiple attempts to close it!” he may have a chance.

          He will plead a trauma from the loss of trust in his beloved car brand and the credibility damage on his Youtube channel and ask for M$.

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

          So you’re confirming that it snapped the carrot? And then he tried it with body parts.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Yes, it snapped the thin tip of the carrot. I didn’t watch the video, but it sounded like he went from safest to least safe, so produce first and body parts afterward (arm, then hand, then finger).

  • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • Agent641@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

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

        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…)

    • gian @lemmy.grys.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.