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.
If you’re implementing it, it’s your responsibility, end of story.
if you don’t implement it, it will get implemented by someone else anyway and you’re putting your job at risk
Someone will be blamed, if you carry it out then you share the blame.
That’s called accountability and that’s why engineers get paid extra. Ethic classes are not the part of engineering degrees in the USA very obviously, I shouldn’t be surprised
How can you talk about personal responsibility while blaming engineers for the fact that this guy intentionally closed his finger in a car door?
Please read the comment I was originally answering to.
I did read it and I’m also reading it in the context of the article and the rabid group-think here claiming that a potential injury after closing your hand in a door four times in a row is somehow the companies fault or the fault of the engineering department.
deleted by creator
An evolutionary trap
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.
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?
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?
Not anymore they were all fired.
Same in the medical devices industry. We have whole teams of non-developers whose job is to find out when and why a surgeon can be a moron. The code is more difficult to write, but it’s way better and more robust.
“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.
“Oh my, the cake box/finger/dog was in the way, but thanks for automation, the door didn’t close!”
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.
Musk seems to be increasingly infecting the whole company with his idiocy.
The sane people were fired or left. I’m sure most of who’s left are either stuck or like to lick elons taint.
“If it encounters resistance, the brushless motor increases in pressure until it closes fully.” Guess the company:
- DeWalt
- Milwaukee
- Makita
- Tesla
Sounds like a job for the torque test channel.
We built it wrong as a joke
Cybertruck owners can have a finger guillotine. as a treat
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.
Maybe because they want the degradation of some mechanism to be less noticeable over time. And because they’re dumb.
Tesla Cyber Truk* *includes free shears with every purchase
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.
We deliberately made it fail critical. It’s your fault for expecting fail safe!
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!”
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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?
Hey, @Killing_Spark, found a member of the Tesla software safety team!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Friendly challenge: respond to that user again, in no more words than the first time, but address his question :)
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.
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.
Now that’s a reference
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.
Murica, vehicles with sharp edges and assault rifles at walmart is where freedom is at.
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.
Feel like this could have been demonstrated with a hot dog
Or a chicken drumstick for somewhat similar bone strength.
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?
I don’t see “dipstick” in the wild very often, but I always appreciate it. Are you English by any chance?
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
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.
Joints exist though
Fortunately I don’t think that’s strictly accurate. Try biting through a chicken wing its not as easy as a carrot.
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!
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Penis, got it!
No, it has to be something bigger than the panel gap
There’s plenty of dumb to go around, but the word frunk by itself is the dumbest thing about this story.
I figured that was a fucking typo at first
Let me guess: Front trunk? Please tell me I’m wrong.
I could, but then I’d be a liar.
A monkey: Front trunk? That’s what I call my penis!
It’s actually short for “fore bunk” because you can sleep in there
So much dumb I’m inspired to re-write old song lyrics, like:
What they dunna goo with all that junk All that junk in side that FRUNK
or
My trunks / fore bunks / My stupid cyber FRUNKS
Because it’s obviously a froot, right?
Man youtubers are dumb as hell. Use a stick or something
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
organic dildo
He slammed his peantus in the hood?
No, it snapped the carrot before the update. After the update, it only snapped the very tip. That’s a pretty important detail imo.
So you’re confirming that it snapped the carrot? And then he tried it with body parts.
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).
Then it’s his own damn fault. Even if he tries suing, he will lose.
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$.
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.
“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.
Yeah. You’re right that we’ve always been dumb and stupid and would do stupid shit to impress our peer group
But I firmly believe social media has inflated the definition of “peer group” to include “internet followers”, which jacks the whole stupidity up to 11.
For example, you’re a nineties kid walking through the mall with your friends in your JNKO jeans and your slap-it watch. One of your friends decides he’s going to be an idiot by balancing on the railing of the second floor and you all have a good laugh. Edit: If his friends hadn’t been there, would he have done it? I doubt it. But now his “friends” don’t have to be there, because they’re just random followers to give him social media points.
That’s sort of what I meant. Its not the we didn’t do dumb shit as kids, its that social media credit has motivated people to do dumb shit when they normally wouldn’t.
Edit: also, WE grew out of it. Nowadays they are socially and financially incentivized to NOT grow out of that phase.
Yeah. No one ever gave me AdSense dollars for nearly busting my fucking head.
Truth. As an 80s kid / 90s teen, I feel pretty lucky to be alive. I’m grateful for the few times in my life when common sense kicked in, and I said no.
Sticks don’t get clicks.
Dicks get more clicks.
Do we also have something like r/dontputyourdickinthat on lemmy?
A Tesla engineer said the test was done wrong because the frunk increases in pressure every time.
“You are holding it wrong!” 🤣
Of course it just keeps hitting harder when things are in the way.
Literally Tesla’s response
I’m sure these “engineers” were confused everytime they saw an elevator door not mercilessly crush people.
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)
It that point why not just have some blades slide out on the third try?
They learnt about consent from Elon.
He did the test wrong because he’s experimenting with “safety” algorithms that the manufacturer has provided little-to-no documentation on and is having to come up with answers on his own. Maybe he wouldn’t be “doing it wrong” if Tesla hadn’t over-engineered every aspect of their piece of shit truck in the first place. This thing is a solution in search of a problem, and it’ll chop your fingers off until it finds it.
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
That was very nearly my exact same thought. Maybe not for curious children with carrot-sized fingers, but for adults, how convenient! Business competitor’s body won’t quite fit in your fancy frunk? Just while away on your phone for about 10 minutes, let the cat do its magic, and off go the legs! Travel-sized!
I wonder if you can get the frunk to critical velocity at the touch of a fly by constantly pumping it up like a pump action gun.
He forgot to turn on Finger Safe Mode™️ before closing the trunk
Well to be fair, that functionality is a pretty pricey add-on.
But this feature requires an extra monthly subscription, that wasn’t included with the package of the YouTubers
Just the tip to see how it feels bay bay
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!
By tesla’s logic, it’ll assume that you want to slow down, and will speed up to make you slow down faster
The harder you push the pedal the more you want your speed to decrease, obviously. But if you push it hard enough then the decrease from your current speed to Zero is no longer enough. So now the engineers need to decide if you’ll speed up first, so the decrease from the new speed to zero is larger, or if it’ll slam you into reverse instead.
Someone should tell this guy that hot dogs exist.
Can I get uhhhh 🅱️oneless finger
Well, he tried a carrot, cucumber, and banana before trying any body parts.
Or that they can get things like chicken feet that could help estimate force
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.
Judkins said that after the finger test, a lead cybertruck engineer at Tesla said he did the video wrong.
Our truck doesn’t work as advertised but that kids video skills are just shit.
-tesla rep
If you read the article, it’s not a statement with entirely no merit.
The engineers prioritized an algorithm which is far more likely to be useful in real world scenarios where you keep trying to cram a bunch of stuff in the frunk and close it (who hasn’t done this?) rather than the edge case of repeatedly testing it with vegetables until you stick your finger in it.
Anyway, I suppose it’s back to the drawing board.
This is why you keep your safety features consistent. If they want bag close mode, then make it where you hold instead of press a button or something. It “happening automatically” is just unpredictable to most, not magical
In addition, what if the person noticed the obstructions and then moved them away, and then accidentally got a finger in there? That’s a realistic scenario too.
Fair point.
There should be no algorithm. It should be done by a human. There are no amount of lines of code I will ever make up for knowing intent and what the current situation is.
If it’s going to be closed by software it needs to prioritize safety 100% of the time. If more pressure is needed and that pressure needs to come from a human.
I think an algorithm that sounds unprepared to deal with children is insufficient.
That engineer was channeling Steve Jobs.
“… and if I were you, I would try not to make the same mistake again, mister”.
