671
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 52 points 1 month ago

Or, you could just have the door handle be the manual override.

It is a laughably easy thing to have the release for the door from the inside be the same kind of mechanical door release we've always done, for obvious safety reasons, and then have a little solenoid which can also trigger the release of the mechanical door release if the computer wants it to open.

The only reason to do it otherwise, and then need a separate manual release handle, is if you are okay with people dying in exactly this fashion so that you can make your shiny thing in the exact shiny way you want to make it.

[-] zurohki@aussie.zone 3 points 1 month ago

Teslas need to crack the windows before you open the door, that's why they complicate the door release. If you don't give the computer a moment to move the window before the door opens you can damage things.

[-] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 1 month ago

You keep pointing out the design flaw, but I think we are aware that its a flawed design.

[-] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 14 points 1 month ago

Thank you for giving the explanation, but I think you're getting flamed for it because it sounds like you're saying that decision makes sense.

They introduced the design constraint. They can remove it, or work around it mechanically. They chose not to, and instead made a death-trap on purpose. I'm sure they had their reasons at the time, but they are by definition bad reasons if they led to this outcome.

[-] TassieTosser@aussie.zone 5 points 1 month ago

He's getting flamed because convertibles have been doing frameless door windows forever with manual overrides. It's not something super special Tesla has done. Musk just doesn't want to spend the extra money doing it right.

[-] UniversalMonk@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

They chose not to, and instead made a death-trap on purpose

I don't think it's a death-trap "on purpose," but it's def a death-trap by negligence. Which is still bad. Very very bad.

[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

"They had to work around a shitty design flaw with another flaw."

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Didn’t bmw have this in the 90s…?

[-] Wolf314159@startrek.website 2 points 1 month ago

Why is that obvious design flaw relevant?

this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2024
671 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

1572 readers
64 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip


Icon attribution | Banner attribution

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS