• Tylerdurdon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 minutes ago

    Cremation is a new feature. It’ll be an extra $2500 and comes with a decision engine on whether you should live or die (door unlocking). Tesla knows, trust Elon.

  • Mulligrubs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    19 minutes ago

    Well, see, that’s what you get for being a poor.

    Solution is simple, you must buy the optional $700 Cyberhammer to bash out the glass (not a joke, there really is a cyber hammer for $700).

    Elon’s got it all figured out, 8D chess losers

  • The_Almighty_Walrus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    The funny part is, the doors have a manual release on the inside, Tesla owners are just too dumb to read the user manual.

    The not funny part is, the ones in the back are deep inside the bottom of the door, there’s no possible way a child in a car seat could open the back door in an emergency.

    Opening Doors with No Power https://share.google/NmVMGXKowzwXKUKxF

    • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      30 minutes ago

      Is this a joke? Who is this for? The same people who live in the resident evil house?

      Children are normally in the back of a vehicle, please tell us the secret door with a fucking rip cord in it is somehow normal and the cooked children where clearly a “skill issue”.

    • el_abuelo@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I have to say I am sick of having to give a safety briefing to passengers when they get a ride.

      “If we crash and burn, the manual release is behind there” points

      Why didnt they just put regular bloody handles on!?

        • Jiral@lemmy.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          30 minutes ago

          Sacrificing lives for aesthetics, pretty much sums it up and explains why this thing is not street legal in the civilised world.

    • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      46 minutes ago

      Chevrolet had the same problem. Boomers baked to death in their Corvettes because the battery died.

  • sploder@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    9 hours ago

    I can’t fathom having my husband burn to death so badly that he’s just … evaporated. But then again I can’t imagine my husband ever wanting a cybercuck so there’s also that.

    • 1995ToyotaCorolla@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 hours ago

      My wife and I are in need of a truck since we moved to a rural area and need one for stuff like trash disposal and whatnot. We’ve decided to get something practical like a hundai santafe or honda ridgeline

  • thlibos@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    8 hours ago

    When we finally start eating the rich, we will have readily available fires to cook them over.

    • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      28 minutes ago

      I daily a Fiero and don’t think even at its worst point people burned inside trapped without handles.

        • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          23 minutes ago

          Oh same, but they are not well built and the iron duke is shit. I have to have 3 of them to keep one on the road working. at least they are good on gas. One day I might do an EV conversion.

  • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    ·
    15 hours ago

    He says the trucks are “apocalypse-proof” and claims they can withstand bullets and have “armor glass” windows.

    They also withstand emergency responders and the occupant’s attempts to escape.

    • Doomsider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      60
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      Chances of you experiencing the apocalypse - Zero

      Chances you will get trapped in an Cybercuck and be unable to get out - Not zero

        • Coleslaw4145@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          33 minutes ago

          When they say “apocalypse-proof”, what they actually mean is that the pedestrians outside are protected from the localised internal apocalypse occurring within the vehicle.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Let’s face face it. The most likely apocalypse is an economic crash brought on by the kind of crop of idiots. Not sure how a car is going to help with that.

  • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    162
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Sounds like a great way to fake your death. The only problem is that everyone will think you died driving a Tesla.

  • SpiceDealer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Fires that entrap passengers are a well-documented and recurring problem with every model in Tesla’s lineup of vehicles, but Cybertrucks appear to have a disproportionate number of known deaths. Safety experts have told the Guardian that the truck’s unique design amplifies the deadly issue. The vehicles come with high-density laminated windows that are harder to break than regular car windows, making escape and rescue difficult when doors won’t unlock. And the trucks are built with materials not commonly used in the industry, like stainless steel, which can complicate the work of emergency responders. The Cybertruck is also the first Tesla model to entirely eliminate door handles on the outside of the vehicle.

    First, “unique” design? It’s an ugly callback to the wedge-shaped cars of the 80s. It looks like a DeLorean model that refused to render properly, and the dev just went with it.

    Second, the decision to exclude door handles is fucking mental. It’s a mundane feature that cars have had since the Model T. If they wanted to make a pickup, its handles should resemble those found on a typical pickup. If it’s “aesthetics” they’re after (which shouldn’t matter when it comes to a pickup), some of the best looking cars have had no problem including door handles into its design.

    • carpelbridgesyndrome@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      The reason to eliminate door handles that Tesla and others typically give is aerodynamic efficiency. Granted there are other bigger aerodynamic problems. gestures at the rest of the fucking truck

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 hours ago

        That’s just nonsense justification they came up with after the fact. Ferraris have door handles, so clearly they’re not much of an issue.

        Anyway the car isn’t going to exceed 80 miles an hour anyways so aerodynamics barely comes into it.

    • NihilsineNefas@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Fires that entrap passengers are a well-documented and recurring problem with every model in Tesla’s lineup of vehicles

      How is this a perfectly valid statement about the worlds richest man’s car company without us beating him to death with hammers/ seeing how many of those baseball sized steel balls he can handle?

    • Soup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      “Unique” here refers to the fact that every other car is built pretty much the same way in as much first responders are concerned, and that makes them predictable and fairly easy to get out of while cybertrucks are strong enough and door-handleless enough to be incredibly dangerous(while also not being strong enough to do most of what they promise).

    • Seefra 1@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      It looks like a DeLorean model that refused to render properly

      Lmao

      • darkdemize@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        22 hours ago

        I’m not in any way trying to downplay how bad the cyber-dumpster is, but is that an adequate sample size to extrapolate the fiery-death rate? The article says 17 times the rate of the Pinto, but it was only 5 total fires.

            • cecilkorik@piefed.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              22
              ·
              21 hours ago

              The biggest issue with the Pinto was not the Pinto itself, it was how Ford discussed the potential issues with it internally. It was their very well documented preference for money over protecting human life that caused the controversy.

              We know this really happens all the time, at all companies and in all industries, but Ford was punished for saying the quiet part out loud (amongst themselves) and getting caught doing it. We are all supposed to at least put on a show of human lives being more important than money, and Ford failed to put on the show, and for that they were punished.

              We still don’t care about human life, but at least we all felt better about it afterwards.

              • CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 hours ago

                There’s an episode of Swindled all about how Ford knew this was a flaw and allowed it to happen so that they could compete in the lower end market.

            • Rimu@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              21 hours ago

              huh, TIL. Thanks!

              So it’s just 17 times more likely to burn you to death than average cars.

    • towerful@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      22 hours ago

      But maybe they have the lowest crash rate?
      So like, crashes cost money right? Someone is responsible. Someone has to pay.
      But if everyone dies in an inferno, then nobody is responsible. Who can pay? They’re all dead! What medical bills? What repairs? It’s all a write off.
      Sounds like a high mortality rate with low accident rate is an absolute profitable win! Free market baby!

      • Pennomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        22 hours ago

        According to the article they have higher crash rates and fatalities because the drivers are worse. The cars themselves actually rate fairly high in safety standards.

        That being said, I think the safety evaluations are flawed and don’t consider things like electronic locks.