At the current rate of horrible fiery deaths, FuelArc projects the Cybertruck will have 14.52 fatalities per 100,000 units — far eclipsing the Pinto’s 0.85. (In absolute terms, FuelArc found, 27 Pinto drivers died in fires, while five Cybertruck drivers have suffered the same fate, at least so far.)

  • yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    199
    ·
    2 days ago

    I love Elon Bad posts, but I think it’s worthwhile to examine why Elon bad in this case.

    Like many reactionaries, Elon’s business philosophy is pure tech-bro-libertarianism. And like all libertarians, he’s stuck in the neoliberal mindset of less regulation (don’t scrutinize) and more efficiency (let me be cheap), in order to create the safe space that industrialists need to extract, er create.

    He’s literally said things like (paraphrasing)

    When I see a specification for three bolts I ask: why can’t we do it with two?

    His transparent reasoning is that if he’s allowed to cut corners, he’ll save money today and consequences can be dealt with when they arise.

    He’s following the software model of release a minimally viable product and patch it later. Only instead of user frustration at being beta testers, you fucking die maybe.

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      20 hours ago

      oh god that quote. he’s so lame and fucking stupid.

      I’m sure corner cutting is a concern but also he’s so insecure he probably read things about Steve Jobs or something, and tried to ape him. I remember something about Jobs supposedly telling employees to reduce steps in some processes or whatever. this idiot doesn’t understand anything so he thinks asking for fewer bolts is the same thing.

      why can’t we do it in two? cause that’s how you secure things you fucking dumbass. your proud fascination for “fewer bolts” is why your hypercuck tried to kill a driver.

    • paraphrand@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      80
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Him and his libertarian friends fuck up left and right. Crashing startups and just getting more money for another. Constant recalls. Blowing up rockets until it works.

      Yet they hold the government to a standard of being perfect and high performing with no room for failure. NASA can’t be blowing up rockets. As soon as they do the world comes down on them.

      And Trump is the biggest fuckup of all these guys.

      • TK420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        2 days ago

        I see you don’t understand testing things before they are safe for humans to be inside of. So by this logic, you are saying “blowing up rockets until it works” is also saying “crash testing cars is stupid.”

        <blank stare>

        If NASA was funded properly, we may not be leaning on one private company, whose owner is a nazi, to be paving our way forward for daily space activities. Can’t say things won’t blow up during testing, but at least it won’t be headed by that guy.

        • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          40
          ·
          2 days ago

          The issue isn’t the way of testing, but the two standards. If Musk blows up rockets in testing it’s a genius move with rapid iteration. If NASA does this it’s irresponsible handling of tax payer’s money on risky endeavors.

          • TK420@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            I stand by my comment. Things break, shit happens, this is why we test them.

      • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 days ago

        Blowing up rockets until it works is a far better approach than trying to get everything to work on the first try and ending up with a hugely overpriced white elephant.

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      Also, normally the cost savings should go to the client, not into some billionaires bank account.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      An MVP should not be a beta version, but fully functional and bug-free. The idea is to reduce scope to not necessarily even release it (though that’s possible) but to have a solid foundation onto which to duct-tape bells and whistles.

      The MVP of a car doesn’t have heated seats, heck the seats might not even be adjustable without a wrench, but it’s absolutely going to drive and drive well and be crash-safe. Because if it doesn’t it’s nowhere close to being a viable car, go back and fix that before spending time on those seats.

    • GrumpyDuckling@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      There’s nothing inherently wrong with a simplification mindset. Automotive manufacturers certainly do like to overcomplicate things. Unfortunately people like him only care about costs and not quality.