• inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 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
      4
      ·
      7 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
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 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
      2
      ·
      7 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
        3
        ·
        7 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.