#wTf

[sushiisiu]

In every timeline, in every possibility,

Only you

[czowwlart]

He's got moves 🎶🕺💃

[genius11rare]

Love the teachers at the end looking like they placed bets

[ffverr]

I'm so shocked, I can't believe I got stabbed by this damn fucking plot twice

[viejospellejos]

¿Médico o mecánico?

[rubykgrant]

@wellspokenrambler

[louisisalarrie]

James corden and Harry unfollowing each other on Instagram today was not on my bingo card

[dontcryurprfect]

This. Absolutely

✨️FUCKS✨️

[welele]

Imagina las posibilidades...

De quitarte las lentillas.

[internetgreatesthits]

[a-meh]

[arueshalaetablebuildingsociety]

One thing to note is that this doesn't factor-in non-occupant fatalities, which would very likely increase all brands numbers significantly.

But one thing I noticed is that this article presents interesting data and then draws an absurd conclusion from it; namely, blaming the drivers "taking safety features out of context."

This is unethical journalism in its most textbook form. Here is why:

- Tesla is not the only brand that over-advertises safety features, even though they are one of the easiest examples to point to thanks to Elon's ridiculous publicity stunts like shattering the "shatter-proof" windows.

- Tesla Drivers are not a unique demographic of people. As a subdemographic of Executive Car owners (High end Lincolns, Audis, BMWs, Mercedes), they might trend towards more "faith in technology" than their counterparts, but not so much that it would explain a doubling of fatal accidents as measured by occupants of the vehicle. That level of attribution is ludicrous.

- Teslas have several known safety flaws and several correlating high-profile fatalities.

The doors tend to lock closed in the case of a power failure, which may only be released via an unmarked switch with a location varying across models but almost always requiring some disassembly of the dashboard. In the dark or other low-/zero-visibility situations like being underwater or having the cabin fill with smoke, this is effectively a death sentence for the driver and all passengers.

The batteries ignite readily and combust vigorously when exposed to moisture in the air thanks to the Lithium used in their construction, and resist traditional firefighting methods due to the whole "combusts in reaction to the presence of water or moisture" issue.

Crucial operational and safety features such as gear shifting are relegated to purely touchscreen controls, which is insane on the face of it. Touchscreens are an interface which require precise inputs and can't by their very nature guide you in supplying those inputs. Their surfaces warp and distort under prolonged exposure to heat (like might be found in the interior of a car in warm or hot weather), distorting the input in unpredictable ways even if it is entered correctly. They process a large amount of data in collecting the input to generate the output, leading to memory leaks, latency, and crashing. And the monitors that supply their display tend to degrade in a way that generates more heat over time, degrading the performance of the touchscreen if not causing outright failure by saturating it with false inputs.

All of these issues would have to be accounted for before one could begin to make assumptions about "Operator Error" if there were literally any standard of ethics being applied.

And I'm going to jump back to touchscreens for a second:

August 21st, 2017:

On an exercise with an exhausted crew, the USS John S. McCain experiences a loss of steering and propulsion control, causing it to deviate into the path of the Liberian-flagged Tanker Ship, Alnic MC. The resulting collision killed 10 sailors on the USS John McCain and crippled the ship.

What caused this collision? The US Navy officially blames the Captain, in a Certified BuOrd Moment™ [for those unaware: the Bureau of Ordnance was the body behind the insane failures and even more insane coverup of the Mark 14 Torpedo, notable for its proclivity to blame crews and captains for failure in handling the torpedo even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary].

But what was a more proximate cause was the Touchscreen Controls for the ship's steerage and engine power. The TOUCHSCREEN CONTROLS for the STEERING and ENGINES. In a throwback to the Mark 14, crews had no ability to access the manuals for the equipment (the only manual available was written entirely in Norwegian), very little if any training in using the equipment, and no training on what to do if the equipment failed.

So when a "feature" none of the crew were aware of was unwittingly discovered, the ability to decouple one of the shafts (driveshaft but for a ship) from the touchscreen controls, the crew encountered a situation where they wholly relied on a single poorly-understood system to avert disaster.

And then the Bridge Touchscreen crashed.

There's a whole lot more to this story, such as the "big red button" and the whole extent of crew fatigue, and I highly recommend the Lions Led By Donkeys bonus episode about it; but the overall moral of this story is don't put any function on a touchscreen that would create a hazard to the operator or any bystanders if the touchscreen failed.

holy shit

i knew teslas were bad but "literally twice as deadly as the average vehicle" is something else

[momonica05]

[comptonbitches]

Comptonbitches.tumblr

[theenemyod]

I think people should be allowed to sleep in the same bed in a non sexual and non romantic way. I think cuddles can happen non sexually and non romantically. I think most acts of affection are non sexual and non romantic until you make it sexual or romantic (other than the obvious things like actual sex is sexual)