Considering ms has changed the look and feel of windows itself over the years, sometimes pretty drastically, there’s some leeway there.

Car doors that aren’t on teslas don’t fail open, they are reliable enough that I can’t think of hearing about any failures that don’t involve a collision and deforming of the door (in which case it’s a fail closed and they use the jaws of life to get people out, or another door).

An electronic latch is either engaged or it isn’t. Fail open would mean that in the absence of an electronic signal saying it should be closed, the latch will default to not being engaged, which would mean there’s nothing holding the door closed if another force acts on it.

Don’t assume any benefit of the doubt about Tesla’s. I made no comment one way or another about what I think of their doors vs other doors. For the record, I agree completely that they fucked up this part of the design. The purpose of my comment was to say that taking that design and adding “fail open” to it won’t fix it. Fail open and fail closed both have problems with an electronic latch and the only way to fix it without causing other big problems is to design it in a way that still functions as a door that can be open or latched closed whether or not the electronic part of the latch is working.

And I’m “deliberately misinterpreting” what fail open means? I’m having trouble understanding how it can mean anything other than how I’m interpreting it, even with your clarification, given the disagreement about other car doors failing open. Maybe it’s a misnomer that I’m misinterpreting but why are you assuming I’m doing this in bad faith?

The downvotes themselves don’t matter, I asked because I wanted to know the reasoning behind them, well aware that bringing them up at all will probably result in more of them.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a pizza place sell small pizzas for a decent value. They price them to not sell. I’m guessing because they aren’t as predictable for the amount of volume you might need.

It wouldn’t have been cheaper to go for bigger (ignoring deals), but it wouldn’t have been much more and you’d have leftover pizza for lunch the next day.

For the fail-safe bit, if the latching system fails to an unlatched position, then the inertia of the door itself could cause it to open on braking and turns (or if someone leans on it or bumps it), since nothing else would be holding it in place.

Obligatory fuck Elon Musk lol.

It’s not generally as bad here as it is on Reddit. I still see the occasional comments that make me wonder if their author has any reading comprehension skills, but Reddit seemed to have representation from those kinds of posters in most comment threads. Even on the topics where Lemmy has general biases for, comments can still go off the beaten trail without getting crucified.

Though with the smaller sample size of voters, I think Lemmy might see more cases where a comment initially goes one way and then swings the other way, which seems to be the case with my comment above, at least for now (and is part of the reason why I try to refrain from ever commenting on the votes, but usually there’s also a spicy or bolder part of my comment where I’m not as surprised if it goes negative).

Agree on your overall sentiment, though I’d say it is a bit more complicated than that for car doors. You don’t want it to fail and come open while moving, for example, especially if the car is coming to a stop and inertia forces the doors fully open. That Boeing door failed open and it was not very safe.

Vehicle doors should be fail functional rather than open to fail safe. As in designed to be very unlikely to fail and/or still functional even if one or several components do fail.

Edit: I normally avoid commenting on my downvotes (you win some, you lose some) but this one is baffling. What’s controversial or unpopular about what I said?

With sarcasm, one might say that it is desirable to have obviously undesirable thing. Your interpretation is one way, but I think they really meant “stupid” instead of “smart”.

Manual release or you die, just like that lady that drove hers into her pond.

I think the play here is to make accusations about laws many on the left don’t give a shit about to bait the “who cares?” responses and then apply that sentiment to the laws Trump has been convicted of or accused of that they hope their base doesn’t give a shit about.

Marriage rates have already been dropping and divorce is an available option. Removing that out isn’t going to increase people’s confidence about going into marriage.

And as the nightmare stories come out about the guys (and probably some girls, too) who change overnight once the marriage license is official (or annulment period ends or whatever becomes the “now you’re locked in as long as I don’t get caught cheating”), it’ll only go down further.

There will also be a reaction to the women who decide to just stop being loyal once they are done with a marriage but can’t get out.

Also exclusivity deals should be treated as the monopolies they are.

Or a more general “stickers must adhere stronger to themselves than to whatever they are stuck to”.

Next thing they are going to say asbestos is dangerous even though I’ve touched it before without dying!

And in a recent survey, 9 out of 10 tobacco executives say, “Don’t worry about safety, just have another smooth tasting premium filtered cigarette!”

Treating it as a social contract where tolerance is limited in certain situations is a resolution of the paradox. The paradox itself is just “if you try to tolerate everything, you’ll have to tolerate intolerance” or “you can’t maximize tolerance by tolerating everything”. Though that second one is more of an irony than a paradox.

“We’ll force you to reuse the same username and password for these different functions!”

Yeah, it’s like the paradox of tolerance. Or “extreme situations call for extreme measures”.

How sad is it that Idiocracy overestimated people?

Or use it to implement a script that just downloads the video and cuts the ads out entirely for later watching.

Or, failing any of those, a script that pops up a reminder that YouTube has unskippable ads so you can back out and just do something else with your time.

And if they didn’t develop the culture of sweeping safety issues under the rug at all levels, they won’t have much trouble keeping ahead because I’m sure that even at the height of Boeing’s safety ignoring, I bet most of the communication still looked like they took safety seriously. Just those in the know realized that they could make themselves look better by faking it and their management wouldn’t care. I’ve gotta assume that some number of them will think the current safety culture overhaul is really trying to send a message of “just be smarter about ignoring safety, don’t let it get to the point where doors fall off mid-flight and we need to kill some whistleblowers”.

Assuming the show reflects corporate values and isn’t just propaganda like US police shows are intended to make the Korean public (and anyone watching from outside of Korea) think that that’s how that would be treated.

From what I understand, South Korea’s economy is dominated by a small number of mega corps (like Samsung) that try to do pretty much everything.

While I’m not surprised if fascists use it, I don’t think it is disinformation if they do, seems like more of a human thing where people generally just want to live their lives but asshole control freaks want to take power and gradually do while most just focus on their own things until the control freaks cross too many lines and people decide the best way to live their best life involves removing them from power.

It all depends on how you define “strong people” and “good times”. The fascist version of this isn’t quite in sync with the one I believe in.