I’m going to upvote you for providing the viewpoint that models which have the manual releases hide them to prevent damage occurring from someone who instinctively pull on it to open the door. In the case of young children, they won’t know enough to not do the same thing they would do in other vehicles to open the door.

However, obscuring them from view also means they’re at high risk in the event of an accident which kills the power. Trying to calmly walk a child through the steps may not work. I don’t know how much force is needed for some of the release latches (and I’ll assume not a lot is required).

Cybertruck also has manual releases but the rear doors hold it in the map pocket. Better but still not in a sensible place when someone is panicking.

Ok. So that’s the Model 3.

How about the Model Y?

Ok. Not all Model Ys have rear manual releases. I’ll assume the best and believe that only certain countries have this design.

How about the Model X?

So it’s behind the speaker grille. Uncertain if you need a screwdriver, but I’ll assume not. However it is hidden away from sight.

How about the Model S?

Oh, it’s under the carpet.

So yeah, turns out, I’m not making shit up, and there is indeed empirical evidence for it.

I was talking to a Tesla owner about this and they argued that if the window is electric then there’s no difference making the door electric. They couldn’t understand that the door itself can be operated independently of the rest of the vehicle.

Making windows electric causes a safety tradeoff. You get ease of operation while losing the ability to open the window in the event of an accident (where power cannot be supplied). However you can still unlock and open the door manually as an alternative escape option. This also applies in non-accident scenarios (dead battery).

Making doors electric is nothing more than a safety risk. From the inside you might have access to a manual release latch, but some doors require you to unscrew things first. Any emergency situation where you need to exit as soon as possible and the power is lost almost guarantees that you’ll be unable to safely escape.

I’ve been in a few situations before where it’s been incredibly tempting to just not show up because:

• Your management doesn’t value your input
• Nepotism is prevalent when promotions come around
• You’re not doing the type of work that was advertised in the job post and discussed your first two weeks
• You’re doing excellent work solving difficult and/or outstanding problems but someone else gets the credit

Sure, you could put in a notice of resignation, but if you know that your manager is going to harass you for reasons why, possibly belittle you, and try to guilt-trip you into giving more time to the company to “finish out” tasks on your queue that they’ve not bothered to train anyone else on that you’ve requested over the last two years, then wanting to cut ties as quickly as possible given the toxic environment is a fairly normal desire.

Not saying it’s the right thing to do, and all the flight-hopping that OP claims does seem a tad strange, but sometimes people end up in a fairly unsupportive or toxic environment where you just have to take actions in putting as much distance and as many barriers in place as possible to mentally feel like you’ve regained some level of control.

I don’t disagree with you. There should be a level of inspection possible by an owner on the functions and processes running, especially if they will be held liable for any outcomes from operating failures that cannot be attributed to the driver.

In other words, if my insurance covers an accident but I can be sued in civil court for additional damages then I should be able to update/fix/review everything in it given that all liability is transferred to me upon sale. If I cannot answer to something because it’s deemed “proprietary” and “property” of the manufacturer, then they should not be allowed to transfer that liability to me.

4 hours sounds familiar. I used to work in network engineering and polled equipment via SNMP for statistics. Some counters were measured at high resolutions that would hit their max after just a few hours of runtime.

Take an unsigned 32-bit integer or uint32_t. It has a maximum value of 4,294,967,295. That may seem like a lot, but if you had an FPGA that took measurements and provided a timestamp as ticks since boot for each message it sends back, you’d hit the maximum value after just a few hours.

For example, imagine that they had a low-power FPGA running at 1MHz which increases the tick counter on every cycle. This would cause the counter to increase by 1,000,000 every second. You’d hit the max in just under 4,295 seconds, or roughly 71 minutes. To get closer to 4 hours we’d reduce the frequency by 4 to get 250KHz.

All of this is speculative. Could be that it’s not from a value failing to update but just a divide-by-zero error somewhere. Interested to see what the public is able to uncover as the core problem.

Error. Password must be 12-31 characters and contain all of the following:

• A lowercase letter
• An uppercase letter
• A numeric digit
• At least one but no more than two special characters

It must also not contain any of the following:

• More than three repeating characters
• Your first or last name
• An email address
• The last four digits of your SSN
• Your birth year
• The website name
• An undiscovered prime
• More than 80% of your previous password

Yup. I worked at a Subway between ‘06 and ‘08. Pizza started to sell somewhere around that time.

So somehow our representatives are fine with auto-enrollment of citizens for the draft, but a number of them oppose auto-enrollment for voting?

I think the same group that doesn’t want immigrants to be on “welfare” are the same that want a border to prevent them from entering the US to begin with. They’d likely argue that the $775/night wouldn’t happen if they couldn’t enter to begin with.

Should’ve sold some copies of the Christmas Star Wars episode

I’m worried about the security of this. However looking past that and simply observing it as an implementation of AI, this is an idea that I think is actually a beneficial use. Protecting the elderly against fraud/scams is a major issue which gets increasingly complex as scammers improve their methods. Using AI to detect scams in calls could be helpful in protecting the elderly.

But before rolling it out, I would want to see proof of its efficiency through careful studies. Hell, incentivize Google to share the model with the government and other businesses so it can be improved upon. Fund it as a grant/program so smaller teams/companies can contribute and innovate.

I think it would’ve been funny if the title was “StackOverflow contributors are revolting” and the comment was “a little more than usual.”

But hey, gotta get whatever amount of humor in while you can.

whatever the Indian equivalent is

Uncle Vivek

That’s better than sending the newhire back to HQ to get the cable stretcher.

No thanks, I prefer my hotdogs 🅱️ONELESS

And the Chamber of Commerce is undoubtedly going to sue in court this week to have it overturned while telling us that it’s actually pro-employee to not be able to work elsewhere because of overreaching NCAs.

Oh wait…

Yeah, I highlighted some of that here:

https://lemm.ee/comment/11220419

Network switches with over 10 years of uptime chuckle nervously