GEICO, the second-largest vehicle insurance underwriter in the US, has decided it will no longer cover Tesla Cybertrucks. The company is terminating current Cybertruck policies and says the truck “doesn’t meet our underwriting guidelines.”
GEICO, the second-largest vehicle insurance underwriter in the US, has decided it will no longer cover Tesla Cybertrucks. The company is terminating current Cybertruck policies and says the truck “doesn’t meet our underwriting guidelines.”
That’s absolutely not how that works. There is no such thing as “off” for this vehicle. It can mean any number of things. There are also several redundancies built in. Airplanes full of hundreds of passengers thousands of feet in the air are also flown without mechanical controls but society seems to accept that that’s okay?
Did you really just draw an equivalency between Tesla’s software practices and the aerospace industry? Even Daddy Musk isn’t stupid enough to pretend those are the same.
Also your assertion that there is “no such thing as off” blatantly displays your horrible lack of understanding that distributed computing still relies on electricity.
Edit: since Tesla is apparently the same thing as Airbus, can you point me to the source code published by the relevant regulatory body that controls the Cybertruck’s steering mechanism?
Do you really just not understand the difference between an analogy and an equivalency?
Also your assertion about computation and electricity displays your horrible lack of understanding of the concept of redundancies.
If you have evidence that there was a complete lack of power to any and all systems, please do present it, but I’m very confident that you don’t, so please come off it.
Yes, I fully understand the difference between analogy and equivalency. You claimed that fly by wire on an aircraft is exactly as safe and redundant as the steering wheel of a Tesla vehicle. That’s called an equivalency and is a demonstrably false statement. I never claimed that there were no redundancies to the power supplies, but it’s simply not relevant. You do understand that there are different regulations and rigors applied to an aircraft compared to a crappy car that hasn’t even passed any crash safety testing and hasn’t been certified by any engineering standards bodies, right?
I did not. You just pulled that out of your ass. I don’t have time for bad faith arguments. Good night.
The only good news here is that the regulators in your country aren’t stupid enough to let you operate this machine near your fellow humans.
Your comments sounds exactly like that.
You’re just bad at reading.
https://x.com/Chovis38/status/1793100842805191001
Edit to add https://insideevs.com/news/722534/tesla-cybertrucks-still-breaking-down/
…yes? Was there something you wanted to add? I can’t see anything in Twitter.
You requested evidence, I was attempting to provide evidence. Copy paste of last line of the Twitter post.
And in your mind, “disabled” = complete lack of power to any and all systems?
Ok, I missed the word and. My apologies. This is an example of any. I guess it’s not all as the screen still worked. Truck won’t move, but you don’t care about that.
I mean I do. Insurance doesn’t.
Have you looked at the cybertruck’s manufacturing practices? Airplanes have redundancies for their redunancies and that’s why people use them. The cybertruck was built with the “go fast and break things” model, does not have redundancies, and actually removed some standard safety features found in every other car. Like tempered glass.
Comparing a cyber truck to an airplane is like comparing a pinewood derby car to a military personnel carrier. One was made by a child. The other is engineered to keep as many soldiers alive as possible.
I have, fairly extensively. You clearly have not.
On the internet, anyone can say anything. I am the Pope.
Is there a point you’re trying to make here?
The point is on your head.
You calling me a conehead!?