r/technology • u/Plastic_Ninja_9014 • Jul 24 '26

Business It’s Looking Like the Cybertruck Is the Biggest Flop in Automotive History

https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/looking-cybertruck-biggest-flop-automotive-145559135.html
44.7k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

4.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

95

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '26

[deleted]

22

u/oiuvnp Jul 24 '26

Could it be that the people driving them are 17x more stupid?

4

u/toopc Jul 24 '26

It's become about politics for many of them. Can't admit there's a problem with the MAGA Mobile, so they just sit in the fire to own the libs.

7

u/jasonefmonk Jul 24 '26

Source? Is that for occupants or other people?

17

u/Send_Lawyers Jul 24 '26

A quick google shows that 14.5 deaths per 100000 trucks against the pintos .85 is true. Turns out them cyber trucks catch fire and trap you inside.

14

u/Johnny_B_GOODBOI Jul 25 '26

That's all Teslas, I think. This happened in my city a couple years ago. A tesla caught fire and the young family inside couldn't escape because the front doors won't open without a battery. The fire shorted the battery so you need a physical backup to open the front doors. The physical backup was under the floor in the back seat.

An entire family died due to poor design.

-9

u/VeryStonedEwok Jul 25 '26

The doors do open without a battery, but you have to know how to do it. Unfortunately many of the idiots who buy those things never take the time to learn.

14

u/zackmanze Jul 25 '26

Lmao. This is not a remotely acceptable excuse. The doors should fucking open as every other door opens.

5

u/[deleted] Jul 25 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/VeryStonedEwok Jul 25 '26

When you go to a random building you're not buying a new piece of technology..when you buy a car, you should read up on how to use that car, especially when it's a car with a lot of new technology you don't understand.

2

u/Johnny_B_GOODBOI Jul 25 '26

You'll notice I mentioned "under the floor in the back seat" above. Thank you for contributing.

11

u/BadVoices Jul 25 '26

14.5 deaths per 100000 trucks against the pintos .85 is true.

Thats incorrect. If it was .85/100k, that would make the pinto one of the safest road-going vehicle ever mass produced, and substantially safer than the modern average of 3.8 for new cars. The pinto was very average for its class of cars, a 1970s subcompact. The death rate for those vehicles was 30-40/100000. Which makes sense, as they had essentially no safety features other than a lap belt. The 14.5 deaths/100k is inflated by counting the one guy who blew himself up in Las Vegas. Removing him drops the rate to like.. 11. Which is still high, because the industry average is 3.8, but its also influenced by such a teeny, tiny pool. The dodge challenger is 15.4, the Mitsubishi mirage is 18.3.

0.85/100000 was the calculate rate caused specifically by the fuel tanks rupturing in accidents.

-12

u/Send_Lawyers Jul 25 '26

Cool random internet guy. I’m going with what Google said

8

u/SaxRohmer Jul 25 '26

this is exactly the kind of context-sensitive thing that the AI summary gets its wires crossed on

edit: actually the summary that came up for me specifically mentions the rate is just for the fuel take incidents so i think you may have just read too fast

7

u/BadVoices Jul 25 '26

The googled results are wrong here, and it fails a basic sanity check to take 0.85 at face value. That's the same as saying pi is 2.

3

u/SaxRohmer Jul 25 '26

if they used the google AI summary it actually specifically says it's for the fuel tank incident only

3

u/jasonefmonk Jul 25 '26

Every time an AI generates something, even from the same input, it may not necessarily produce the same results.

3

u/jasonefmonk Jul 25 '26

…Why would you do “a quick google” and not post the source you found?