• yermaw@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    43 minutes ago

    Not to detract from the overall impact its probably had, because im sure they wouldnt bother if it didnt work on the whole, but I’ve lost 2 bottle caps since they implemented this, compared to my zero beforehand. I’ve become careless and no longer try to hold the lid.

  • Avicenna@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Elon is an idiot that barely thinks about any functionality. For him if something looks cool and scifi, it is a good enough reason to implement it (like the self hiding door handles).

    • DaddleDew@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 hours ago

      It’s a stunt to impress your average Tesla investor.

      Musk made his fortune manipulating stock prices.

      • Avicenna@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        40 minutes ago

        I think even investors are more clever than him mainly because they likely have an army of advisors that are more analytical than, “wow this is so cool”

  • geissi@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Do bottle caps have any significant impact on carbon emissions?
    I’m pretty sure it’s more about plastic waste littering the environment. Carbon emissions are not the only environmental issue.

    • JAPHacake@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 hour ago

      It’s to protect wildlife, prevent marine litter and it also fixes a problem when processed in recycling plants. Loose caps often fall through the cracks (literally) and end up in landfills.

  • Redvenom@retrolemmy.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    That’s the worst idea for a car ever, the cibertruck can’t survive a carwash and you are telling me you are going to do Car kickflicks?

    • CheetahHybrid @pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      4 hours ago

      It might be impractical, but I saw this and thought of the safety features. If you’re in an accident and the car is uncontrollably rolling then these thrusters could bring it to an upright stop.

      • xthexder@l.sw0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        3 hours ago

        The extremely dangerous high pressure vessel right behind the driver’s head seems like it’s not worth the trade off there… Better carry a bomb around just in case the car rolls over. /s

        • CheetahHybrid @pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Sure it’s dangerous, but so is that giant tank of fuel that’s in the car. I think we figured out pressure vessels pretty well

          • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            27 minutes ago

            Fuel is necessary to the function of the engine. If cars didn’t need it, they wouldn’t have it. We’ve figured out C4 pretty well, but we don’t stuff the doors full of it.

            These thrusters could maybe help you if you fell down a particularly short cliff. Otherwise, if you get in an accident severe enough to send you rolling, you do not want high pressure nitrogen tanks right next to your head.

          • xthexder@l.sw0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            A fuel tank is not a pressure vessel (apart from being sealed to keep fumes in). If you get a puncture in your gas tank, it doesn’t immediately and violently explode, it just leaks fuel out. Even if it does catch fire, it would not be as violent an explosion as a pressure vessel failure. In most scenarios it would burn, but not explode.

            • BruisedMoose@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              44 minutes ago

              Sorry, but as someone who has seen at LEAST 3 movies in his lifetime, I can say with absolute certainty that just about anything will cause a car to explode.

            • CheetahHybrid @pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              3 hours ago

              I know the gas tank is not a pressure vessel, I made two separate statements.

              My point is that we already do dangerous things. I don’t think it’s a huge jump to put a pressurized nitrogen tank in a car. Car manufacturers even tried putting hydrogen tanks in cars. It’s possible to make it safe.

        • CheetahHybrid @pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Everything underneath a rolling car is fucked anyway. If thrusters could make it stop faster that would be way safer than letting it roll however far it wants.

        • CheetahHybrid @pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          3 hours ago

          I’ve seen those and would advocate for flaps being added to regular cars. Could they do it better with thrusters though?

          • ohulancutash@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Absolutely not. Insanely stupid. A pressure vessel, jetwash, the added complexity of an additional direction of travel, competency of the operator, and that’s before we come to Tesla being shit at making things that work properly.

      • stickyprimer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Yes you can scare up some possible safety applications for this but you have to take it on the whole and balance the safety risks and benefits. They haven’t even answered how rhey are going to make the underbelly fan street legal when we know it shoots a lot of gravel out backwards at high speed. And understanding from MKBHD is that the model with all directional thrusters is only a high end demo which will never actually be sold. The one that might actually get sold only has thrusters in the back. Does that scream “safety” to you or “excessive speed?”

  • ArfArfWoof@europe.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    pretty sure it’s propelled by compressed air.

    still very wasteful, but at least not burning dangerous chemicals for funsies.

    • stickyprimer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Yeah just compressed nitrogen, but still very wasteful and excessive and stupid. That’s enough. No one said it was putting out toxins.

    • marduk@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I heard it’s nitrogen, which I think releases co² during the production process. You’re right though, could be worse; they could’ve used hypergolic thrusters.

      • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Do you mean nitrous (N2O)? Straight up N2 shouldn’t be changing to CO2 unless some very interesting chemistry is happening, haha.

          • xthexder@l.sw0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 hours ago

            I’m pretty sure the “production” process is just compressing atmospheric air and separating out the other gases. The atmosphere is 78% nitrogen.

            • I_am_10_squirrels@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 hour ago

              It takes a lot of energy to compress a gas, and more energy to cool it so you can separate the nitrogen. Energy production typically (not always) releases co2.

        • CheetahHybrid @pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 hours ago

          I think what they mean is that when making liquid CO2 you use a cryo-cooler. That cooler condenses the gas out of the air. Air contains CO2 and nitrogen (plus some other stuff). The gases aren’t created but rather just a state change. Cryo coolers also take energy to run.