The singular Sigourney.

Oh no, they violated the ‘deal’ that only existed in Trump’s head!

FENTONNNNNNNNN!!!

On some railroad crossings you might only need to go off the crossing to get stuck in the tracks and unable to back out. Trying to get out is another 30-40 feet.

Being caught off guard when the car isn’t supposed to do that is how to get stuck in the first place. Yeah, terrible driver trusting shit technology.

Imagine if they used other sensors than just cameras like the competent companies!

I have some bad news for you.

Maybe you should read the article.

On a related note, getting unstuck from something like train tracks is a pretty significant hurdles. The only real way is to back up IF turning onto the tracks wasn’t a drop down of the same depth as the rails. Someone who is caught off guard isn’t going to be able to turn a passenger car off the tracks because the rails are tall and getting an angle with the wheels to get over them isn’t really available.

So while in a perfect world the driver would have slammed on the brakes immediately before it got onto the tracks, getting even the front wheels onto the tracks because they weren’t fast enough may have been impossible to recover from and going forward might have been their best bet. Depends on how the track crossing is built.

Tesla has constantly lied about their FSD for a decade. We don’t trust them because they are untrustworthy, not because we don’t like them.

Paraphrasing:

“We only have the driver’s word they were in self driving mode…”

“This isn’t the first time a Tesla has driven onto train tracks…”

Since it isn’t the first time I’m gonna go ahead and believe the driver, thanks.

I’ll bet Donakd Trump is very upset!

Until it is on the market for the supposed cheap price it is just a rich fuck pretending to do the right thing.

Remember when Teslas was going to have a budget model?

When used as a defense against violence or other severely harmful actions, yes.

The threat needs to either be imminent or an ongoing perpetuation of violence or other severely harmful action. An example of an ongoing severely harmful action would include being restrained physically or geographically and being starved.

No, they have profile pics of tentacle monsters.

Also, doctors used to say smoking doesn’t cause cancer.

Doctors paid by cigarette companies said that, and they were in a tiny minority of doctors.

There are scientists now who say global warming is a hoax because they have a monetary interest.

Sounds like bullshit.

It varies widely depending on a combination of whether it impacts me directly, whether it contradicts or is inconsistent with information I have already accepted as fact, and the source. The source includes being reliable and if the fact could be something that serves the source’s self interest as that would require corroboration.

Until recently, if NASA tells me their current data shows that black holes exist at the center of a galaxy I take their word for it. They have been consistently reliable for decades and their entire mission is about increasing knowledge and sharing it with the entire world. With recent administrative changes I am more skeptical and wouldn’t trust something that contradicts prior scientific discoveries without corroboration from an external agency like the European Space Agency. I would take the ESA at their word currently.

If a for profit company says anything I want corroboration from a neutral 3rd party. They have too much incentive to lie or mislead to be trusted on their own.

Something from a stranger that fits into prior knowledge might be accepted at face value or I might double check some other source. Depends on how important it is to me and whether believing that would lead to any obvious negative outcome. I will probably also double check if it is interesting enough to want to check, and I’ll use skepticism as an excuse.

That covers actual factual stuff that could possibly be corroborated by a third party. Facts like the Earth orbits the sun or Puerto Rico is a US territory type stuff.

Then there are other things that can be factual but difficult to determine and that is a combination of experience and current knowledge, plus whether believing it would be a benefit or negative. If someone tells me the ice isn’t thick enough based on their judgement I will treat it as a fact and not go out on it unless I had some reason not to believe them. If they told me apples were found to be unhealthy I would check other sources.

Cube rule is a tongue in cheek comedy bit that exaggerates the topic to a hilarious point by focusing in the inconsistency of food names. It quickly descends into madness, and the images helps.

Salad theory tries too hard to take the subject seriously and drags it out for far too long, undermining the potential humor.

Cube rule is Spaceballs. Salad theory is Meet the Spartans.

What about a burger on toasted bread slices?

Discount cube rule.