this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2025
1606 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

67669 readers
5137 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Mark Rober just set up one of the most interesting self-driving tests of 2025, and he did it by imitating Looney Tunes. The former NASA engineer and current YouTube mad scientist recreated the classic gag where Wile E. Coyote paints a tunnel onto a wall to fool the Road Runner.

Only this time, the test subject wasn’t a cartoon bird… it was a self-driving Tesla Model Y.

The result? A full-speed, 40 MPH impact straight into the wall. Watch the video and tell us what you think!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Glitterbomb@lemmy.world 40 points 1 week ago (2 children)

You realize Mark Robers target audience is like 8 years old, right? He also references looney tunes and wile e coyote a couple dozen times, including in this thumbnail you're losing your mind over. The thumbnail fits the theme very well if you ask me.

This video isn't a rigorous scientific test. This is a children's video designed to get them interested in the scientific method. Get over yourself.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

IMO it doesn't need to be a rigorous scientific test, it's not trying to prove something works as it should under all conditions. It's showing the exact opposite, it does not work under this one condition, which is more than enough to disprove the safety of the car.

[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

More than one test failed.

The Tesla failed the heavy rain and the heavy fog tests.

There's zero excuse to fail either of those tests. But the Tesla killed the kid both times.

The wall test was just to show that the Tesla cannot put together optical clues.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Why would children be interested in car safety?

[–] jaschen@lemm.ee 28 points 1 week ago (1 children)

My 6 year old kid loves anything about car and enjoyed Marks video. While driving him from school, he asked me why we can tell it's a wall but the cars can't. It sparked a 20 minutes discussion on car safety and why we need seat belts.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

While driving him from school, he asked me why we can tell it’s a wall but the cars can’t.

Cool inquisitive kid you have there. 👍 😀

[–] KayLeadfoot@fedia.io 2 points 1 week ago

Who downvoted this? XD This brings me joy

[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Why would children be interested in anything?

Have you never seen educational content before that wraps up potentially boring teachings in an exciting narrative?

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Since most grownups aren't interested in safety, I just thought it would be even less for kids.
All sales promotion stats show that car buyers basically don't care about safety features. Almost all significant safety features are there because of regulation.

Edit:
I can only laugh at the downvoters, you know nothing. It's been a well established fact that safety doesn't sell cars since the 50's.

[–] zenpocalypse@lemm.ee 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Seems like a strange application of stats when, as you say, the regulated safety features - the important ones - need not come into a decision-making process and advertising them would be a waste of time.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Stats made over decades back in 50-70's

[–] zenpocalypse@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago

So... out of date stats about advertising?

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 4 points 1 week ago

Including the horrible angle of headrests these days. You're right though: nobody gives a shit about the extra safety features.

[–] soycapitan451@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

Why is anyone interested in anything?

My nephew was obsessed with Teslas a few years ago. I asked him why, his response? The indicators can be set to make fart noises.

My 7 year old daughter and I watch Mark's videos together and they have helped to spark her interest in engineering & science.

[–] Glitterbomb@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Oh wow, you really didn't realize? Yeah man this is a youtube channel for getting kids interested in science and technology, like the technology surrounding self driving cars and lidar. Did you see the part where he introduced the technology by taking it to Disney world?

Here's a random video from crunchlabs, the company he created and advertises on ALL of his videos. This video shows his fan base enjoying what they got from crunchlabs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrY-8_hJLJo

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

That's cool then, but probably not for me. And I still think it's misleading. If they made the analogy in the video it would be different. But as it is, it looks like clickbait. And honestly using clickbait on children is actually worse.

[–] lumpybag@reddthat.com 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Because they don’t want their friend to die?

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago

To kids, death is just a word.

[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Kids love cyber trucks, teslas, Ferraris, or any car that is perceived as very expensive