Skip Navigation

KayLeadfoot

@ KayLeadfoot @fedia.io

Posts
59
Comments
316
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Ford Panopticon: Crowd-Sourced Car Tracking Revealed in New Patent

    Jump

  • Fuuuuck!!!

    Unethical pro life tip... it's not like they KNOW you're not a European. Hit them with the GDPR request anyhow. ThePantser sounds close enough to DerPanzer. Worth a shot, what do I know, tho

  • Ford Panopticon: Crowd-Sourced Car Tracking Revealed in New Patent

    Jump

  • I've spent some time noodling on that exact question.

    It'd be great if we had a better functioning civil society, where the government and the 4th estate could insist on basic protections for citizens, and the corporations would be steered away from the worst profit-seeking excesses that they'll get into without the extra guidance.

    What do I know, though? I'm a comedian ;) 100% agree with you that there is a happy middle ground between new tech and privacy/civil liberties, but I'm doubtful that I'll ever personally set foot on it with the way things are trending.

  • Ford Panopticon: Crowd-Sourced Car Tracking Revealed in New Patent

    Jump

  • That article was what gave me the idea to search the patent database. All sorts of creepy shit in the pipeline. Stay tuned.

    Some fun stuff, automatic dog treat dispensers and stuff, but mostly appalling violations of your privacy. Welcome to the future, where Dearborn is always watching.

  • Ford Panopticon: Crowd-Sourced Car Tracking Revealed in New Patent

    Jump

  • I am absolutely furious to find out that you can totally turn off those alerts... by calling a literal phone number. You call Sirius FM, and they deactivate it, I guess it's a free trial or some BS.

    Comment #15 from Kailua Coach seems to do what you want done, what a shitheaded design:

    https://www.pacificaforums.com/threads/turn-off-weather-alerts.37618/

  • Ford Panopticon: Crowd-Sourced Car Tracking Revealed in New Patent

    Jump

  • Smart.

    I think that's why Ford is patenting this specific tech. It prevents you from being able to turn off the tracking, by leveraging every Ford that has NOT turned off tracking to spot the vehicle that is "running dark."

  • Ford Panopticon: Crowd-Sourced Car Tracking Revealed in New Patent

    Jump

  • I hate that Batman predicted this.

  • Removed

    Updated: 40+ NHTSA Employees Fired Late Friday… Elon Doesn't See Any Conflicts of Interest

    Jump

  • If ever we'd see a recusal, it would have been public last Friday. It ain't comin.

  • Updated: 40+ NHTSA Employees Fired Late Friday… Elon Doesn't See Any Conflicts of Interest

    Jump

  • I think it's news cycle in this case. Felt like how a looter would fire the department, "wait until nightfall" deal

  • Updated: 40+ NHTSA Employees Fired Late Friday… Elon Doesn't See Any Conflicts of Interest

    Jump

  • Oh NO, Dhork, why did you have to be RIGHT about it

  • It's Official: the Cybertruck is More Explosive than the Ford Pinto

    Jump

  • It's Official: the Cybertruck is More Explosive than the Ford Pinto

    Jump

  • Sure, sure. The "official" just means that the first year of results are measured. Felt too early to look at before we had a full year of data.

    The statistic for the Cybertruck wasn't intended to determine cause, just effect. Maybe you're right and they'll wind up about as safe as other Teslas, which are the most lethal brand of car to drive based on NHTSA data. You can see why the DOGE effort is closely scrutinizing the NHTSA.

    Totally hear you and agree to the broad sentiment if not the specifics. I really hope you're right, I hope they fix it and it becomes safer. The door emergency release designs in particular feel antagonistic to the lives of rear seat passengers.

    Also, just my opinion. I mostly tell jokes, I just stumbled into a joke where I was like "wait that can't be true, can it," and then a couple hours of research later, it looked like it was confoundingly true.

  • It's Official: the Cybertruck is More Explosive than the Ford Pinto

    Jump

  • LOL, I dishonestly flagged it for the reader to review themselves? Wow, I must be a real piece of shit.

    So anyhow, you're an honest person, so if I'm a lying bastard with some non-specific ulterior motive (or I just really fuckin suck at math), what's your number when you run the stats with one fewer fire fatality in the Cybertruck column? Does it change the overall meaning of the study, or nah?

  • It's Official: the Cybertruck is More Explosive than the Ford Pinto

    Jump

  • Alright, boss.

    If you can't believe a PHD holder on their subject of expertise, and you won't run your own analysis, I guess you'll believe whatever you like no matter what anybody else says. Ok! I'm fine with that if you're fine with that.

    I should probably explain: I do find it acceptable to include all the deaths in the Cybertruck... simply because 100% of the fatalities have been in Cybertrucks that burned. Isn't that absolutely AGGRAVATINGLY ridiculous? That alone is worth the headline. Car fires are not common in 2025. Every single car built in 2025 should be safer than the Ford fucking Pinto!

  • It's Official: the Cybertruck is More Explosive than the Ford Pinto

    Jump

  • EldritchFemininity: Describes being hired to build the human centipede, but out of Ford Pintos

    Also EldritchFemininity: Refuses to elaborate; leaves.

  • It's Official: the Cybertruck is More Explosive than the Ford Pinto

    Jump

  • No, that's not what I said at all. Get your quote right. I said "fuck it, we ball."

    Serious tho, if you're curious why I did that, read up the thread, I explain it. Nothin nefarious (I hope)

  • It's Official: the Cybertruck is More Explosive than the Ford Pinto

    Jump

  • I'm just copy pasting from above, but here's my thoughts on that:

    "People often ask about me including the Las Vegas case, so maybe I answer that concern, too. That's the methodology - I set out to count every fire death for the Cybertruck that I could confirm through reliable news sources. And I struggled with that one. I worried if I didn't include it, I'd be open to the opposite criticism - folks would say "wait these stats suck, I literally saw a guy die on the news in a flaming Cybertruck, and y'all didn't count it, so these numbers can't be right." So, sort of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. It was controversial, I knew it would be, so I flagged it in the article so folks could make their own decision about it. Ultimately, it didn't meaningfully change the final findings. I've run the numbers with and without it, and the story is fundamentally the same either way."

  • It's Official: the Cybertruck is More Explosive than the Ford Pinto

    Jump

  • You're back! I've seen this article posted a couple different places (not by me), and you keep finding it! And posting an image of one of the many data tables from the same study.

    So, after seeing it a couple times, I do have a couple of ideas about it:

    • You should also include a screen grab of the page of the report that specifies the 27 deaths due to the notoriously fatal design flaw in the Pinto that is included in my article.
    • If you read my article, I'm specifically comparing the fire death rate due to the notoriously fatal design flaw. It's specified in plain English in the methodology section. If you don't like the clearly stated methodology, re-run the study with a methodology you do like, IDGAF.
    • The reason for that methodology: 100% of the Cybertruck fires involved ONLY the Cybertruck. Which is weird, single car fire accidents are not common. The Ford Pintos, I could only verify that SOME of the fires were caused ONLY by the Ford Pinto. I wanted an apples-to-apples comparison as best as I could make it. If you don't like any aspect of this, like the vehicle totals or whatever, you can always re-run the numbers like I told you to in the original article.

    People often ask about me including the Las Vegas case, so maybe I answer that concern, too. That's the methodology - I set out to count every fire death for the Cybertruck that I could confirm through reliable news sources. And I struggled with that one. I worried if I didn't include it, I'd be open to the opposite criticism - folks would say "wait these stats suck, I literally saw a guy die on the news in a flaming Cybertruck, and y'all didn't count it, so these numbers can't be right." So, sort of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. It was controversial, I knew it would be, so I flagged it in the article so folks could make their own decision about it. Ultimately, it didn't meaningfully change the final findings. I've run the numbers with and without it, and the story is fundamentally the same either way.

    Like, I'm a comedian who tells pickup truck jokes most the time. I've linked in the original article to a very credible scientist who re-ran my numbers more rigorously and they came to the same conclusions, with the added benefit of confirming the sample sizes were statistically significant. Take their word for it, not mine. Or hell, run the numbers yourself, you got all the same sources I do.

  • It's Official: the Cybertruck is More Explosive than the Ford Pinto

    Jump

  • Yeah. Yeah...

  • Updated: CyberTruck "Slices Deer in Half"... Elon claims that it is safer for pedestrians.

    Jump

  • Quiet down, Zangoose... You'll get us all-expenses paid tickets to Guantanamo Bay