this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2025
1565 points (99.4% liked)
Technology
66687 readers
7029 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
Why would children be interested in car safety?
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.
Cool inquisitive kid you have there. 👍 😀
Who downvoted this? XD This brings me joy
Why would children be interested in anything?
Have you never seen educational content before that wraps up potentially boring teachings in an exciting narrative?
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.
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.
Stats made over decades back in 50-70's
So... out of date stats about advertising?
Including the horrible angle of headrests these days. You're right though: nobody gives a shit about the extra safety features.
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.
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
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.
They do make the analogy in the video. They reference it multiple times.
Maybe I didn't have sound, and that's not the problem, the problem is the thumbnail for the video is clickbait, I don't get why I have to repeat that so many times?
I understand the joke of the analogy to cartoons, and it's perfectly fine they make that in the video.
"And I still think it's misleading. If they made the analogy in the video it would be different."
I was just responding to your own point, mate. Good news, it is in the video multiple times, even visually referenced multiple times. They even described as a cartoonish test while showing the cartoon wall gag. So, per your own words, should be good to go then, yeah? I mean, you're arguing with yourself at this point.
By being different if it's in the video, I'm just saying it's OK to make the analogy WITH CONTEXT!
How do you understand it otherwise? It obviously doesn't change the fact that the thumbnail is clickbait either way.
Yeah, and they make the analogy with context. And the thumbnail references the analogy. And all of it is fully owned as cartoonish and the cartoon is referenced multiple times, even with visuals. So per your own thoughts, should be OK.
Because they don’t want their friend to die?
To kids, death is just a word.
When I was a kid I was extremely interested in junction layouts, it drove my parents mad. Kids like all sorts of random things.
Kids love cyber trucks, teslas, Ferraris, or any car that is perceived as very expensive