A retired firefighter mentioned that her department was using something very interesting - these are flood control barricades, think plastic sandbags.

You put up the barricades, and then use that to make a sort of moat, fill it with water, and you basically build the water tank around the burning EV.

This page shows the concept, site’s in India, but this is being done in the western hemisphere some places, too: https://www.floodbarriers.in/ev_fire_fighting.php

Ya know, we actually don’t use fire blankets where I’m at! The training videogame also made no mention of them, and it is very recent, released last year.

Interesting, right? There’s a huge amount of variation for firefighting techniques nationwide for EVs. I’ve seen them used, but only out West.

As for confusing backdraft and flashover, no, I got that correct. To the best of my admittedly very spotty memory :)

See this article, it means different things different places, how I learned it is that every backdraft is a flashover, but not every flashover is a backdraft. If that’s wrong, take it up with the lieutenant who trained me, who was incidentally stellar at his job: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backdraft

Me looking at Mozilla like: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHShUPtagAANgks.jpg

deleted by creator

If you only ever drove Fords, you would think “AGUGGUUUG” was a natural sound for an automatic to make 😂That’s innovation, Tesla should take notes!

Love the versioning. Saw minor edits to the “Fork in the Road” landing page over time, including the cleaning up of just plain sloppy typos. They clearly deployed half-cocked, didn’t even run spell-check.

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.

TL;DR: Yes, it is shit.

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

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

https://media.tenor.com/lHqa2O6g8kkAAAAM/captain-america-reference.gif

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?

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!

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)

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.”

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.

Yeah. Yeah…

Quiet down, Zangoose… You’ll get us all-expenses paid tickets to Guantanamo Bay

I looked over the data pretty closely: looks like, irrespective of your bits, if you were recorded as certain genders by first responders, that data was later purged from the federal government database. Your accurate gender was replaced with “Sex: Not Reported.”

I suspect if the NHTSA knew what bits the car crash victims had, they would have updated the data with that, but the first responders didn’t collect that data so they instead erased the data they did collect (obviously the police aren’t peeking in your pants… yet).

deleted by creator