Here is the 2020-2024 Model Y manual's instructions on opening the back door with power loss, doesn't seem that obvious to me (you have to "remove the mat from the bottom of the rear door pocket" !): https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/2020_2024_modely/en_us/GU...
There was nothing deceptive about my statement. Every car has an obvious front door release. There are no cars where the non-obvious back door release is the only way out without electricity.
That's so patently unacceptable that I'm surprised you're taking that tack. You're in a lithium car fire, climbing into the front seat may not even be possible, and figuring out that your back door doesn't have an obvious release is time lost that all will have a cost in blood. There being two paths out of the maze doesn't make it not a maze.
At least on mine, if the car crashes, the child lock is disabled immediately.
BTW, the emergency release procedure should always be the same as the normal release process. All systems should fail to a safe state on a power loss. It’s easy to design a door lever that engages the powered open on pull and a mechanic mechanism when pulling harder or further.
Thank you for convincing me and everyone I know to never even ride in a Tesla, let alone buy one (and, sadly, I had planned to make one my next car).
I looked up the owner's manual description of the opening mechanism (posted by (ammar2, above) [0], and found it was an insanely dangerous design, literally worthy of an escape room as other sibling posters have described.
It is hidden below a mat, which must be removed, then a red tab pressed (not pulled), and there is a big caution AGAINST using it when the car has any power as it may damage the car.
So, you are in a rapidly expanding lithium fire, you must first determine if the car has power or not, and then you must fumble and root around to find which trim mat to pull, and then whether to pull (wrong) or push the red tab.
If you fail to do these steps quickly enough, you will die a horrible death in a fire (as many have).
If you use this lever at an inopportune time, you will damage the car.
In what other automobile does using a manual door-opening mechanism damage the vehicle?
This is one of the most insanely user- and owner-hostile designs I have ever encountered or heard of in life.
And it has actually unnecessarily cause at least a dozen people to be burned alive and conscious.
And here you are defending it in multiple posts like some idiotic fanboy. Seriously, rethink your priorities and your life. It is truly sad your identity so much depends on someone else's massively flawed personality and product designs.
I found it immediately (on a model 3) and the car started bitching at me for using the wrong door release. It took me longer to find the "correct", electronic door button.
Weirdly it's actually usually easier, in the sense of less force required, to open from the "bottom", non-stem end, but you end up with a less aesthetically pleasing result.
Unfortunately there also tends to be a little bit of a pith or seed cluster or something, at least when I've tried it, I'm sure it's edible, but I suspect the actual skin of the banana is probably edible also.
It should come with a flight attendant and an obligatory five minute safety instruction before each ride. I've ridden in multiple Teslas, including many Ubers, and no one has even given me the manual to read or shown me how to escape in case of a fire.
That may be so, but these are two very different things:
[has X]
[has X designed, built, and visible in the car such that it can be easily found and operated whilst panicking for your life, or rushing from outside while trying to save a trapped passenger's life]
There are people who would tell you that while Tesla may have the first, it does not have the latter, but they cannot because they are dead, and should not be.
I own a 2023 model 3. The rear door releases are behind the door panel, apparently used for production, and not accessible to rear passengers. The front doors are double paned but the rears aren't. So I can only open the front doors but not bash out the window and the reverse in the back. Fun little puzzle I have to deal with if I get in a bad accident with my child.
I could just punch a hole in the door and route it, as many have done, but it has no child lock integration which could be problematic.
Why take what risk? Every make and model has issues. This car has 5/5 safety with best in class accident avoidance.
This lock issue is not regulated and many electric cars have this and/or other issues. It's not like I have great choices if I want to drive an electric sedan.
And no one ever found it in a crash. The door release is also only accessible from the inside which means people on the outside cannot open the door to help unconscious passengers.
How is that different than any other car? Most modern cars lock their doors when you put them in gear, making breaking the glass the only option to get in during an emergency.
Most European brands I've tried only lock the cars when the speed exceeds 20 km/h.
In addition, most brands I'm aware of will unlock the car when the airbags are deployed (Kia/Hyundai, Renault, Volkswagen, Mercedes, BMW). Because these cars still have door handles, they can be opened by a bystander after a crash.
The issue is not that the doors are locked. The issue is that unlocked doors without door handles are still useless.
Note that, as anybody, the Catholic Church may have is bias.
For example. Their dualist view of the world makes them see AI as something very different from human intelligence. So, without having read it, the church may negate that it could be at human level. A few years ago that would negate that computers could be creative because they do not have a soul.
Anyway, kudos for focussing on the important issues and the impact on human.(And less on sex)
I have yet to read the whole thing - but I agree that the Church's view of intelligence is not to the level of sophistication needed to counter the Valley's pantheistic view of intelligence. I think that is because of how Aquinas was utilized to counter the Reformation. That being said, I don't believe that such a view cannot be elaborated, it will just take time. The key is embodiment, wherein how we view sex ends up being incredibly important because it necessarily relates to how we take on flesh to begin with. Once sex is divorced from procreation (and vice-versa), intelligence is divorced from humanity. It's very relevant - but the culture of dehumanization is so deeply rooted today that it's difficult to be productive when tackling that dehumanization via sex.
Fwiw the teaching of the church is that (today's) AI isn't at a human level because human intelligence is something that we experience whereas artificial intelligence seems to be merely a sophistication in performing tasks.
He’s a simple creature. Just pay the man and/or his kids off. Remember the funny video comparing Oracle and Larry Ellison to a lawn mower? He is the same.
You can lobby congress to put him in a 6x6 cell. For any reason whatsoever, including no reason whatsoever. Their trials are ultimately a yes/no vote, the facts don't matter.
They are just as complicit in failing to exercise their power.
Ethic cleansing is something much worse when that race you are "cleansing" is already living there (Israel removing Palestinian from Gaza)
The accusations is just racism. The fact that Trump gave extra fast visas to white South Afrikaans makes you think that there were some racial reasoning there.
In the last decades the whole world is more global.
> The accusations is just racism. The fact that Trump gave extra fast visas to white South Afrikaans makes you think that there were some racial reasoning there.
What is wrong if white people want to help other white people escape persecution?
But if you only help based on the colour of the skin... That's a little bit racist.
Also, as far as I know there is not persecution in South Africa. Trump used photos from the wrong conflict. And there are really bad things happening in Africa... but not to white people
> Does this administration care to much about the law?
As a European my opinion of Trump could not be any lower, but it is my understanding that they have complied with all court orders to date (with some being contested all the way to the Supreme Court). They are certainly testing the authority limits of various courts and congressional processes, but they have complied with all legal processes to date.
I don't think this is accurate. According to the New York Times¹ (among numerous other sources), the government has defied court orders at least a small double-digit number of times.
"At least 35 times since August, federal judges have ordered the administration to explain why it should not be punished for violating their orders in immigration cases."
“All” might be a stretch but the idea that they just do what they want regardless of what the courts say is just incorrect propaganda. And continuing to find creative ways to defy court orders is something every administration does. And my opinion of the administration is low also, I just don’t like the propaganda and have never understood why we need to make up things about them when there’s so much to dislike that isn’t fictional.
Wasn't the tarrifs thing one of the things he did illegaly and thats why they are now getting paid back?
Whats with the documents he put in his toilet?
Destroying the east wing. Its too late now right but shouldn't he followed some procedure?
I probably have plenty other examples but thats probablyh enough to get more insight. For me these cases feel like a mix of certain other parts should have steped in but have been ignored by trump and instead of doing their job, they don't because they all are either afraid or just behind trump. If this is the case, it might not be illegal but whats the right word then?
For the tarrifs, it feels like it should be clear that the way they did it was illegal but the law is just slow and because again the other parts aren't complaining, its not as illegal as it should be?
Nope, the original tariffs were under IEEPA, then Supreme Court ruled they didn't have authority to use IEEPA, so they had to drop those tariffs and start working on refunds. It'd only have been illegal if they kept the tariffs after the ruling.
Lot of propaganda & emotions around this straightforward chain of events.
Under this reasoning, it's not illegal to just take things from stores (stores hate this one simple trick). If you're caught and your specific actions are then adjudicated to be illegal, at that point you can just start making a plan to bring the items back (even if some are used/damaged/etc) and everything is fine.
In reality of course, the actions were illegal the whole time. The big festering problem is that there is no actual punishment for government agents who break the law.
The existence of case law / precedent does not affect whether something is "already illegal", but rather only how strongly one can predict if something is illegal. The original tariffs were illegal from day 1.
The point of the analogy was exactly to point at something with a lot of case law where this dynamic is crystal clear (although if Trump starts petty shoplifting after he's done looting our government, it's even odds whether this corrupt "court" will find some way to excuse it. Anything for the cause, of course)
Wikipedia on IEEPA: "An Act with respect to the powers of the President in time of war or national emergency. "?
I mean thats very wishi washi. So are we both aligned that it looks like missuse? Because if its only about a word definition of no its not illegal what he did but a clear missconduct than it feels like word play.
None of those are examples of violating a court order, in fact the first is an example of following one. The second happened when he was out of office. The third is ongoing.
I definitely did not say he doesn’t get ruled against by the courts.
There’s discussions in a (thankfully banned) sub thread pulling this into question so I just wanted to add sources:
> The short-form video-hosting service TikTok was under a de jure nationwide ban in the United States from January 19, 2025, until January 22, 2026, due to the US government's concerns over potential user data collection and influence operations by the government of the People's Republic of China. However, the ban was not enforced. The ban took effect after ByteDance, the China-based parent company of TikTok, refused to sell the service before the deadline of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA). Prior to the ban, individual states, cities, universities, and government-affiliated devices had restricted TikTok.
The executive branch explicitly defied an act of Congress which was upheld by the Supreme Court. First Biden for one day, then Trump II as he took office and continued not to enforce the ban.
>Now if you search for the USS Liberty, you get no results and instead a hardcoded link to a 'holocaust museum' website as the only result.
That's a lie. A search[0] shows these as the first three results:
USS Liberty incident - Wikipedia [1]
USS Liberty incident | Facts, Deaths, & Investigation | Britannica [2]
'We're Fed Up With It': Survivors of the USS Liberty Look for Answers [3]
In fact, the entire first page (and much of the second) of search results are specifically about the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty. There are no links to the Holocaust Museum anywhere to be found. Did you make up that lie yourself, or are you just blindly parroting what others tell you to believe?
Edit: Apparently (or at least that was claimed here[4]), GP was referring to searches on TikTok, not general web searches. I can neither confirm nor deny as I don't use that cesspit (or any other of those odious sewers). If it is true, it's just another good reason not to use that dumpster fire.
Since I'm old and don't use TikTok, I have no way to confirm or deny the results of searches on TikTok.
If what GP claims (I doubt it) is true, that's certainly a problem and another reason why folks shouldn't use an entertainment platform to get their news.
This is far from reality. In truth the Trump administration has been ignoring court orders time and time again. Don't repeat lies.
> That does not end the Court’s concerns, however. Attached to this order is an appendix that identifies 96 court orders that ICE has violated in 74 cases. The extent of ICE’s noncompliance is almost certainly substantially understated. This list is confined to orders issued since January 1, 2026, and the list was hurriedly compiled by extraordinarily busy judges. Undoubtedly, mistakes were made, and orders that should have appeared on this list were omitted. This list should give pause to anyone—no matter his or her political beliefs—who cares about the rule of law. ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.
I am not a lawyer, but I think the Trump administration is not complying with:
0. "DOJ acknowledges violating dozens of recent court orders in New Jersey" [0]
1. In Minnesota, judges reported 94 court-order violations in January and, separately, one judge identified 210 orders in 143 cases where ICE had not complied. [1]
reply