版主： lexian
ignius 写了： 2025年 11月 7日 13:40一帮傻逼连新闻报道都不看，就在这里乱黑。这几个傻逼刚刚磕了药，高速驾驶撞了树，烧死了。结果一帮傻逼来怨门把手。傻逼无极限呀
The Dane County Sheriff’s Office says multiple factors played a role in the crash, including road conditions, excess speed, and impaired driving.
又来转移话题。这是完全两件事。造成事故是事故前的问题，门把手打不开是事故之后的问题。
就像你一个大楼消防设施坏了，有个精神病反社会的纵火犯来纵火结果把大楼烧了，大家说本来如果消防设施完好的话这场火不会造成这么大损失的，结果你非要说要是没那个纵火犯就不会有这事？
我说的是喊了半天，我没说5分钟。这里面说得很清楚了“screaming up to five minutes into the 911 call”，到底是谁不懂英文？
哪里说打不开门？
geniushanbiao 写了： 2025年 11月 7日 13:45我说的是喊了半天，我没说5分钟。这里面说得很清楚了“screaming up to five minutes into the 911 call”，到底是谁不懂英文？
你有点common sense好不？几个人在车里被火烧着几分钟只知道在那叫不会去尝试开门？你还是个人不？
这帮人开车时磕了药，出事了神智不清，被烧死了你来怪门把手设计？
geniushanbiao 写了： 2025年 11月 7日 13:43又来转移话题。这是完全两件事。造成事故是事故前的问题，门把手打不开是事故之后的问题。
就像你一个大楼消防设施坏了，有个精神病反社会的纵火犯来纵火结果把大楼烧了，大家说本来如果消防设施完好的话这场火不会造成这么大损失的，结果你非要说要是没那个纵火犯就不会有这事？
瞎几把扯淡。model 3/Y的门把手是新设计。老model S的前门把手是机械电子一体的。前门不可能打不开。
though it did for the front doors in this particular vehicle; again, it’s unclear why that didn’t work here, and the lawsuit seems to dance around the fact that these mechanical releases were included on the front doors of this vehicle
就是律师想碰瓷，吃沾血馒头
你太多主观感情在里面了。
问问ChatGPT文章如何写的怎么分析的，其实人家说的也很有道理， driver可以知道，可能当时忘记了你可以责怪他智商不够；但是乘客不一定知道。
2） The front mechanical releases should have worked, but the lawsuit says it's “unclear why they didn’t operate,” meaning:
They may have been damaged in the crash,
Or the front passengers may have been incapacitated.
This trapping appears to be the central failure point.
3）A fire started after the crash, and the occupants could not exit before the fire spread
A nearby resident heard screaming for up to 5 minutes after the collision.
During this period she reports: “the car is on fire now.”
This strongly implies occupants were alive for some time, but unable to exit.
The lawsuit also claims the 2016 Model S lacked later-generation fire-suppressive materials that could have slowed the fire.
Thus, fire + inability to exit = fatal combination
In a normal car with standard mechanical door handles, they likely would have been able to exit before the fire reached them.
pnlmpnlm 写了： 2025年 11月 7日 13:54你太多主观感情在里面了。
问问ChatGPT文章如何写的怎么分析的，其实人家说的也很有道理， driver可以知道，可能当时忘记了你可以责怪他智商不够；但是乘客不一定知道。
- ）Rear mechanical releases existed but were hidden under carpet, extremely unintuitive, and the passengers likely had no idea they existed.
2） The front mechanical releases should have worked, but the lawsuit says it's “unclear why they didn’t operate,” meaning:
They may have been damaged in the crash,
Or the front passengers may have been incapacitated.
This trapping appears to be the central failure point.
3）A fire started after the crash, and the occupants could not exit before the fire spread
A nearby resident heard screaming for up to 5 minutes after the collision.
During this period she reports: “the car is on fire now.”
This strongly implies occupants were alive for some time, but unable to exit.
The lawsuit also claims the 2016 Model S lacked later-generation fire-suppressive materials that could have slowed the fire.Thus, fire + inability to exit = fatal combination
In a normal car with standard mechanical door handles, they likely would have been able to exit before the fire reached them.
没办法，乘客就是客人，你不可能指望第一次坐这车的客人对这个车的操作了如指掌吧？就像你不可能指望第一次到你家做客的客人知道你安全套放哪对吧，所以这种critical的设计必须放在最common sense的显而易见的地方。
NC CHINESE AMERICANS FOR TRUMP 
