• darkdemize@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      23 hours ago

      I’m not in any way trying to downplay how bad the cyber-dumpster is, but is that an adequate sample size to extrapolate the fiery-death rate? The article says 17 times the rate of the Pinto, but it was only 5 total fires.

          • cecilkorik@piefed.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            25
            ·
            23 hours ago

            The biggest issue with the Pinto was not the Pinto itself, it was how Ford discussed the potential issues with it internally. It was their very well documented preference for money over protecting human life that caused the controversy.

            We know this really happens all the time, at all companies and in all industries, but Ford was punished for saying the quiet part out loud (amongst themselves) and getting caught doing it. We are all supposed to at least put on a show of human lives being more important than money, and Ford failed to put on the show, and for that they were punished.

            We still don’t care about human life, but at least we all felt better about it afterwards.

            • CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 hours ago

              There’s an episode of Swindled all about how Ford knew this was a flaw and allowed it to happen so that they could compete in the lower end market.

          • Rimu@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            23 hours ago

            huh, TIL. Thanks!

            So it’s just 17 times more likely to burn you to death than average cars.