Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Former Tesla Firmware Engineer Discusses the System

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 589 posts

Re: Former Tesla Firmware Engineer Discusses the System

#391

Post by berti »

gmueckl wrote: post #151
forkerenok wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well said, though I think the GP (and many others) blames the platform, not the language. I find C# and .NET runtime (before it meets windows) quite nice. I'm not a big C#-er myself though.

The .NET CLR and core C# runtime libraries are really nice to work with. But things become somewhat Microsoft-y (that is, nice-looking but amazingly half-assed in the most unexpected ways) when you start to do things like writing GUIs.

The documentation can be pretty half-assed too, e.g. it states "x can throw these exceptions: a, b, c"... x throws something else at runtime.

Re: Former Tesla Firmware Engineer Discusses the System

#392

Post by rrcaptain »

vvanders wrote: post #204
devy wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the infotainment system caused the MCUs to reboot while someone traveling "130mph on San Mateo Bridge" and that caused the break system to segfault due to unconventional way of loading parts firmware, it might be a life&death situation, easily. Examples in that threads go on, literally hundreds!

Well, you can reboot the system while driving(both console and dash), nothing special happens other than the AC turning off for a brief period of time. Brakes, wheel, throttle all respond normally. Source: Done this a few times to clear bad map data or occasional glitch.

AC should be considered mission critical.

Re: Former Tesla Firmware Engineer Discusses the System

#393

Post by rrcaptain »

h4b4n3r0 wrote: post #363
mikeash wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla’s MCU runs Linux. Older ones use a 2012-era Nvidia mobile SoC, while newer ones use something from Intel.

Nah. No way the mcu responsible for braking would run an OS

Didn't they already do an Over-the-Air update to fix the braking time in response to a bad review?

Re: Former Tesla Firmware Engineer Discusses the System

#394

Post by bpye »

analognoise wrote: post #343
BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In every application I can think of off the top of my head, but mostly in the ones that apply to Tesla, you truly don't, except when the law or a contract says otherwise. I'm sure there are exceptions for things that don't apply to Tesla (or for that matter SpaceX). Here's what's inside of every autonomous vehicle ever made: a message-passing subsystem, sensors, fusers, navigation, dynamic control, actuator device dr…

I think in terms of missiles, so everything needs an RTOS. Or bare metal.

A Falcon 9 and a missile share a lot of qualities.

Re: Former Tesla Firmware Engineer Discusses the System

#395

Post by samstave »

ummonk wrote: post #329
samstave wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a tangent, but still germane to the thread: Why arent their efforts to create "autonomous only" traffic managment scenarios, where people drive into a given, known area, and the area then takes control of managing the traffic and vehicles. Such that you relinquish control of the vehicle to that area's control system, with your destination stated and then your vehicle is managed accordingly. For example, a parking…

If it were that easy to setup tech-based infrastructure, we would have had positive train control implemented years ago.

You're right. We should all just give up.

I mean, heck. If it were that easy to start a unicorn...

But seriously - I am not saying its easy, I'm just surprised that we haven't made much (publicly known about/announced) efforts along these lines.

I mean, we have TCP down pretty good - if we are simply thinking of cars as packets, a lot of the math should exist to ensure collision-less delivery?

Re: Former Tesla Firmware Engineer Discusses the System

#396

Post by user5994461 »

malkia wrote: post #368
scrollaway wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at what's been done isn't a good way of determining whether your process is efficient at doing said thing. You need to be able to compare it to something else. To put it another way: If your method of writing novels is to hire an infinite amount of monkeys and put them to work on typewriters, you can't say "Something about this model must be working right, I came out of it with the complete works of Shakespea…

Or maybe that is THE SMART THING. Realizing that you need resources to accomplish it, and throwing money would do it for you.

Monkeys have no salary and no rights. It's more scalable and easier to manage than regular employees.

Get a lot of monkeys and put them at work. They will produce something. Better have something than have nothing.

Re: Former Tesla Firmware Engineer Discusses the System

#397

Post by coatmatter »

coldtea wrote: post #273
mikeash wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's the standard, then almost everything becomes safety critical. Drivers can easily get distracted by malfunctioning smartphones or apps. (Or, for that matter, properly functioning smartphones or apps.) Yet the prior discussion was based on the idea that things like iPhones and Facebook aren't safety critical the way this is.

> If that's the standard, then almost everything becomes safety critical. Almost everything in a cars front panel and dashboard can be. I've read somewhere that people have been killed even because of something as quaint as the wrong placement of car ashtray.

One time I pulled up at the red light behind a Tesla while I was on a bicycle. Straight through the rear window I could see the driver and front passenger being distracted by the massive flat touch screen. The traffic light turned green, and had I been beside the Tesla, I would have beaten it across the intersection despite all that electric motor tech in the car.

Anyway this little illustrated anecdote of mine aside, driver distraction is a genuine issue - even for drivers at red lights. The number of times I've seen this type of behaviour transcend into moving off while remaining distracted (whether that's heads down visually or just mentally) is too boringly frequent to detail. Sometimes the distracted drivers even creep forward unconsciously while traffic is flowing across them. Emergency vehicles can't get through, drivers end up splitting their attention, pressure mounts once proper movement starts again, and all the while they don't realise they don't have full attention in a changing environment.

It's almost like a hypoxia.

Tom Scott did a pretty good video on this: https://youtu.be/_-aDHxoblr4

Re: Former Tesla Firmware Engineer Discusses the System

#398

Post by BugsJustFindMe »

analognoise wrote: post #343
BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In every application I can think of off the top of my head, but mostly in the ones that apply to Tesla, you truly don't, except when the law or a contract says otherwise. I'm sure there are exceptions for things that don't apply to Tesla (or for that matter SpaceX). Here's what's inside of every autonomous vehicle ever made: a message-passing subsystem, sensors, fusers, navigation, dynamic control, actuator device dr…

I think in terms of missiles, so everything needs an RTOS. Or bare metal.

Have you written missile guidance or are you armchair speculating?

Re: Former Tesla Firmware Engineer Discusses the System

#399

Post by cc-d »

Oh no. I happened to see the link to this guy's twitter earlier today in the HN comments (prob where OP saw it too, judging by timing), read the posts, and thought to myself "wow, i'm surprised how this has been posted to HN and seemingly hasn't garnered any response at all".

In the few hours after I stopped procrastinating at work today, every post in that thread has went to multiple thousands of likes/share/etc. Guess that's my answer.

Re: Former Tesla Firmware Engineer Discusses the System

#400

Post by fidz »

noselasd wrote: post #379
Cyph0n wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real question is: why do you need an entire OS kernel to control traffic lights?

To communicate with all the other traffic lights and sensors at the other intersections on the road to optimize traffic flow.

Such thing does exist? I thought traffict light only time-based on no sensor involved.
Post reply on HN