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

Software is eating the car

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 549 posts

Re: Software is eating the car

#411

Post by ClumsyPilot »

duped wrote: post #267
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I'm the dark pattern developer I'm not logging when the EULA is accepted or how many times they declined it This cuts both ways. If the user can show one case of their rejecting the EULA without it being logged, they can then make the claim--correctly or not--that they repeatedly rejected it. If the car refuses to work without the EULA being accepted or rejected, proof of its movement would be sufficient to show…

There is hiding information and not collecting it to begin with. void handleEula() { auto eulaAccepted = readEulaAcceptedFile(); if (!eulaAccepted) eulaAccepted = promptForEulaAcceptance(); writeEulaFile(eulaAccepted); } This function reads a file from disk and writes back to it every time. If filesystem write audits aren't enabled there is no way to determine if the most recent write of "true" was the only write. >…

Judges are not idiots, and there is an "obligation to observe reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing".

Practices like this increase likelihood that the judge rules the entire agreement null and void for the entire userbase.

Re: Software is eating the car

#412

Post by ClumsyPilot »

pessimizer wrote: post #401
_jal wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lawyers tend to love it when their opponents think they've found a cute legal hack.

That's not a cute legal hack. Not retaining any information that is not useful and has the potential to be incriminating, unless legally required to, is what every smart company or government agency does. You find the relevant laws, then you write a retention policy.

It's not about information, it's about the user being harassed untill someone clicks "accept" button, which is not compatible with "dealing in good faith"

Do you have proof they clicked it, and not their kid? Did they intend to consent, or click the button by accident/ spilled coffee on the touchscreen?

How can we trust your code at all, if all users say the rejected the contract multiple times, and you claim they accepted it and you are the one that stands to benefit from their acceptance, maybe you are lying? Maybe your system is unreliable?

Is it even legal to use the user's property - i.e. their car - to disturb their peace? If you were to post them a letter, you do it at your expense, but now you are doing it at their expense, they are paying to electricity and data to display those pixels for your benefit.

Re: Software is eating the car

#413

Post by simondotau »

cmiller1 wrote: post #27
mthomasmw wrote: post #6

Serious question - what alternatives are left for those of us who want a dumb car? I've spent the last three months finding out I can't get solar panels installed without a high-fidelity power-monitor tap connected to the provider's cloud, logging every appliance I use and what it's doing. Same deal with cars - they are on the internet and they generate evidence used to convict, and geofencing is coming. Other than s…

> Other than stockpiling cars from 2010 As a car enthusiast this sounds laughably new to me. My main vehicle rolled off the assembly line in 1991. Unfortunately it's a "hobby" and a labor of love because if you're not wealthy enough to pay for a shop to handle maintenance of your classic cars then you're spending your weekends working on them.

I get the allure of older cars but personally I wouldn’t ever daily drive a car that didn’t have vaguely modern crashworthiness. To me 2010 sounds like an ideal middle ground between maximising mechanical safety and minimising the encroachment of bad software. Ideally you’d want a reasonably new safety-rated car where the entire radio can be swapped out for an aftermarket double-DIN unit.

Re: Software is eating the car

#414

Post by SkyPuncher »

liquidise wrote: post #271
jacquesm wrote: post #181

Nothing worse than automotive software. Buggy, slow, terrible user interfaces, outright dangerous and in many ways much worse than the systems they replace or augment. The automotive industry has a long long way to come - assuming it will happen at all - before they can be said to be responsible software vendors. Case in point: my - former - C class Mercedes that made two pretty good attempts to kill me by slamming o…

I’ll pile on with my own anecdote. Last winter I flew home to Maine to visit family. Rented a ‘21 Nissan Altima. It drove well until there was typical New England snow/slush mix. While driving on a flat straight stretch of road the car suddenly... yanked itself sideways. Thank god no oncoming traffic was present and I was able to course correct safely. I immediately drove home and paid careful attention to the wheel…

> Once home i broke open the manual and found 4 different “driver assist” and “driver comfort” functions. After disabling them all the terrifying behavior ceased.

I have these and absolutely love them. Sometimes, they do need to be turned off in bad weather, though.

Re: Software is eating the car

#415

Post by pgreenwood »

SavantIdiot wrote: post #3

Short answer to the lede: no, the industry cannot cope. Or rather, it will limp along with bloatware, bugs, and malware exactly the same way we see desktop OSes bloat, or the way we see routers and set-top boxes hacked to become botnets. In my 40+ years in the industry I've yet to see code get SMALLER. With the exception of Linux kernel 1.0 in the 90's which was a step backwards into smaller, more compact code, code…

I'm reminded of the joke "If Microsoft Made Cars" from the 90s.

http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/pnw/microsoftjoke.htm

And 25 years later here we are...

' For all of us who feel only the deepest love and affection for the way computers have enhanced our lives, read on. At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated, "If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon."

In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release stating: If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:

1. For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash twice a day.

2. Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car.

3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would have to pull to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue.

For some reason you would simply accept this.

4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.

5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast and twice as easy to drive - but would run on only five percent of the roads.

6. The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single "This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation" warning light.

7. The airbag system would ask "Are you sure?" before deploying.

8. Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.

9. Every time a new car was introduced car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.

10. You'd have to press the "Start" button to turn the engine off." '

Re: Software is eating the car

#416

Post by ClumsyPilot »

clairity wrote: post #362
dzhiurgis wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue feeling safe when I drive is net positive for actual safety. Stressed drivers going to make way more errors.

if you’re prone to being overwhelmed by stress while driving a machine that can potentially kill you, that’s a sign to get more training, not to mollify oneself with an illusion of safety. ignorance is not bliss in this case.

if you’re prone to stress while driving a machine that can potentially kill you, that’s a sign you are aware of your predicament

Re: Software is eating the car

#417

Post by anoncake »

MereInterest wrote: post #208
brewdad wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I should think that owning a car for more than a few weeks without accepting the EULA could serve as reasonable "proof" that you had no intention of accepting it regardless of what is logged. Especially if the EULA is presented at every startup.

> It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought -- that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc -- should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, whil…

"No thanks" is bad enough when I mean "fuck off".

Re: Software is eating the car

#418

Post by ClumsyPilot »

Koshkin wrote: post #33
bobajeff wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I like the tech behind Tesla but am turned off by. 1) The large, distracting screen in the front of the car. 2) The subscription model of the car's firmware. If electric cars ever become widespread I hope I can find a used one engineered without that stuff. Otherwise I may have to stop buying cars.

> If electric cars ever become widespread I have a strong suspicion that soon enough after that we will be able to build electric cars from kits, cheap and with no frills. We are on a cusp of a new technological revolution.

I am confused, why would someone want a car from a kit?

It's made of hundreds of parts, some weight more than a grown man and you could seriously injure yourself or assemble it incorrectly. It's not gonna be an ikea kit.

We've created assembly lines for this exact reason and they are really good at their job, why would you go backwards unless you are seriously into DIY or an arctic explorer flatpacking them?

Re: Software is eating the car

#419

Post by [deleted] »

ghostpepper wrote: post #131
SavantIdiot wrote: post #3

Short answer to the lede: no, the industry cannot cope. Or rather, it will limp along with bloatware, bugs, and malware exactly the same way we see desktop OSes bloat, or the way we see routers and set-top boxes hacked to become botnets. In my 40+ years in the industry I've yet to see code get SMALLER. With the exception of Linux kernel 1.0 in the 90's which was a step backwards into smaller, more compact code, code…

As an embedded software person who is also into cars, I am definitely going to be looking for something older for my next car. I have the luxury of not needing to drive it every day, but I like the idea of something I have at least a hope of repairing myself when it breaks.

[deleted]

Re: Software is eating the car

#420

Post by rhizome »

SavantIdiot wrote: post #3

Short answer to the lede: no, the industry cannot cope. Or rather, it will limp along with bloatware, bugs, and malware exactly the same way we see desktop OSes bloat, or the way we see routers and set-top boxes hacked to become botnets. In my 40+ years in the industry I've yet to see code get SMALLER. With the exception of Linux kernel 1.0 in the 90's which was a step backwards into smaller, more compact code, code…

As someone pointed out the other day on a somewhat unrelated topic, luxury cars don't have touchscreens or Tesla TVs.

They are bad for driving. Dangerous, even.

Post reply on HN