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

431–440 of 549 posts

Re: Software is eating the car

#431

Post by drbawb »

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 with you on this one. I think perhaps my favorite car interface to date is my '01 Camry. Let's look at the HVAC system:

Three knobs: temperature, speed, vent selection. Three buttons: a/c, recirc, rear defroster.

That's it. The entire system. It's a 20 year old design at this point. I have never once thought that I, a mere mortal, could improve on the design in any meaningful way.

The buttons and knobs are big enough that I can work them w/ my huge gloves on, I do not need special gloves that work w/ a touchscreen, the buttons are not context sensitive, and I can hit all the controls in the dark without even looking. Another point, which I've now learned I had taken for granted, is that no software update will ever mess w/ my muscle memory. Those switches cannot be programmed to do anything else in software, as they're physically wired to the functions they control.

The beauty of the system above is that the physical controls are the state machine. I can literally feel the state the HVAC system is in. Nowadays that state machine is all in software, and I have to hunt through menus, look at a display, sometimes multiple displays, just to figure out what state I left the system in. That's just unacceptable.

Re: Software is eating the car

#432

Post by elihu »

vannevar wrote: post #7
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…

Glad to hear I'm not the only one who wants a dumb car. Unfortunately, the idea of electric cars has become bound up with the notion of software-driven cars. I want an electric car with analog controls, no touch screens or over-the-air updates, and minimal software. A car that I feel like I own, rather than one I'm getting a click-through license to use.

One way to get that is to do an EV conversion. Unfortunately, it tends to be expensive and time consuming, but in the end you get something that's just a car and not somebody's notion of an ideal consumer electronics experience.

That's not to say there'll be no software, or even that it won't be proprietary. But at least it's a lot nicer to buy a motor controller, a charger, a battery management system and whatever else you need from companies that know the parts have to be easy to configure and interoperate with other components from other companies, because if they aren't people won't buy them. Modularity is a wonderful thing.

(I just ordered the charger and BMS for a project I'm working on yesterday. I ended up opting for more expensive components because they're configurable by the end user, whereas the popular cheap option you have to send it to someone to reprogram if you change your battery pack configuration.)

Re: Software is eating the car

#433

Post by jacquesm »

SkyPuncher wrote: post #414
liquidise wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem is that you don't know ahead of time when 'sometimes' is which is worse than nothing.

Re: Software is eating the car

#434

Post by jacquesm »

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…

That's more or less what I did though. I have a 2010 VW bus and a 1997 personal car. I fully expect these to last me the rest of my life.

Re: Software is eating the car

#435

Post by elihu »

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.

You can sort of do that now by buying a gas-powered car and a conversion kit. It just tends to be expensive, and the kits don't always include batteries and battery boxes.

Example: https://www.evwest.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=40&pro...

I wish EV tax credits applied to conversions and not just new vehicles. It would make conversions a lot more economical, and maybe we'd start seeing low-cost mass-produced conversion kits designed for popular vehicle models.

Re: Software is eating the car

#436

Post by kcolford »

worik wrote: post #364
Buttons840 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know the dark pattern of presenting a license agreement over and over until it's accepted? I predict one day someone will make the argument in court that they always declined the EULA (perhaps the one in their car) hundreds of times, but one day accidentally brushed "accept" with their finger, and that doesn't constitute legal acceptance, especially since they've demonstrated an effort to decline the EULA, but be…

I thought (IANAL) that EULA with screeds of text and a "Accept" button have been ruled invalid (as in not enforceable in a court) many ties in most jurisdictions. Am I wrong?

This is certainly true in some jurisdictions (including Canada where my home country bias lies), but I don't think it's generally true everywhere in the US.

Re: Software is eating the car

#437

Post by saltcured »

drbawb wrote: post #431
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 with you on this one. I think perhaps my favorite car interface to date is my '01 Camry. Let's look at the HVAC system: Three knobs: temperature, speed, vent selection. Three buttons: a/c, recirc, rear defroster. That's it. The entire system. It's a 20 year old design at this point. I have never once thought that I, a mere mortal, could improve on the design in any meaningful way. The buttons and knobs are big en…

I once drove a Volvo from the late 1970s with almost the same interface except one better: the air conditioning was a knob rather than a button, so I could select how "hard" the compressor functioned independently of the thermostat slider for the heater core and the slider for air routing. It meant I could dial in how much dehumidification I wanted while running heat in the winter and using recirculate to keep out some of the nasty truck exhaust and dust from sanded mountain roads.

Re: Software is eating the car

#438

Post by elihu »

jfengel wrote: post #124
numpad0 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s so wrong that tech inclined wants cheapest models for the reason that those are objectively better. The entire car industry is going to go iPhone all over again.

They're not objectively better. They're more suited to what they want: a device with fewer features but more direct control. Lots of people want a car with more features, and don't wish to control it directly. They would rather have a solid-state device that can't be repaired, but doesn't need to be. They don't want to upgrade it themselves; ideally, they don't want it to need upgrades until they buy another one. But…

Some people want their cars to be like iPhones, but is that really what's behind this?

I mean, take TVs. Pretty much every TV has "smart TV" features embedded, to the point where it's hard to find one that doesn't. I suspect this is because the manufacturer gets some kind of kickback from streaming services to include their app and to show ads and to gather data about what people are watching and in the end it's actually cheaper to include an embedded processor than it is to leave it out and lose their kickbacks.

Similarly, those "smart car" features can be monetized by collecting valuable data and introducing subtle suggestions on where to go. It's hard to imagine a car company seeing the kind of revenue that Facebook and Google pull in and not wanting to get in on that. And they can even justify it as good for their customers by saying "we need these computers to collect training data so the self-driving features we deploy in the future will be better and safer."

I can imagine a future where "dumb car" features are actually luxury features. Only high-end cars lack the smart car features because it's cheaper to include them than leave them out. Maybe that already describes the present.

Re: Software is eating the car

#439

Post by toomanybeersies »

GuB-42 wrote: post #194
vannevar wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glad to hear I'm not the only one who wants a dumb car. Unfortunately, the idea of electric cars has become bound up with the notion of software-driven cars. I want an electric car with analog controls, no touch screens or over-the-air updates, and minimal software. A car that I feel like I own, rather than one I'm getting a click-through license to use.

So you want a mechanical door lock, manual windows, no car stereo, no power steering, no thermostat, no cruise control, etc... The problem with that dumb car is that it is missing that very convenient feature. So you want a dumb car but with feature X, because feature X is really great. But the other guy will not care about X and will think it is bloat, but Y is really important, while for someone else, it will be al…

> So you want a mechanical door lock, manual windows, no car stereo, no power steering, no thermostat, no cruise control, etc...

I used to own a Datsun 720 pickup (built 1982) that matched this specification. It even had a manual choke; starting the truck without flooding the engine required a bit of skill.

It was the best vehicle I've ever owned. On the rare occasion it needed maintenance, I could do everything myself. I didn't even need a workshop manual, because it was all intuitive.

Re: Software is eating the car

#440

Post by numpad0 »

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #359
lamontcg wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people don't seem to understand that the laws are interpreted by human beings that have spent their entire lives studying and applying the law. Particularly us geeky folk often seem to think that you can find a buffer overflow exploit in the literal wording of the law and the judge will have to let you go. That usually isn't how it works (although the odd case where someone successfully exploits the actual verbi…

So much this. Judges tend to respond very poorly to "but you didn't say Simon Says" style arguments.

How can we transform the society to fix that then? /s
Post reply on HN