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

Cybertruck's Many Recalls

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 463 posts

Re: Cybertruck's Many Recalls

#191

Post by krige »

jart wrote: post #176
imiric wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that those issues shouldn't happen on a public road vehicle to begin with. Tesla's approach is shipping beta software to customers, and using them as testers. This is an insidious practice in modern software development, but is criminal when that software is running a 3-ton vehicle, regardless if it can be fixed with an OTA update or not. There are reasons why strict car safety regulations exist. You c…

It's not just Tesla. All the online services you depend on are run this way, and none of it's regulated. Governments don't know how to regulate software companies like Tesla. They know how to regulate people constructing homes, cooking food, and building bridges but most attempts at regulating software development have petered out. This is a good thing. Thanks to Tesla's modern approach to car manufacturing it is now…

I need to ask - is this a joke? No, Tesla is not particularly bulletproof compared to other cars. Its doors may stop a 9mm sure enough, but the windows won't manage even that, and anything above 9mm will go through the doors as well. And 9mm is not even that common among criminal shooters, they usually go for bigger calibers / higher penetration naturally already.

And which Lamborghini specifically?

Re: Cybertruck's Many Recalls

#192

Post by _puk »

graemep wrote: post #160
imiric wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that those issues shouldn't happen on a public road vehicle to begin with. Tesla's approach is shipping beta software to customers, and using them as testers. This is an insidious practice in modern software development, but is criminal when that software is running a 3-ton vehicle, regardless if it can be fixed with an OTA update or not. There are reasons why strict car safety regulations exist. You c…

I wonder whether OTA updates being possible encourages manufacturers to be sloppy with software quality. They know they can fix problems cheaply. If they had to physically update vehicles they would have a lot more incentive to make updates unnecessary.

Of course it does.

Think about how, even in software, knowing that a physical shipping of a product (CD / Blu-ray) can be updated from "day 1" has led to poor quality releases with last minute patches.

The cost of having to physically recall / resend CDs back in the day meant that what went out had to work. The cost of sloppy software has now been externalised.

Re: Cybertruck's Many Recalls

#193

Post by [deleted] »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #4

The article notes that the most recent recall was a physical one, not a software update, and implies that that was unusual. I wonder if you exclude "recalls" resolved by software updates, for all cars, where it would rank then?

[deleted]

Re: Cybertruck's Many Recalls

#194

Post by alt227 »

hot_gril wrote: post #169
elmerfud wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To each their own on this matter because styling is a matter of taste. I remember the shift from the '70s style boxy cars to the mid to late '80s rounded style cars. I wasn't a fan of that new style when it came out but it did eventually grow on me. For me the cybertruck looks like something out of a low budget'70s Sci-Fi movie. Who knows in 10 years maybe it will start to appeal to me but for right now it doesn't.

Nah, it's objectively not good-looking, and in a few years it'll be more obvious. There are probably more than 0 people who still genuinely think the Pontiac Aztek looks good, and they're wrong.

'Good looking' is a subjective term by definition.

Stop trying to tell people what they should think.

Re: Cybertruck's Many Recalls

#195

Post by aikinai »

jmb99 wrote: post #123
Aeolun wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree, but saying it's a 'recall' when your car sits in your driveway still feels entirely wrong.

Recall is the industry-standard (and populace-understood) term for “this vehicle has a safety or reliability issue that must be resolved by the manufacturer.” It is all encompassing; anything from possibly loose lugnuts to faulty airbags to engine failures to yes, the reverse camera failing to appear. It doesn’t matter if the manufacturer ships an OTA update, shows up at your house with a loaner and a flatbed to take…

It might be industry-standard term, but it’s certainly not understood that way by layman, including car customers. To the public, “recall” will always carry the implication that the vehicle needs to go back to the manufacturer for a fix.

Re: Cybertruck's Many Recalls

#196

Post by aiono »

jart wrote: post #176
imiric wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that those issues shouldn't happen on a public road vehicle to begin with. Tesla's approach is shipping beta software to customers, and using them as testers. This is an insidious practice in modern software development, but is criminal when that software is running a 3-ton vehicle, regardless if it can be fixed with an OTA update or not. There are reasons why strict car safety regulations exist. You c…

It's not just Tesla. All the online services you depend on are run this way, and none of it's regulated. Governments don't know how to regulate software companies like Tesla. They know how to regulate people constructing homes, cooking food, and building bridges but most attempts at regulating software development have petered out. This is a good thing. Thanks to Tesla's modern approach to car manufacturing it is now…

Most of the online services I use can't kill me if they have a bug.

Re: Cybertruck's Many Recalls

#197

Post by b112 »

jart wrote: post #176
imiric wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that those issues shouldn't happen on a public road vehicle to begin with. Tesla's approach is shipping beta software to customers, and using them as testers. This is an insidious practice in modern software development, but is criminal when that software is running a 3-ton vehicle, regardless if it can be fixed with an OTA update or not. There are reasons why strict car safety regulations exist. You c…

It's not just Tesla. All the online services you depend on are run this way, and none of it's regulated. Governments don't know how to regulate software companies like Tesla. They know how to regulate people constructing homes, cooking food, and building bridges but most attempts at regulating software development have petered out. This is a good thing. Thanks to Tesla's modern approach to car manufacturing it is now…

It's a pretty simple fix.

In the old days, governments had departments which would inspect cars, verify they complied with legislation, and even examine build quality.

Quite easy, when everything was basically physical.

Now the ECU and modules are a black box, unknowable to such entities. Things can be caught (see VW scamming fuel/emissions tests), but it's by luck.

So solution? We pass laws that all code, every bit of it, all chip schematics too, all firmwares are open source.

Note I said open source, which in the old days just meant "readable". We're not talking GPL, all copyright would remain.

On top of that, all build scripts and methods to flash modules / etc would be provided to governement test environments.

Now we can test. Now, we can look for crappy code, hacky junk, fake emission cheats, bugs and more.

Don't like it? You don't sell cars. Tough.

The entire supply chain would be required to fall inline.

It's really not that hard.

In terms of security, that's what signing updates is for.

And (for example) you can already take hobby tools, such as forscan (for fords) amd flash updates to modules.

As long as it is signed.

Re: Cybertruck's Many Recalls

#199

Post by [deleted] »

jart wrote: post #176
imiric wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that those issues shouldn't happen on a public road vehicle to begin with. Tesla's approach is shipping beta software to customers, and using them as testers. This is an insidious practice in modern software development, but is criminal when that software is running a 3-ton vehicle, regardless if it can be fixed with an OTA update or not. There are reasons why strict car safety regulations exist. You c…

It's not just Tesla. All the online services you depend on are run this way, and none of it's regulated. Governments don't know how to regulate software companies like Tesla. They know how to regulate people constructing homes, cooking food, and building bridges but most attempts at regulating software development have petered out. This is a good thing. Thanks to Tesla's modern approach to car manufacturing it is now…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN