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

301–310 of 463 posts

Re: Cybertruck's Many Recalls

#301

Post by infecto »

saghm wrote: post #137
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.

I'm not sure I agree. From the perspective of a customer, not being able to drive the car due to it being unsafe is the part that matters, not where and how the manufacturer has to fix it. If you're opposed to it based on the assumption that it wouldn't take as long, I agree that might be true, but by that logic we should be categorizing _all_ recalls based on length (regardless of whether it's a software update or o…

My model y has had a number of recalls and I never knew about it. From things to the UI not meeting government requirements to other software issues. It was never unsafe to drive.

Re: Cybertruck's Many Recalls

#302

Post by thrw42A8N »

imiric wrote: post #251
_puk wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly. Back in the day it was a major milestone for video game projects to "go gold". It meant that the rigorous QA process was passed, and that retail copies were ready to be manufactured. Since that involved significant costs and physical logistics, companies certainly didn't want major bugs shipped at this stage. There were some exceptions, but ultimately this led to much higher customer satisfaction. Removing t…

I get it's wrong in cars. But who the hell cares about games? So your game updates after a month with a fix. So what? It's not like you pay for the update.

Re: Cybertruck's Many Recalls

#303

Post by infecto »

croes wrote: post #292
quonn wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not being able to drive the car I had plenty of recalls and it never happened even once that I could not drive the car before the recall.

Maybe better, shouldn’t drive the car because of safety issues

This is hyperbole. Most of the Tesla recalls that I can remember did not impact the safety of the vehicle.

Re: Cybertruck's Many Recalls

#304

Post by macintux »

robertlagrant wrote: post #299
fenomas wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP said "recall → not street legal"; you've replied to disagree with "recall ↔ not street legal".

Nothing about the definition implies the existence of the former construction.

HN discourages this type of bad faith misinterpretation in the name of pedantry.

Re: Cybertruck's Many Recalls

#305

Post by cjrp »

qwerpy wrote: post #62
lttlrck wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh did they fix the rusting issue from the beginning of the year?

I think that story turned out to be media sensationalism. I’ve owned one for over half a year, in the distinctly not dry PNW. No rust at all.

Have they started salting roads there yet though?

Re: Cybertruck's Many Recalls

#306

Post by Symmetry »

daghamm wrote: post #136
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 a legal term, it means the vehicle is not road-legal and requires immediate action. Doesn't really matter if it hw, sw or maybe even the owners manual that needs to be changed ASAP.

It might be the correct technical term, but general interest publications like Wired should avoid jargon that confuses laypeople, especially in headlines.

Re: Cybertruck's Many Recalls

#307

Post by NotYourLawyer »

austin-cheney wrote: post #218

Why are people spending so much money for something so hideous and so defective? Is this a weird fashion thing? My old 2017 Kia Soul costs about 5x less and has had 0 defects.

Not a fan of the cybertruck’s looks, but I’d take it over a Kia soul.

Re: Cybertruck's Many Recalls

#308

Post by bastloing »

imiric wrote: post #107
stackghost wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I wonder if you exclude "recalls" resolved by software updates, for all cars, where it would rank then? Why have you put "recalls" in quotes? It gives the impression you think this makes it somehow lesser. The cybertruck, for example, was subject to a recall because the rearview camera wouldn't come up, but the mirrors are insufficient to back the vehicle up safely without the camera. That's a safety issue, irrespec…

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…

All of my Tesla updates have been production updates. All software has bugs, and Tesla is one of the most innovative and responsible software companies. Compare that to Microsoft, for example. Or Oracle. Lots of their software runs medical systems that are mission critical.

How about the latest Palo Alto networks vulnerability? Lots of critical infrastructure behind their firewalls.

All in all, I'd say Tesla is among the top on software and hardware engineering, and I'd hire any of their engineers in a heartbeat.

Re: Cybertruck's Many Recalls

#309

Post by robertlagrant »

macintux wrote: post #304
robertlagrant wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing about the definition implies the existence of the former construction.

HN discourages this type of bad faith misinterpretation in the name of pedantry.

That is itself a misinterpretation, but I'll assume good faith.

I'm not misinterpreting; I'm saying the definition is too broad. A useful reply seems simple enough:

- yes it is too broad, and here's the additional criterion to narrow it correctly

- no it is not too broad, and here's why a flat tyre is a recall

Post reply on HN