381–390 of 463 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The word recall sort of implies that the vehicle is recalled to the manufacturer. Calling a software update that happens in your garage at night and takes 20 minutes a “recall” definitely is worthy of quotes.
Unless of course that patch can't be delivered because the truck was totalled in an accident that the patch was too late to prevent
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
E.g.
> "Murder" is a legal term, it means the act was premeditated.
Somebody who says that is not claiming that all premeditated acts are murder.
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?
>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…
Every vehicle since 2018 has been required to have one for safety. No car or truck is sufficiently safe without one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but the mirrors are insufficient to back the vehicle up safely without the camera. I'm quite surprised that that is allowed at all. Seems like an unnecessary risk.
All new cars are required to have backup cameras, so manufacturers have used that "freedom" to change car shapes. Not only Tesla.
Why can’t I choose that feature as a consumer? Did their brother in law have the patent for backing cameras?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, the argument is about the legal definition being misleading and confusing and what should be changed, because of the bias and meaning of the word "recall". The fact that most google results will imply physical return of the product is evidence of popular definition and legal definition diverging. In addition the word inherently implies bring it back because of the "re". It doesn't imply "there's a safety issue…
> [...] point is that it makes it seem like it's a financial and logistical nightmare to come, but clicking on headline, it's just a software update. If we go by what "it seem[s] like" (to a layperson), we could reasonably argue that the word (scientific) "theory" should be changed because a significant part of the populus confuses that with the definition of hypothesis. This also, again, ignores that, long before OT…
> but don't claim that yours is the original definition, when it isn't. Especially since terms like these are regulated to ensure companies cannot weasel around them.
I'm not claiming it's an original definition. It's just a very confusing and misleading term, that gets used in odd ways.
Someone in here suggested "Public Dangerous Defect Notice". Doesn't have to be this, but what about something similar?
Completely unrelated to safety, these vehicles don't look like they are aging well. They are all completely new but the ones I am seeing on the road already look a bit beat up. That finish on them and their general styling emphasize every minor blemish.