401–410 of 463 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
This is not contributing the discussion and sounds like sour grapes (never owned a Tesla product btw).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only do they pay, they come here and rabidly defend all its flaws in the face of so much evidence to the contrary! "Oh the recalls are just software updates, so it's fine there were so many safety issues with my car, they fix them quickly and I don't even buy half the regulations are important anyways" "Oh it's fine if the trunk cuts your finger off, who puts their finger in a trunk anyways?" And on and on
And the other side comes in and rabidly tries to bring down the cyber truck. You’re somewhat blind if you can’t see how ironic your statement is.
The only thing I can imagine why people would defend the more expensive option is due to vanity. I suspect that is important to some people. As somebody more cash strapped it just seems absurd, at least to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
For example, no copy of Space Station Silicon Valley for the N64 is completable because of a bug that prevents you from collecting the final plot device.
I'd say it's definitely worse now, with nothing meaningful being on the disc you pay $70 being insane.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
most people care about scratches because they look like shit. paint is a bit more than just corrosion protection at this point, otherwise mfgs would just slap on the thickest toughest machine-tool grade enamel and call it a day. why don't they? because it looks terrible.
And most cars end up scratched anyway, and most owners do not take their car in for detailing every time this happens (if at all).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's a lot here about technical and legal definitions, but from the customer's perspective what they mostly care about is the inconvenience associated with a physical recall. No, customers care about the safety of their vehicles. If there wasn't a safety issue, then customers could safely ignore the recall notice and experience no inconvenience.
> No, customers care about the safety of their vehicles. Yes. But safety is a spectrum, and is denominated in inconvenience against perceived expected loss - perceived, because people round the loss down to 0 when they feel like it won't happen to them . See: how many people don't fasten their seat belts, or hold a phone in their hand while driving, despite both being highly dangerous to life, limb and wallet, and ag…
The people who bring their vehicles in for dealership recalls do care about safety, otherwise they would have ignored the recall notice, like the people who don't care.
You can compare the vehicle software updates to non-vehicle software updates. Those who don't care about security will happily ignore security updates and continue to use old versions of the software on their computers forever. And those who do care about security will update, even if the updates tend to cause other problems, such as removing features or otherwise making the UI worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why have you put "recalls" in quotes? Maybe because an over-the-air update is hard to seriously consider a "recall"?
Maybe, to eliminate ambiguity (and make it sound cooler), they should call it a "roadworthiness directive", similar to "airworthiness directive" for aircraft. Of course airworthiness directives are issued by the authorities (the FAA in the US), while "recalls" are from the manufacturers, but still...
This conversation happens every single time Tesla produces a product that is legally unsafe. We keep having this conversation because Tesla keeps making an unsafe product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get it, but the reasoning behind it was that little kids kept getting run over by their parents / family members because they couldn't see them. The cost at this point is pretty negligible. Mandate went into effect (in the US) in 2018: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backup_camera#Mandates
Thanks for the info. Yeah the cost is negligible if you are already planning to have a screen running chrome on Ubuntu server, but I hope it was still an option not to have that.
Zero software required.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They’re articles of fashion. Hard to square this with: > There are legitimate criticisms of Musk and Tesla. "I don't like how someone else's car looks" is not one of them. Whether or not other people like your look is of course not the be-all and end-all of fashion, but it's certainly relevant. "I don't like how it looks" is a legitimate criticism of an article of fashion.
I think this is an interesting point. What IS a criticism of fashion, and how should it be taken? "I dont like how this looks" isnt a universal truth, and isn't a prescription for others. It seems like with the CT, there is a vocal group of people who seem upset that others like them and that they exist at all. I seems to extend from "I dont like how it looks, and you cant either." I think they look cool and fun. Cos…
I think people tend to be grumpier about things they consider ugly if those things take up a large amount of public space. People get similarly riled by brutalist architecture.
But really, there's nothing new about people having strong feelings about other people's tastes. Fashion is as much about communication as personal pleasure.