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

A recent software update was not successful. Your vehicle cannot be driven

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–189 of 189 posts

Re: A recent software update was not successful. Your vehicle cannot be driven

#181

Post by torstenvl »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #180
torstenvl wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cali. Veh. Code 24002 does not require a vehicle to become inoperable if the backup camera fails. It does not reference backup cameras at all in the text, and there is no case law to support that interpretation. You have been given plenty of opportunities to make your case and have refused to do so. I think it's pretty clear by now that you're just being disingenuous.

Please enlighten me. What are the vehicle codes that specify which component failures render a vehicle unfit for operation? Let's say something obvious like brakes or lights.

New York: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/VAT/T3A9

California: https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-veh...

Illinois: Chapter 12 at https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1815&C...

Michigan: https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-300-194...

Your turn.

Re: A recent software update was not successful. Your vehicle cannot be driven

#182

Post by lando2319 »

bilsbie wrote: post #12

I wish someone would make a truly dumb car. Sure you can have microcontrollers for emissions, safety, etc but beyond that give me a 1970s user interface and make the car as independent of technology as possible.

Great idea for another country, I the US there are just too many laws.

Re: A recent software update was not successful. Your vehicle cannot be driven

#183

Post by shiroiuma »

Sirizarry wrote: post #173
AlotOfReading wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that software is essentially required to build the "basic car" they propose, and all software components potentially need updates. There are valid arguments both ways whether they only happen at dealerships or also OTA or some third way, but they need to happen regardless. One example where software is practically required is the backup camera. Would you prefer a series of lenses and mirrors? None of that…

I wasn’t part of the original convo but I also think you’re missing the point. The backup camera is not part of a “basic car” and a series of mirrors is how we’ve backed up and parked for decades before backup cameras were invented. Seriously imagine the most basic car you can imagine. I mean as little to no software as possible. That’s the basic car. Any other addition, anything else that someone might slap into the…

You don't need a software-free car (with all the complicated mechanical contraptions this then requires, like carburetors) to have a basic car that doesn't need updates. You just have to write software properly. This has already been done! Cars in the 1980s and 1990s all had ECUs running software, and they never needed updates just to keep the engine running. Later (late 80s and through the 90s) they added ABS brake controllers and SRS airbag controllers, all running software. They didn't need updates either.

The idea that computers need software updates is just insane, and clearly fallacious. Cars worked fine without regular software updates for decades.

Re: A recent software update was not successful. Your vehicle cannot be driven

#184

Post by geor9e »

onetimeuse92304 wrote: post #84

Some 20 years ago I was asked to prepare OS distribution with OTA upgrade capability for some PoS system. I think I prepared two system partitions and a custom MBR which would alternate the system partition on every start (uses one bit of non-volatile memory to alternate selection of partitions on each boot). When the system starts, it does self-test. If it fails the self-test it just restarts. If it succeeds -- it w…

You speak as though this is an ancient hack, but this is exactly how it still works in a lot of modern devices. https://source.android.com/docs/core/ota/ab/ab_implement

Re: A recent software update was not successful. Your vehicle cannot be driven

#185

Post by ninjasaid13 »

analog31 wrote: post #103
fmajid wrote: post #83

For decades software engineers have moaned “why can’t software engineering be a real engineering discipline like civil engineering”. The travails of the legacy car makers, compared to Tesla or Rivian, show conclusively mechanical engineering is easier .

>>> why can’t software engineering be a real engineering discipline like civil engineering Programming pays better than civil engineering or mechanical engineering. The software team pays better than the hardware team, and programming in support of hardware pays like hardware. When asked why, the answer is: "Software is more valuable because it's closer to revenue." And: "Software has no cost after it has been writte…

"Software has no cost after it has been written once."

well not if you're running a server.

Re: A recent software update was not successful. Your vehicle cannot be driven

#187

Post by fennecbutt »

Cars are so much safer with all the technology we have in them, this is just a bad implementation.

A lot of the actual mechanical/engine related software really does help a tremendous amount. Even something like ABS can be improved with more sensors to help sense exactly what's going on when you need to stop to prevent yourself careening through a barrier and down a cliff in bad weather.

Re: A recent software update was not successful. Your vehicle cannot be driven

#188

Post by mikem69 »

smsm42 wrote: post #177
mikem69 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What car do you drive? Go replace the headlights in a modern vehicle and see what happens. You have to code the module to the vehicle.

Not a Tesla, this is for sure. As long as there are any cars with physical controls and replaceable lightbulbs on the market, those are the ones I'll be driving. Fortunately, this is still very much the case, especially if a car for you is a means of transportation, not the expression of your ego.

Doesn’t really seem like you even know what we’re discussing.

You don’t need to do any coding when replacing bulbs (assuming the car has bulbs) - we’re talking about the entire headlight, which has modules that require coding. This has been true as far back as 1999, when my BMW needed its HID module flashed.

As for bulbs themselves, even a base corolla now has LED headlights that you won’t be replacing yourself.

I suppose one could consider a Toyota Corolla to be an “expression of your ego”, but I’m not sure who would.

Re: A recent software update was not successful. Your vehicle cannot be driven

#189

Post by mikem69 »

alphabettsy wrote: post #171
mikem69 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mine did - had to code the module to the car.

This is usually because the modules are generic and don’t know how to behave, for example, a light fixture needs to know if it’s US or Germany and work accordingly. You could’ve done it yourself with the proper software and knowledge is my point and most things don’t require this.

I tried to do it myself, but the module was running newer software than the vehicle, and required the other vehicle modules to be flashed to the same software version.
Post reply on HN