351–360 of 497 posts
I bought a 2025 Suzuki because it is a manual and there is no firmware update, no internet connection, GOS Android Auto is all I get and only if my phone connects with the car.
It is so weird how companies in 2026 still making such bad mistakes.
I want a law that requires publishing your API for apps like this as well as allowing users to crate their own frontend based on it. That would enable more privacy aware versions of these apps.
It is amazing how Volkswagen keeps messing up. I am currently in the market for a new car, an EV specifically. Volkswagen brands were at the top of my list for many reasons, among them the excellent driving assist implementation. I got an offer from a dealer three weeks ago and was going to order the car, then the API for the community integration got turned off. I decided to hold back and see what comes from it. Now…
VW is for people that can't afford a BMW or Audi.
BMW/Audi is for people who can't afford a Porsche
Porsche is for people that can't afford a Ferrari.
Once you understand that ladder, just stay off of it, and its all good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're proving the previous commenter's point. VW doesn't want liability. They do not care about "security" just liability. When they leave the "security" to the platform they can blame them in a lawsuit.
Google has a pretty good legal team. Their developer ToS that absolves them of any sort of liability for anything. So this means VW is just being lazy and not seeking legal protection. https://play.google/developer-distribution-agreement.html
This is... obviously not true?
If you could (somehow) meaningfully damage a car via the app, do you think VW wouldn't be liable because of the Google Play developer ToS?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's rewind 15 years ago when everyone was jumping and praising mobile Eco-systems. Did no one ever see this happening or were most too gullible with Facebook hugs and pokes
> everyone was jumping and praising mobile Eco-systems. Literally who?
It is amazing how Volkswagen keeps messing up. I am currently in the market for a new car, an EV specifically. Volkswagen brands were at the top of my list for many reasons, among them the excellent driving assist implementation. I got an offer from a dealer three weeks ago and was going to order the car, then the API for the community integration got turned off. I decided to hold back and see what comes from it. Now…
German companies, especially old school industrial ones like VW, have a very hard time understanding open platforms. The view everything through the lense of liability and compliance first. Their thinking is that if someone runs their app on a custom ROM and uses that to manipulate the app in any way, and that causes some extremely hypothetical damage, that they might be held liable for not having prevented this situ…
It's inconceivable that someone would want to use a car outside of it's specified rules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
German companies, especially old school industrial ones like VW, have a very hard time understanding open platforms. The view everything through the lense of liability and compliance first. Their thinking is that if someone runs their app on a custom ROM and uses that to manipulate the app in any way, and that causes some extremely hypothetical damage, that they might be held liable for not having prevented this situ…
VW didn’t seem too concerned with compliance when they were rigging their pollution tests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> what does someone running Linux do if the government mandates online services require proprietary attestation APIs? So, in the scenario posed (quoted above again for context) that I’m responding to, where the government has mandated attestation online, it seems like you’re arguing that Linux should continue to opt-out of attestation, and thus be forced into non-internet uses only. Do I misunderstand your intended o…
The idea is that enough users insist on non-attestation devices and platforms that governments and mega corps aren't able to require them for critical services. And loudly protest, switch to different services, etc when they DO attempt to be required. Example: already personally switched banks when they tried to require a validated Android device, and let them know directly and in reviews all over the place. Don't fa…
Been resisting for years, since I learned of that first Intel presentation, as best as I knew how at each of the various life phases. At least for the last few years people started to pay attention as it starts to affect them personally, rather than just dismissing it as an implausible scenario back when it could have been stopped by regulations for the first twenty-five. Note that protesting through boycott requires not buying any big-three mobile phone or big-three video game console (each of these is a beachfront for widespread attestation), which is essentially a dealbreaker right out of the gate for most theoretical objectors. I remain hopeful that my cynical outlook will be disproven in outcome, but I also continue honing this high-level plan for any Linux that would ship sealed/signed OS images with gov't approval. One need not simply bet on red or black, after all!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
N.B. I didn't write /all/ were "broken and dangerous" But some personal examples: - Auto high beam assist saw a car at a side junction, turned off high beam, then turned back on, mimicking a 'flash' to let the car out, which they acted on by pulling out. I had to brake hard to avoid them. I was doing 60 mph - I was on the motorway and a stranded vehicle was on the hard shoulder and the driver decided to exit from the…
PSA: Flashing someone is never a signal that you're giving them priority. That is explicitly forbidden in the highway code and dangerous. Flashing someone, like using the horn, only means "I'm here, just in case you didn't see me". If someone flashes you, you should make your own determination whether it is safe to perform a manoeuvre, making no assumptions about anything that the person who flashed you might be seem…
Uh. I guess you've not many US highway miles under your belt. If nothing else, it's a very common nighttime signal to let passing truckers know that they've room to get back in the rightmost lane. I can't imagine that the signalling situation is much different in other places that have a large population of generally-decently-skilled drivers.
> If someone flashes you, you should make your own determination whether it is safe to perform a manoeuvre...
Sure. The operator of a vehicle is ultimately the person who's responsible for its safe operation.
Having said that, few drivers are interested in killing their fellow travelers. Especially at night, determining the "time of arrival" of oncoming traffic, or the distance between the end of your bigass trailer and traffic behind you can be quite difficult. If it's customary in your area to use headlight flashing to indicate to traffic ahead of you that it's safe for them to perform whatever maneuver that they may be uncertain about, then it's not unreasonable to assume that the driver that uses that signal isn't attempting to kill you with misinformation.
Automatic high-beam-togglers don't really care about anything, [0] so that's definitely one piece of malfunctioning tech that makes the roads less safe.
[0] ...yet!
I don't know how large a group who will do this is - but if the UK bans VPNs I can see Graphene having a very large target on its back. - Buy Pixel, Get Graphene - Use FDroid, don't sign up for Google Play, download Tor browser - Censorship resistant access to the internet without handing over your ID. Pixel being a fairly popular phone in the UK is the interesting bit - if you had to buy some niche device I couldn't…
I really, really, really dont understand why people keep avoiding saying the obvious.
DON'T TREAT YOUR PHONE AS YOUR PRIMARY ENTERTAINMENT DEVICE.
Have two phones. One is the real one. The one you use. The other one is the "cops and bank" phone.