- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fans
- hackernews@derp.foo
- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fans
- hackernews@derp.foo
You must log in or register to comment.
Tesla should recall Musk, for good.
Removed by mod
Let’s let him buy everything he wants and then we shoot him off to Mars. If he is still alive a decade later maybe we can send a return shuttle.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Wtf? They honestly shouldn’t be able to call a software update a “recall.” They’re literally two different things. Is this just a Tesla thing, or is this some sort of new trend?
Indeed, there was a time when they would just fix things without calling them “recalls”.
Then, the government claimed that it was illegal for the company to update things like this — even over-the-air — without also calling them “recalls” and going through this exercise.
Because tesla has to comply with the regulations just like every other manufacturer, and that includes notification of recall issues and remedies. The use of the term ‘recall’ is of course outdated, but that is irrelevant. How the manufacturer remedies the defect has always been up to the manufacturer, as long as they comply with the regulatory process, most of which is simply documentation, like issuing recall notices.
VW should call them bug fixes
deleted by creator
As another user said, it sounds like this is a NHTSA term:
https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2023/RCLRPT-23V838-8276.PDF
Thanks. That sure seems like a lazy and wrongheaded move to call an update a recall, but I don’t know why I expected more competent logic from the US govt.
actionable defects are ‘recalls’. How they are remedied is irrelevant.
That’s not really an accurate definition. A recall is a public call to RETURN a product that is defective. There is nothing being returned with a software update.
It is the terminology required by the NHTSA regulations. Those regulations were obviously written before software updates were relevant to automobile components. The public documentation of defects are ‘recall notices’ by regulation.
Yeah, I get that part, but it doesnt change the fact that using the word for a mandated update is lazy and wrongheaded on the part of the NHTSA. Rather than use a different and more correct word, they are just shoehorning it in and leading people to the wrong conclusion.
The press likes to call it a recall. Most of the time it’s just an OTA update.
Yeah I was gonna say, isn’t this literally just something that can be fixed with an OTA update?
I guess that’s kind of the nice thing about modern technology, stuff like this doesn’t require a full recall with manual work being done, it’s literally just an update.
Not that I’d stick up for Musk, I think it’s horrible what he’s doing to destroy Twitter (although I do like the recent media tab grid view update, I wish it were optional so it could still have the list view available too), but I feel like this is kinda being unfair lol
edit: Apparently this is just the normal outdated technology that is used so it’s not the media’s fault, I guess that makes sense.
deleted by creator
tesla has had numerous hardware recalls as well. The whole industry does, it’s absolutely normal. It is in fact the point of the recall system. Identify and repair defects before they cause massive harm.
Here you go
I wouldn’t differentiate between OTA and bring-to-the-shop recalls, I’d draw the line between defect repair and threat to life and safety. If the OTA update keeps the car from killing the passengers or pedestrians, It’s probably not a good idea to minimize the flaw through semantics.
It’s mostly about whether the problem gets fixed before I know it’s there. If I have to go in to a service center to fix the problem, it is a far greater inconvenience and a longer time it is a risk before I get a day off work to take care of it… which increases the chance I have an issue.
Software patches are still fixes, but they aren’t recalling any parts or vehicles, they are fixing them instantly and remotely.
Unpaywalled
Disappointing article. The Associated Press’s is better:
Philip Koopman, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at Carnegie Mellon University who studies autonomous vehicle safety, called the software update a compromise that doesn’t address a lack of night vision cameras to watch drivers’ eyes, as well as Teslas failing to spot and stop for obstacles.
“The compromise is disappointing because it does not fix the problem that the older cars do not have adequate hardware for driver monitoring,” Koopman said.
Koopman and Michael Brooks, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Auto Safety, contend that crashing into emergency vehicles is a safety defect that isn’t addressed. “It’s not digging at the root of what the investigation is looking at,” Brooks said. “It’s not answering the question of why are Teslas on Autopilot not detecting and responding to emergency activity?”
Koopman said NHTSA apparently decided that the software change was the most it could get from the company, “and the benefits of doing this now outweigh the costs of spending another year wrangling with Tesla.”
Or perhaps tesla could deliver a functional ‘full self driving’ system that drives itself fully?
Stay tuned, it’s coming in 2016!
Still 18 days left for them to ram the pre-alpha into
main
further encourage the driver to adhere to their continuous driving responsibility,
I’d say, it isn’t exactly encouragement what these drivers need most :-)
Another day; another Tesla recall.
