- cross-posted to:
- evs@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- evs@lemmy.world
YouTube’s Loaded With EV Disinformation::When it comes to articles on a website like CleanTechnica, there are two kinds of articles. First, there are the … [continued]
YouTube’s Loaded With EV Disinformation::When it comes to articles on a website like CleanTechnica, there are two kinds of articles. First, there are the … [continued]
Nope.
I don’t know how I can explain this better, so I’ll summarize.
Cars are safety-critical items, being they weigh 3000+ lbs and travel at high speed and can kill people when something goes wrong.
It’s critical that the software that controls the drivetrain, brakes, etc. be as perfect as it possibly can be because of the first point.
Adding more features increases the likelihood of something going wrong.
I don’t understand why this is even an argument. It’s common sense. Why would anyone disagree with those three points? (Unless they’re the reason vehicle deaths are up…maybe they just don’t care and see their car like a cheap appliance and ignore the “potential to kill” factor.)
Your comments about the hatch and the tires only prove my point: Auto manufacturers already make plenty of mistakes on things that have existed for decades, things that should be solved problems by now. Why would software be any different? They’re going to fuck things up there, too. And already have; I gave examples before.
More complex software means more bugs; anyone in software development or testing can tell you that. These are known facts. What if that game has some bug in it that lets hackers take over the brakes remotely? Unlikely, sure. Impossible? Definitely not - again, look at the Uconnect 8.4 issue in FCA vehicles a few years back; a remote attacker could break into the car and do just that. It’s an extremely scary bug. Fortunately they were white hat and FCA actually listened to them and worked with them to patch the bugs, but what would have happened if it hadn’t been white hats that found it? Or the manufacturer didn’t care to listen, as often happens with software vulnerabilities?
No one would accept a computer program that runs an X-ray machine overdosing people (which has happened). It’s the same thing. The FDA would hopefully never approve an X-ray machine that has Tetris on it, either, for the same reasons we shouldn’t accept it in cars.
The advantages of computer control are huge, we’re getting more mileage and more power out of smaller engines all the time. I’m not recommending we get rid of computers in cars. I’m saying it’s imperative that any additional features are weighed against the benefit. Playing Tetris on a dashboard screen is not a useful feature in a car that can’t be easily handled by the smartphone you almost certainly also own.
I don’t think there’s any more to be gained by discussing this further. I can’t make it any clearer. Good day.
No one is arguing this point.
You’re making an assumption, an incorrect assumption, and you’re arguing a strawman.
As someone whose career was software development, and who worked on critical mission devices, I’m aware of the importance of the software working properly, and I still stand by my point.
Nothing you described would cause failure when the vehicles parked and not being driven, just because you’re using the onboard computer.
Hell, even when driven, having the passenger watching Netflix movie on the monitor will not cause the vehicle to crash and kill them (notice I said passenger, not driver).
Or are you also advocating the removal of any graphic map displays and GPS, bluetooth music software, etc., that’s are in computerized vehicles as well, and which is actually using when the vehicle is driven?
Cars are already computerized. What you are arguing for hasn’t been a case for many years.
Before you go, I’d love to hear your opinion on the last point I made, about cars already being computerized and having features for many years, that you would deem as being hazardous to have?
I have already addressed that point twice. Why do you keep ignoring it? Some improvements are good.
I understand the game can be played only while parked. But guess what? That software is in the car all the time. It’s another place there could be a bug that allows access to vital systems. It’s another place where there could be some weird interaction with other systems in unintended ways.
I don’t understand why you keep ignoring that point. A software developer should understand the issue better than most people. I’ve given example after example of why we should be careful about what we put in cars and weigh the benefits against the risks. You refuse to acknowledge that there might even be an issue.
I can only hope when this shit fails, it doesn’t kill me.
Noticed you ignored my whole point of cars already being computerized for many years, and my question to you …