130
submitted 6 months ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/technology@beehaw.org
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 17 points 6 months ago

So I'm assuming that means that they're admitting that they put a safety hazard in all those prior cars and are assuming liability for every accident where infotainment systems may have been involved, right?

[-] douglasg14b@beehaw.org 2 points 6 months ago

I don't think that's how it works, and is a pretty toxic and non-constructive way to look at this.

[-] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 3 points 6 months ago

If they're going to lie to pretend they can't include it because it's unsafe when every single person on the planet knows with 100% certainty that it's because they want their own cash/data hungry alternative instead, then putting said "unsafe" thing in their vehicles should absolutely expose them to liability.

There absolutely is not a theoretical possibility that "safety" was a genuine consideration in any way in this decision.

this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2023
130 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37208 readers
293 users here now

Rumors, happenings, and innovations in the technology sphere. If it's technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS