this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
248 points (94.6% liked)

Technology

58061 readers
3784 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DeadNinja@lemmy.world 61 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Tesla should recall Musk, for good.

[–] eltrain123@lemmy.world 29 points 9 months ago (5 children)

Article is paywalled. Is this an OTA update or a true recall where you have to take the vehicle in?

There really needs to be a differentiation. I’ve had a Tesla for years and seen about a dozen articles about recalls, but have never had a hardware issue. All of the software issues are updated automatically when I’m on a Wi-Fi network and are usually done way before I hear about the “recall”.

If I need to take my car in for a hardware issue, I want to know as soon as possible.

[–] ericisshort@lemmy.world 36 points 9 months ago (4 children)

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?

[–] airbreather@lemmy.world 25 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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.

https://www.newsweek.com/tesla-faces-114m-fines-if-it-doesnt-tell-us-why-it-failed-issue-safety-recall-1638620

[–] markr@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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 The use of the term 'recall' is of course outdated, but that is irrelevant.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.

[–] Touching_Grass@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

VW should call them bug fixes

[–] reattach@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] ericisshort@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] markr@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

actionable defects are 'recalls'. How they are remedied is irrelevant.

[–] ericisshort@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] markr@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ericisshort@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

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.

[–] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The press likes to call it a recall. Most of the time it's just an OTA update.

[–] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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.

[–] markr@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

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.

[–] yesman@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] eltrain123@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

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.

[–] aodhsishaj@lemmy.world 19 points 9 months ago
[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 15 points 9 months ago

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.”

[–] markr@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Or perhaps tesla could deliver a functional 'full self driving' system that drives itself fully?

[–] poopkins@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

Stay tuned, it's coming in 2016!

[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago

Still 18 days left for them to ram the pre-alpha into main

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

further encourage the driver to adhere to their continuous driving responsibility,

I'd say, it isn't exactly encouragement what these drivers need most :-)

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Another day; another Tesla recall.