7 ms·

It increasingly seems that the cheating at Volkswagon was systematic and not the fault of rouge engineers as they claim.

by abhi3 11y ago

dang 11y ago
Please don't rewrite titles when the original is neither misleading nor linkbait. This is a rule here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. The submitted title was "Volkswagen seriously made a PowerPoint deck on how to cheat emissions tests". That's more linkbait, which is driving the wrong way down a one-way street.
- abhi3 11y ago
  Got it, thanks for correcting it.
- stevesearer 11y ago
  It might be a good idea to link to or explain submission title rules on the submit page as most new submitters probably won't go looking for the Guidelines page. Many new users could be coming from forums or sites where editorializing headlines it the norm and/or expected.
imglorp 11y ago
Yeah, we knew as soon as they said it. Any product feature like that would most likely need to be known to a number of teams such as marketing, engineering, production, documentation, compliance, supply chain, QA, tooling, support, or whatever they call those inside VW. So many teams would be coordinated by a pretty high level exec. source: rogue engineer
TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
It's an interesting case study in regulations not being complied with. I guess the lawmakers expected the car companies to take the financial and performance hit to meet the emissions standard. Instead the car companies cheated. I imagine governments will be more careful in checking manufacturers are actually meeting standards after this.
- ThePaco 11y ago
  Or maybe they'll realize it's not too effective to tell companies how to make their products.
  - jjawssd 11y ago
    Are you implying that we should abolish pollution restrictions on car manufacturers?
    - Sharlin 11y ago
      Free market is so well-known for handling negative externalities well...
    - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
      Not necessarily, no.
  - mikestew 11y ago
    Right, because the air in Los Angeles is barely breathable, just as it was in the 70s. Wait, I got that wrong; the air in L. A. isn't too bad these days. What were we talking about? Oh, yeah, the effectiveness of regulations. On that topic, now I'm not saying there's direct cause-and-effect here, but...
    - semi-extrinsic 11y ago
      Cleaner air in LA is primarily due to two technological breakthroughs: positive crankcase ventilation, and catalytic converters. That's the proper way to do regulations: once a cleaner tech is invented, make it mandatory. The other way around, mandating a steady decrease de-coupled from technological advances, is more likely to lead to cheating.
      - tremon 11y ago
        But how do you direct the industry to invent cleaner tech without the pressure of emission regulation?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
kuschku 11y ago
Of course it was. The day it was announced the CEO stepped down, said he knew of it, and assumed responsibility. I’m not sure where the "rogue engineers" myth comes from, but VW Germany said on day one that it was top-level managers involved in it.
- wzdd 11y ago
  The '"rogue engineers" myth' comes from the CEO of VW USA. http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/an-engineering-theory-of-the-volkswagen-scandal http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/an-engineering-th... Edit: The rest of your comment is false. The day the news came out, Winterkorn posted a video acknowledging the problem but not mentioning resignation -- he did not resign that day. And when he did resign, he explicitly said that he was not aware of any wrongdoing on his part. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/24/business/international/volkswagen-chief-martin-winterkorn-resigns-amid-emissions-scandal.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/24/business/international/vol...
  - kuschku 11y ago
    That's an interesting translation. He said he took the responsibility, but was unaware of wrongdoing when he resigned (I read the original announcement). So, no, my comment isn't false — but yours isn't either.

It increasingly seems that the cheating at Volkswagon was systematic and not the fault of rouge engineers as they claim.

by abhi3 11y ago

It increasingly seems that the cheating at Volkswagon was systematic and not the fault of rouge engineers as they claim.

dang 11y ago

Please don't rewrite titles when the original is neither misleading nor linkbait. This is a rule here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. The submitted title was "Volkswagen seriously made a PowerPoint deck on how to cheat emissions tests". That's more linkbait, which is driving the wrong way down a one-way street.

abhi3 11y ago
Got it, thanks for correcting it.
stevesearer 11y ago
It might be a good idea to link to or explain submission title rules on the submit page as most new submitters probably won't go looking for the Guidelines page. Many new users could be coming from forums or sites where editorializing headlines it the norm and/or expected.

imglorp 11y ago

Yeah, we knew as soon as they said it. Any product feature like that would most likely need to be known to a number of teams such as marketing, engineering, production, documentation, compliance, supply chain, QA, tooling, support, or whatever they call those inside VW. So many teams would be coordinated by a pretty high level exec. source: rogue engineer

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago

It's an interesting case study in regulations not being complied with. I guess the lawmakers expected the car companies to take the financial and performance hit to meet the emissions standard. Instead the car companies cheated. I imagine governments will be more careful in checking manufacturers are actually meeting standards after this.

ThePaco 11y ago
Or maybe they'll realize it's not too effective to tell companies how to make their products.
- jjawssd 11y ago
  Are you implying that we should abolish pollution restrictions on car manufacturers?
  - Sharlin 11y ago
    Free market is so well-known for handling negative externalities well...
  - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
    Not necessarily, no.
- mikestew 11y ago
  Right, because the air in Los Angeles is barely breathable, just as it was in the 70s. Wait, I got that wrong; the air in L. A. isn't too bad these days. What were we talking about? Oh, yeah, the effectiveness of regulations. On that topic, now I'm not saying there's direct cause-and-effect here, but...
  - semi-extrinsic 11y ago
    Cleaner air in LA is primarily due to two technological breakthroughs: positive crankcase ventilation, and catalytic converters. That's the proper way to do regulations: once a cleaner tech is invented, make it mandatory. The other way around, mandating a steady decrease de-coupled from technological advances, is more likely to lead to cheating.
    - tremon 11y ago
      But how do you direct the industry to invent cleaner tech without the pressure of emission regulation?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

kuschku 11y ago

Of course it was. The day it was announced the CEO stepped down, said he knew of it, and assumed responsibility. I’m not sure where the "rogue engineers" myth comes from, but VW Germany said on day one that it was top-level managers involved in it.

wzdd 11y ago
The '"rogue engineers" myth' comes from the CEO of VW USA. http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/an-engineering-theory-of-the-volkswagen-scandal http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/an-engineering-th... Edit: The rest of your comment is false. The day the news came out, Winterkorn posted a video acknowledging the problem but not mentioning resignation -- he did not resign that day. And when he did resign, he explicitly said that he was not aware of any wrongdoing on his part. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/24/business/international/volkswagen-chief-martin-winterkorn-resigns-amid-emissions-scandal.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/24/business/international/vol...
- kuschku 11y ago
  That's an interesting translation. He said he took the responsibility, but was unaware of wrongdoing when he resigned (I read the original announcement). So, no, my comment isn't false — but yours isn't either.