Testing "inert" features like this is not necessarily a bad idea. The worst that could happen is it isn't isolated correctly -- maybe you introduce a bug that t

Testing "inert" features like this is not necessarily a bad idea. The worst that could happen is it isn't isolated correctly -- maybe you introduce a bug that transgresses its sandbox. Certainly Tesla's software architects spend a LOT of time working to ensure this doesn't happen, but it is a risk. But there is a recent case where Tesla pushed a software update that resulted in an accident, and it wasn't an inert feature. It was a user interface change. In 7.1 they added a shortcut for the Autopark feature that worked like this:[1] 1. Double tap the park button 2. Exit the car 3. The car starts moving forward So... can you guess what could go wrong with this??? Yup, a user accidentally double tapped instead of single tapped and exited the car. The only safeguard against this was an alert on the center console.. but it wasn't a confirmation dialog, it was merely an option to cancel. Terrible UX. The user didn't notice it on the way out the door. And no other safeguards like having to hold onto the key fob to ensure you're paying attention. So the car moved forward and hit something in front of it that its sensors didn't detect.[2] What's even worse, Tesla blamed the user.[3] Not the kind of attitude you want in a company pushing updates like this. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-JoZL9edlA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-JoZL9edlA [2] http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/11/11656496/tesla-model-s-autonomous-summon-mode-crash http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/11/11656496/tesla-model-s-aut... [3] http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/11/11658226/tesla-model-s-summon-autopilot-crash-letter http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/11/11658226/tesla-model-s-sum...