3 ms·

AnthonyMouse, I can't seem to reply to your comment directly, so I'll have to comment to mine. >They don't have to be, for the same reason that you don't have

AnthonyMouse, I can't seem to reply to your comment directly, so I'll have to comment to mine. >They don't have to be, for the same reason that you don't have to understand Maxwell's equations to understand that it's possible to cause a fire with bad wiring. The concept of "the user modifications caused the problem" is not beyond the public understanding. Anyone who cares about more details than that can take the time to understand them but those are not the people you have to worry about. You try convincing the public of that. Every time a Tesla has caught on fire, it's been reported on in numerous news outlets. Despite the fact that thousands of gasoline cars catch on fire every year, people are worried about much rarer, milder lithium-ion battery fires. It's a new thing, so it gets way more scrutiny. People aren't always reasonable, and regulations are often made based on perceptions of danger, not actual risks. I think Tesla is not being unreasonable in thinking that "well, it's the owner's fault for messing with it!" is going to come off as anything but mealy-mouthed blame deflection. Even if they're in the right. >Your arguments either apply or they don't. Their competitors are not in a different situation. They'll all make the same choice. So whatever choice Tesla makes, all their competitors will also make? Or, in the case of Uber's in-development car, probably already have made? I think you're according them more influence than they really have. The point stands that whatever Tesla's choice on this matter, it does not apply a legal obligation on their competitors to do the same. So it is not "no improvement". >That's the point. You don't want a black box in control of life or death situations. You want something the user can understand when they're capable of it, so that the 2% of users who are can identify and fix problems that will affect the other 98% before it turns into deaths and liability. Opening up the car could reduce their liability, because it gives them somewhere else to point the finger sometimes, and a large population of people willing to find and fix problems. If they control the car entirely then all the liability is always on them and no one can help them when they make a mistake. But that's the thing - they don't want to be pointing the finger anywhere because that's almost always bad press for them. Throwing blame just looks bad. While helpful users are certainly an asset, it's mostly as a resource for identifying problems, not attempting to solve them on their own cars. Trying to aggregate, understand, vet, and integrate users' solutions is a huge and difficult undertaking, and not something that I think they want to attempt while trying to roll out a reasonably consistent product.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> AnthonyMouse, I can't seem to reply to your comment directly, so I'll have to comment to mine. The reply link doesn't appear right away on new posts. If you click the post time next to the poster's name it will open the post by itself which has the reply link. > Every time a Tesla has caught on fire, it's been reported on in numerous news outlets. And in every one of those stories there are ten people asking why this is a story because battery fires are less common than gasoline fires. System working as intended. > So whatever choice Tesla makes, all their competitors will also make? They don't have 10,000 competitors. It isn't a stretch to imagine that the small handful all make the same choice. But suppose they don't. You can't have it both ways. Either someone allows modifications and whatever hypothetical bad reactionary laws that causes will come to pass, or nobody does and the laws are never passed but the result is the same. > Or, in the case of Uber's in-development car, probably already have made? Uber is going to make a self-driving car and then sell them to the public so that members of the public can lease it back to Uber and Lyft? > But that's the thing - they don't want to be pointing the finger anywhere because that's almost always bad press for them. Throwing blame just looks bad. You're assuming the net problems as a result of openness are more rather than less, which is wrong. People fix more problems than they create, because people don't like having problems. You open things up and you get a lot of people fixing trouble and a smaller number of people causing trouble. The net result is less overall trouble and the ability to blame the troublemakers for the trouble they cause. None of that hurts you. > While helpful users are certainly an asset, it's mostly as a resource for identifying problems, not attempting to solve them on their own cars. Well first of all that's false, having them fix the problem saves you the trouble of doing it. But even identifying problems doesn't work without understanding. 99% of the fix is thoroughly understanding the problem. If the system is a black box then the user doesn't know how it's supposed to work. So you simultaneously get spammed with false positive bug reports from users who think there could be a problem but aren't allowed to understand whether there really is, and lose true positive reports because weird behavior gets written off as "it's a black box" and the last three things they reported were false positives.
- snrplfth 10y ago
  > And in every one of those stories there are ten people asking why this is a story because battery fires are less common than gasoline fires. System working as intended. It's still FUD that they could rightfully perceive as hurting them. They're taking enough risks as it is, I can imagine that they don't need more criticism of their safety. > But suppose they don't. You can't have it both ways. Either someone allows modifications and whatever hypothetical bad reactionary laws that causes will come to pass, or nobody does and the laws are never passed but the result is the same. I'm not just saying it's about the laws (Tesla has had a hard enough time tangling with these, and has been specifically singled out by regulators on occasion, such as in Germany right now), but also about their brand. They're sensitive to criticism, and, therefore, to the possible sources of criticism - whether justified or not. > Uber is going to make a self-driving car and then sell them to the public so that members of the public can lease it back to Uber and Lyft? I'm saying that Uber is developing self driving cars (or rather, the self-driving systems) which they appear intent on using for their own fleet, rather than selling as a kit or whole car, which they could have done. Tesla has been selling cars already, but it's going to be selling a new kind of car which has certain Uber-like properties. There are a range of ownership options and this is not an inherently illegitimate one. > Well first of all that's false, having them fix the problem saves you the trouble of doing it. But even identifying problems doesn't work without understanding. 99% of the fix is thoroughly understanding the problem. If the system is a black box then the user doesn't know how it's supposed to work. So you simultaneously get spammed with false positive bug reports from users who think there could be a problem but aren't allowed to understand whether there really is, and lose true positive reports because weird behavior gets written off as "it's a black box" and the last three things they reported were false positives. Sure, understanding the problem often helps more than simply reporting "there is a problem". But they could allow people to inspect the code and diagnostics without allowing any changes, the first does not necessarily imply the second. And if you really allow people to get into the code deeply enough to make the kinds of changes that fix problems in the system itself (rather than some sort of API for strictly limited input) then you've potentially given a large amount of your system to your competitors.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

> AnthonyMouse, I can't seem to reply to your comment directly, so I'll have to comment to mine. The reply link doesn't appear right away on new posts. If you click the post time next to the poster's name it will open the post by itself which has the reply link. > Every time a Tesla has caught on fire, it's been reported on in numerous news outlets. And in every one of those stories there are ten people asking why this is a story because battery fires are less common than gasoline fires. System working as intended. > So whatever choice Tesla makes, all their competitors will also make? They don't have 10,000 competitors. It isn't a stretch to imagine that the small handful all make the same choice. But suppose they don't. You can't have it both ways. Either someone allows modifications and whatever hypothetical bad reactionary laws that causes will come to pass, or nobody does and the laws are never passed but the result is the same. > Or, in the case of Uber's in-development car, probably already have made? Uber is going to make a self-driving car and then sell them to the public so that members of the public can lease it back to Uber and Lyft? > But that's the thing - they don't want to be pointing the finger anywhere because that's almost always bad press for them. Throwing blame just looks bad. You're assuming the net problems as a result of openness are more rather than less, which is wrong. People fix more problems than they create, because people don't like having problems. You open things up and you get a lot of people fixing trouble and a smaller number of people causing trouble. The net result is less overall trouble and the ability to blame the troublemakers for the trouble they cause. None of that hurts you. > While helpful users are certainly an asset, it's mostly as a resource for identifying problems, not attempting to solve them on their own cars. Well first of all that's false, having them fix the problem saves you the trouble of doing it. But even identifying problems doesn't work without understanding. 99% of the fix is thoroughly understanding the problem. If the system is a black box then the user doesn't know how it's supposed to work. So you simultaneously get spammed with false positive bug reports from users who think there could be a problem but aren't allowed to understand whether there really is, and lose true positive reports because weird behavior gets written off as "it's a black box" and the last three things they reported were false positives.

snrplfth 10y ago
> And in every one of those stories there are ten people asking why this is a story because battery fires are less common than gasoline fires. System working as intended. It's still FUD that they could rightfully perceive as hurting them. They're taking enough risks as it is, I can imagine that they don't need more criticism of their safety. > But suppose they don't. You can't have it both ways. Either someone allows modifications and whatever hypothetical bad reactionary laws that causes will come to pass, or nobody does and the laws are never passed but the result is the same. I'm not just saying it's about the laws (Tesla has had a hard enough time tangling with these, and has been specifically singled out by regulators on occasion, such as in Germany right now), but also about their brand. They're sensitive to criticism, and, therefore, to the possible sources of criticism - whether justified or not. > Uber is going to make a self-driving car and then sell them to the public so that members of the public can lease it back to Uber and Lyft? I'm saying that Uber is developing self driving cars (or rather, the self-driving systems) which they appear intent on using for their own fleet, rather than selling as a kit or whole car, which they could have done. Tesla has been selling cars already, but it's going to be selling a new kind of car which has certain Uber-like properties. There are a range of ownership options and this is not an inherently illegitimate one. > Well first of all that's false, having them fix the problem saves you the trouble of doing it. But even identifying problems doesn't work without understanding. 99% of the fix is thoroughly understanding the problem. If the system is a black box then the user doesn't know how it's supposed to work. So you simultaneously get spammed with false positive bug reports from users who think there could be a problem but aren't allowed to understand whether there really is, and lose true positive reports because weird behavior gets written off as "it's a black box" and the last three things they reported were false positives. Sure, understanding the problem often helps more than simply reporting "there is a problem". But they could allow people to inspect the code and diagnostics without allowing any changes, the first does not necessarily imply the second. And if you really allow people to get into the code deeply enough to make the kinds of changes that fix problems in the system itself (rather than some sort of API for strictly limited input) then you've potentially given a large amount of your system to your competitors.