3 ms·

> If deaths become endemic, then consider locking them down. As much as I dislike John Deer's strategy, your statement is just stupid. Waiting for people do di

by foepys 10y ago

> If deaths become endemic, then consider locking them down. As much as I dislike John Deer's strategy, your statement is just stupid. Waiting for people do die before you regulate to make it safer doesn't work. Look at Ford who calculated that saving $x on a component was worth it if only y people die and their relatives sue.

goodplay 10y ago
That component you refer to was necessary for the safe usage of the vehicle. If it fails, bad things would happen (and they did). Having control over your tractor does not necessarily kill people. Death is not inherently implied by farmers merely having access. Apples and oranges. Equating the two is silly. Most people won't be adding in gotos and if statements, they'll be replacing borken parts and getting their tractors working again. Those few who actually do end up writing code for it, and those who opt to run it, will do so with the full knowledge that it'll be their asses on the line when something goes wrong. Either way, my point was that people won't die from access unless they do something really stupid, and death due to stupidity is going to occur regardless of whether the tractor is locked down or not.
- foepys 10y ago
  > Those few who actually do end up writing code for it, and those who opt to run it, will do so with the full knowledge that it'll be their asses on the line when something goes wrong. In a world where extremely dangerous phone chargers are getting bought just because they are cheap, I cannot imagine that your views are correct. People are putting active fire hazards into their homes and other people are building them in full knowledge that the components used are inadequate. Yes, people should be able to repair their machines and change single components but it should be guaranteed that basic safety functionality is working. I'm not talking about something where a farmer personally modifies their own machine. I'm talking about manufacturers that build cheap replacement parts.
RugnirViking 10y ago
It does and can work. Source: The aerospace industry

by foepys 10y ago

goodplay 10y ago

That component you refer to was necessary for the safe usage of the vehicle. If it fails, bad things would happen (and they did). Having control over your tractor does not necessarily kill people. Death is not inherently implied by farmers merely having access. Apples and oranges. Equating the two is silly. Most people won't be adding in gotos and if statements, they'll be replacing borken parts and getting their tractors working again. Those few who actually do end up writing code for it, and those who opt to run it, will do so with the full knowledge that it'll be their asses on the line when something goes wrong. Either way, my point was that people won't die from access unless they do something really stupid, and death due to stupidity is going to occur regardless of whether the tractor is locked down or not.

foepys 10y ago
> Those few who actually do end up writing code for it, and those who opt to run it, will do so with the full knowledge that it'll be their asses on the line when something goes wrong. In a world where extremely dangerous phone chargers are getting bought just because they are cheap, I cannot imagine that your views are correct. People are putting active fire hazards into their homes and other people are building them in full knowledge that the components used are inadequate. Yes, people should be able to repair their machines and change single components but it should be guaranteed that basic safety functionality is working. I'm not talking about something where a farmer personally modifies their own machine. I'm talking about manufacturers that build cheap replacement parts.

RugnirViking 10y ago

It does and can work. Source: The aerospace industry