4 ms·

I'd be more eager to cast scorn if I could find a company that hasn't skirted the law.

by metalliqaz 9y ago

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
widowlark 9y ago
It's not that I'm surprised, I just wish it was better
simonsarris 9y ago
Well, there's always Tesla. All the more reason to consider EVs a moral good.
- ATsch 9y ago
  Well, last I remember Telsa violates the GPL
  - mohaine 9y ago
    Source?
    - foldor 9y ago
      I would assume since they're violating the GPL that there is no source, and that's the issue.
    - ATsch 9y ago
      Well, we don't have it sadly. Jokes aside, there is no "offical" source for my claim. But the fact that they use a linux based system yet have no place to download it is all the evidence you need really. You can find a number of people detailing their (unsucessful) GPL requests in forum posts etc. by searching for "tesla gpl" or "tesla gpl violation"
- CalRobert 9y ago
  Reducing the marginal cost of driving in terms of cash (fuel) and time (self-driving) may have second and third order effects which are deeply problematic. I like EV's, but we're foolish to think that making driving effectively free won't have downsides.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    EVs also don't make driving "effectively free." We don't really have a good handle on the long-term maintenance costs associated with EVs but even the electricity itself (at residential power rates) is about 1/3 to 1/2 of gasoline costs in the US. A substantial savings but not free.
- awqrre 9y ago
  Do you include manufacturing environmental costs of their batteries and the environmental costs of the energy they consume that is produced by someone else?
chc 9y ago
AFAIK none of the Japanese companies have messed around with emissions laws, and obviously Tesla wouldn't even need to.
- Chaebixi 9y ago
  Mitsubishi cheated on fuel efficiency tests. http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/26/news/companies/mitsubishi-cheating-fuel-tests-25-years/ http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/26/news/companies/mitsubishi-ch...: > The automaker said last week that it had used improper fuel economy tests on hundreds of thousands of vehicles, including some sold to Nissan
AnimalMuppet 9y ago
That means that GM is no better than Volkswagen. It doesn't mean that they're good, though. What they did is still just as wrong, no matter how many other companies did it too.
- jerf 9y ago
  For a while now, I've been beating the drum on HN that if you keep raising regulations on the car companies faster than they can develop technology for, we will eventually reach the point where it will be economically impossible to build a car. This story suggests a possibility I hadn't considered yet, which is that it may already be economically impossible to build a car that complies with the law. At this point, while you are welcome to castigate the automakers for cheating, one must also consider that the authors of the regulation may bear some responsibility here too. And I do mean both bear some responsibility; the cheating of the car companies has prevented the feedback from getting to the regulators that they've created an impossible situation. But they may still have created an impossible solution, and it may mean that people just going "Well just comply with the regulations then!" are proposing a non-solution to the problem without realizing it. It is also worth pointing out that three years ago the idea that regulations were already impossible to comply with would have been met with hoots of derision, and probably someone is going to reply to me to dismiss it even now. We're asking auto companies here to forfeit billions of dollars, but the regulators themselves have no risk if they are creating an impossible situation. Just because someone wrote a regulation somewhere doesn't mean it's good, or possible, or economical.
  - linkregister 9y ago
    Theoretically, your position could be true. Empirically, VW released patches for their cars to bring the non-test characteristics in line with their test-mode characteristics. The outcome was that the diesel-engine vehicles had reduced fuel economy and acceleration. [1] Most customers still enjoyed their cars after the patch was applied. 1. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/guide-to-the-volkswagen-dieselgate-emissions-recall- http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/guide-to-the-volkswa...
cptskippy 9y ago
So now we can't castigate lawbreakers until we can prove someone actually adheres to the law?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- stupidhn 9y ago
  >So now we can't castigate lawbreakers until we can prove someone actually adheres to the law? No, but we could at least hold out on castigation until it's proven they've broken the law. A class action lawsuit isn't proof of anything.
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
I'm okay with scorning every one of them, actually.

I'd be more eager to cast scorn if I could find a company that hasn't skirted the law.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

widowlark 9y ago

It's not that I'm surprised, I just wish it was better

simonsarris 9y ago

Well, there's always Tesla. All the more reason to consider EVs a moral good.

ATsch 9y ago
Well, last I remember Telsa violates the GPL
- mohaine 9y ago
  Source?
  - foldor 9y ago
    I would assume since they're violating the GPL that there is no source, and that's the issue.
  - ATsch 9y ago
    Well, we don't have it sadly. Jokes aside, there is no "offical" source for my claim. But the fact that they use a linux based system yet have no place to download it is all the evidence you need really. You can find a number of people detailing their (unsucessful) GPL requests in forum posts etc. by searching for "tesla gpl" or "tesla gpl violation"
CalRobert 9y ago
Reducing the marginal cost of driving in terms of cash (fuel) and time (self-driving) may have second and third order effects which are deeply problematic. I like EV's, but we're foolish to think that making driving effectively free won't have downsides.
- ghaff 9y ago
  EVs also don't make driving "effectively free." We don't really have a good handle on the long-term maintenance costs associated with EVs but even the electricity itself (at residential power rates) is about 1/3 to 1/2 of gasoline costs in the US. A substantial savings but not free.
awqrre 9y ago
Do you include manufacturing environmental costs of their batteries and the environmental costs of the energy they consume that is produced by someone else?

chc 9y ago

AFAIK none of the Japanese companies have messed around with emissions laws, and obviously Tesla wouldn't even need to.

Chaebixi 9y ago
Mitsubishi cheated on fuel efficiency tests. http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/26/news/companies/mitsubishi-cheating-fuel-tests-25-years/ http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/26/news/companies/mitsubishi-ch...: > The automaker said last week that it had used improper fuel economy tests on hundreds of thousands of vehicles, including some sold to Nissan

AnimalMuppet 9y ago

That means that GM is no better than Volkswagen. It doesn't mean that they're good, though. What they did is still just as wrong, no matter how many other companies did it too.

jerf 9y ago
For a while now, I've been beating the drum on HN that if you keep raising regulations on the car companies faster than they can develop technology for, we will eventually reach the point where it will be economically impossible to build a car. This story suggests a possibility I hadn't considered yet, which is that it may already be economically impossible to build a car that complies with the law. At this point, while you are welcome to castigate the automakers for cheating, one must also consider that the authors of the regulation may bear some responsibility here too. And I do mean both bear some responsibility; the cheating of the car companies has prevented the feedback from getting to the regulators that they've created an impossible situation. But they may still have created an impossible solution, and it may mean that people just going "Well just comply with the regulations then!" are proposing a non-solution to the problem without realizing it. It is also worth pointing out that three years ago the idea that regulations were already impossible to comply with would have been met with hoots of derision, and probably someone is going to reply to me to dismiss it even now. We're asking auto companies here to forfeit billions of dollars, but the regulators themselves have no risk if they are creating an impossible situation. Just because someone wrote a regulation somewhere doesn't mean it's good, or possible, or economical.
- linkregister 9y ago
  Theoretically, your position could be true. Empirically, VW released patches for their cars to bring the non-test characteristics in line with their test-mode characteristics. The outcome was that the diesel-engine vehicles had reduced fuel economy and acceleration. [1] Most customers still enjoyed their cars after the patch was applied. 1. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/guide-to-the-volkswagen-dieselgate-emissions-recall- http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/guide-to-the-volkswa...

cptskippy 9y ago

So now we can't castigate lawbreakers until we can prove someone actually adheres to the law?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
stupidhn 9y ago
>So now we can't castigate lawbreakers until we can prove someone actually adheres to the law? No, but we could at least hold out on castigation until it's proven they've broken the law. A class action lawsuit isn't proof of anything.

PhasmaFelis 9y ago

I'm okay with scorning every one of them, actually.