4 ms·

Thank you. Do people really want Tesla to use another company's failure / worse #'s via statistics in their review of this accident? At least they are responsi

by scoggs 9y ago

Thank you. Do people really want Tesla to use another company's failure / worse #'s via statistics in their review of this accident? At least they are responsive, seemingly open, and seemingly empathetic. They are obviously handling things in a business first manner as corporations will but it hardly feels as inhuman as people seem to be making it out to be.

Arnt 9y ago
My question is honest. I found GP's assertion and its implication astonishing, but if that's how it is...
TAForObvReasons 9y ago
You forget the key rule: "Move fast and break things", including people and expectations of human decency
- Arnt 9y ago
  There's always someone who expects more. If you make a doodah that reduces (name something bad) by 30% someone will expect 40%, if it improves (name something good) by 50% someone will expect 60%, and by the way it costs too much, whatever it costs. Name your expectations up front, please.
  - TAForObvReasons 9y ago
    The expectation is simple: value human life. Don't try to do beta tests and simultaneously market it as if it's production quality. Accidents happen, but own up to them; don't immediately and fervently insist that you were not at fault before the investigation even starts. It may be easy to casually update software and break builds, but when human lives are at risk a healthy dose of conservatism is appropriate. But you're right -- it's probably unfair to expect a SV company to prioritize anything over profits (we saw that with Facebook, right?)
    - Arnt 9y ago
      I thought about this over the weekend. About that you want, concretely. Tesla says their cars have drive past that spot 85000 times so far. So you may be asking for some testing that's better at uncovering problems than 85000 whitenoise test instantiations are. Or you may be asking to test, and test, and improve until the software meets the developers' intentions: If their intention is to improve safety by 40% (or 400%, or 40000%) then you may be saying they shouldn't release a version that's improved over the baseline by 20% (or 200%, or 2000%) because that still doesn't realise the design. Seems a bit absolutist to me. You could equally well make the opposite absolutist argument that having inhouse software that's better than the current released is putting people's lives in danger by inaction/negligence/whatever. That fixing a bug or improving a feature confers a moral obligation to release immediately, lest people's life be put in danger which would be avoided by the new code.

by scoggs 9y ago

Arnt 9y ago

My question is honest. I found GP's assertion and its implication astonishing, but if that's how it is...

TAForObvReasons 9y ago

You forget the key rule: "Move fast and break things", including people and expectations of human decency

Arnt 9y ago
There's always someone who expects more. If you make a doodah that reduces (name something bad) by 30% someone will expect 40%, if it improves (name something good) by 50% someone will expect 60%, and by the way it costs too much, whatever it costs. Name your expectations up front, please.
- TAForObvReasons 9y ago
  The expectation is simple: value human life. Don't try to do beta tests and simultaneously market it as if it's production quality. Accidents happen, but own up to them; don't immediately and fervently insist that you were not at fault before the investigation even starts. It may be easy to casually update software and break builds, but when human lives are at risk a healthy dose of conservatism is appropriate. But you're right -- it's probably unfair to expect a SV company to prioritize anything over profits (we saw that with Facebook, right?)
  - Arnt 9y ago
    I thought about this over the weekend. About that you want, concretely. Tesla says their cars have drive past that spot 85000 times so far. So you may be asking for some testing that's better at uncovering problems than 85000 whitenoise test instantiations are. Or you may be asking to test, and test, and improve until the software meets the developers' intentions: If their intention is to improve safety by 40% (or 400%, or 40000%) then you may be saying they shouldn't release a version that's improved over the baseline by 20% (or 200%, or 2000%) because that still doesn't realise the design. Seems a bit absolutist to me. You could equally well make the opposite absolutist argument that having inhouse software that's better than the current released is putting people's lives in danger by inaction/negligence/whatever. That fixing a bug or improving a feature confers a moral obligation to release immediately, lest people's life be put in danger which would be avoided by the new code.