6 ms·
This isn't what you think it is from the headline. This is not a case of Nissan software engineers writing emissions test defeat code. Rather, this is some Nis
by danielvf 8y ago
This isn't what you think it is from the headline.
This is not a case of Nissan software engineers writing emissions test defeat code. Rather, this is some Nissan factory workers faking internal emissions test results that are done on every completed car. Only about 1,000 cars were affected, and almost all of these cars still met regulatory emissions limits - the targets they were trying to meet were Nissan's stricter internal standards.
- neogodless 8y ago> Other than one model still under investigation, Nissan said all of the affected vehicles met Japanese auto standards. The data alterations were made by staff to meet Nissan’s own stricter internal standards, it said. Good catch. This comment should probably be higher, because I don't think the majority is reading the news that way.
- degenerate 8y ago> I don't think the majority is reading the news that way More like, "I don't think the headlines are written to portray the news that way" I put the blame, always, on sensationalist clickbait headlines from dishonest news organizations. They are competing for your attention and clicks, so the headline is often flat out wrong.
- windows_tips 8y agoWhat's the sensationalism? Nissan was producing out-of-spec cars due to falsified data, no?
- vorpalhex 8y agoWhen I read the headline, it seemed to me that Nissan was falsifying data to meet Government/mandated emissions tests and was caught. In reality, Nissan's internal workers were caught falsifying an internal test. That might seem like a small point but it's quite an important difference - the difference between a live malicious data breach and an internal audit failing.
- windows_tips 8y agoNissan's specs are more strict than whatever Government test, so the Government test is not really relevant. The bigger point is that Nissan would be committing fraud on its customers by quoting false specs for the products they are selling.
- kryogen1c 8y agoIts not a bigger point. If it was, they wouldn't have written the headline to deliberately mislead away from that fact.
- windows_tips 8y agoThe specifics of the test don't really matter regarding selling a vehicle with fraudulent specs.
- kryogen1c 8y agoOf course it does. The bare minimum to be "safe" is much different than strict internal standards. All rules are not created equally, and breaking different rules should be treated differently. This is why the purposeful misdirection in the headline matters - it is not true or accurate.
- windows_tips 8y agoHow was the headline not accurate? Because outspoken HN readers assumed this was something to do with government?
- kryogen1c 8y ago> How was the headline not accurate? Because it does not provide it's readers with an understanding of what happened, purposefully, to create a more sensationalist headline to generate more clicks and likely more revenue through advertising and subscriptions. > Because outspoken HN readers assumed this was something to do with government? First, this is needlessly insulting. Second, it is common knowledge that emissions standards are government regulations (because they are), so titling an article about a car manufacturer about failing emissions standards points _almost everyone_ in the wrong direction.
- Coincoin 8y agoIt's a lie by omission. The title should have been something like: "Nissan Admits Internal Test Data Was Falsified" Boring, I know.
- DonHopkins 8y agoLie by emission.
- bartread 8y agoQuite, and the first two paragraphs of the article, which are all I can read because I'm not a WSJ subscriber - which I suspect will be the case for many here - do nothing to dispel the sensationalist interpretation. (As an aside I'm starting to opine that posting WSJ articles here may be bad form for this very reason.)
- kryogen1c 8y agoI've only been lurking a short while, but Ive been finding WSJ to be relatively unreliable.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- chiefalchemist 8y agoAnd who has verified what Nissan said?
- dang 8y agoOk, we'll put "internal" in the title above. Thanks!
- Laaas 8y agoHey man, it's still not clear. I would say "Nissan Admits Data for Internal Emissions-Test Was Falsified", because right now it seems like the data was internal, not the test.
- mehrdadn 8y agoI second this, I came after the change and I still didn't find it clear at all.
- tedunangst 8y agoNissan externally admits internal data for internal test was internally falsified.
- Jarwain 8y agoHow about "Nissan Admits Internal Emissions-Test Results were Falsified"
- paulmd 8y agoSo on an average day for you, how much time do you spend dealing with whiny posters complaining about titles, and then manually re-editorializing them yourself? I see you've had to respond to this one at least twice, and that doesn't seem unusual from what I see here. Multiply it by a couple dozen articles that are on/near the front page per day, and... You should keep a log and see, I suspect it's a larger fraction than you realize. It's not a positive benefit for the community discussion either.
- extralego 8y agoWhoa. Pretty major difference ther.
- mehrdadn 8y agoThank you so much for pointing this out!
- pasta1212 8y agoThanks for saving me a pointless read