37 ms·

I wish I shared this naive outlook on life. Everything in manufacturing is a compromise. Just because the up-and-coming Chinese and Indian car manufacturers are

I wish I shared this naive outlook on life. Everything in manufacturing is a compromise. Just because the up-and-coming Chinese and Indian car manufacturers aren't as big on safety as the "Western" world doesn't mean that our car companies don't cheat at it and cut corners all the time. We just had a much bigger head start at it.

hef19898 8y ago
The first time soneone called me naive, I'll just take it as a compliment. I think the big difference is what we define as cheating. Optimising towards test, no cheating in my POV. Using one type of steel, as an example, for crash test and something different for production -> cheating. They do have to make trade-offs, true. But every other company has to do that as well, some tend to one side others favor different characteristics. Tesla, to stay on topic, is no exception there. SOmeone else discribed the test philosophy and the impact on car design very well.
- perl4ever 8y ago
  "I think the big difference is what we define as cheating. Optimising towards test, no cheating in my POV. Using one type of steel, as an example, for crash test and something different for production -> cheating." Is it still cheating if there is a loophole that allows that substitution of steel?
  - hef19898 8y ago
    Very interessting edge case. Legally no. Personnaly I would say no as well, morally it would be absolutely unexceptable. But then the loop-hole is the issue and not the use of it, right? Same goes for the Toyota example montioned above. The optimized for an existing test, fair enough. Testing changed, so Toyota has to adopt (if they didn't already). Again not really cheating.
    - perl4ever 8y ago
      I think that normal people internalize a multi-layered context of ethical rules. Following the letter of the law is only one layer. Hence most people would not say "fair enough" just because regulations were followed, if the meta-rules of society were not. I don't think it is possible to do away with meta-rules by writing more detailed laws, although I get the impression that is an increasingly popular assumption. In my opinion, the ubiquity of computers leads to an overestimation of our capability for directly handling complexity in rule-based systems.

hef19898 8y ago

The first time soneone called me naive, I'll just take it as a compliment. I think the big difference is what we define as cheating. Optimising towards test, no cheating in my POV. Using one type of steel, as an example, for crash test and something different for production -> cheating. They do have to make trade-offs, true. But every other company has to do that as well, some tend to one side others favor different characteristics. Tesla, to stay on topic, is no exception there. SOmeone else discribed the test philosophy and the impact on car design very well.

perl4ever 8y ago
"I think the big difference is what we define as cheating. Optimising towards test, no cheating in my POV. Using one type of steel, as an example, for crash test and something different for production -> cheating." Is it still cheating if there is a loophole that allows that substitution of steel?
- hef19898 8y ago
  Very interessting edge case. Legally no. Personnaly I would say no as well, morally it would be absolutely unexceptable. But then the loop-hole is the issue and not the use of it, right? Same goes for the Toyota example montioned above. The optimized for an existing test, fair enough. Testing changed, so Toyota has to adopt (if they didn't already). Again not really cheating.
  - perl4ever 8y ago
    I think that normal people internalize a multi-layered context of ethical rules. Following the letter of the law is only one layer. Hence most people would not say "fair enough" just because regulations were followed, if the meta-rules of society were not. I don't think it is possible to do away with meta-rules by writing more detailed laws, although I get the impression that is an increasingly popular assumption. In my opinion, the ubiquity of computers leads to an overestimation of our capability for directly handling complexity in rule-based systems.