3 ms·
If there is a ruling that actually exonerated a driver from their duty to be familiar with functions of their car based on prior knowledge of (misleading?) adve
by _Microft 7y ago
If there is a ruling that actually exonerated a driver from their duty to be familiar with functions of their car based on prior knowledge of (misleading?) advertisements, then I'd really like to see it. It would be surprising at least.
- BoorishBears 7y agoIt'd be surprising that you're not expected to somehow reverse engineer your car to find out how the features really work? Is that a joke? You think lay people are supposed take apart their Teslas and find out that AP1 was using radar and research that to find out that can't be used to detect static objects because of confusion with things like overhead signs? What's next, you'll be expected to reverse engineer ML models to find out your self-driving car doesn't recognize red bicycles at sunset?
- _Microft 7y ago[T]o be familiar with functions of their car means that they should have had a look into the manual. Edit: You might wanna read the comment guidelines by the way. Snarky comments are actually discouraged in favour of more thoughtful and substantive ones -> https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- BoorishBears 7y agoThat's obviously not ok either, you can’t advertise the car as being able to do whatever you want to, then not deliver what you advertised because the manual says otherwise. That’s not a car specific concept, that’s the definition of false advertising. And I’m perfectly familiar with the guidelines, a comment can be thoughtful, substantive, and contain a little well-earned snark.