4 ms·
There’s no excuse for this at all. It’s shitty short sighted engineering. Simple as that. The main firmware should have been on a separate physical device if d
by m0xte 7y ago
There’s no excuse for this at all. It’s shitty short sighted engineering. Simple as that.
The main firmware should have been on a separate physical device if data was write heavy regardless of “enough space” being left. It would have cost a few dollars to make this issue go away.
The more I hear about the engineering the longer I will avoid buying an electric vehicle. Iterating big problems away on a tangible chunk of engineering rather than a piece of software is stupid.
- rapnie 7y agoA couple days ago I found this link [0] to a Reddit post on HN about the software engineering practices at Tesla. Don't know how accurate the story is, hard to tell, but it sure was worrisome. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughMuskSpam/comments/99sbwa/former_tesla_programmers_anecdotes_about_problems/ https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughMuskSpam/comments/99sbwa/form...
- m0xte 7y agoYeah I sent that to my father who is a model 3 owner and former software developer :)
- lazyjones 7y ago> The more I hear about the engineering the longer I will avoid buying an electric vehicle. You can look up the nVidia Tegra board on Wikipedia and see for yourself that the "shitty short sighted engineering" board is used in many gasoline cars.
- leggomylibro 7y agoYes, but those ICE cars were designed by engineers who understood that you only get ~100ks of write endurance with this sort of nonvolatile memory. Tesla's use case is unique because they stuff enormous firmware images into the on-board NVM and write to it constantly with very heavy logging. Of course your Flash/EMMC will wear out quickly if you constantly write to it while your device is on - that is the short-sighted part. The board isn't necessarily a problem, but how Tesla chose to use it sounds like a very predictable problem.