5 ms·
It's possible that quite a lot of those lines of code might support mostly unnecessary UI-type stuff, eg. the interfaces that let you configure how long the lig
by archangel_one 16y ago
It's possible that quite a lot of those lines of code might support mostly unnecessary UI-type stuff, eg. the interfaces that let you configure how long the lights remain on for after you remove the key which Top Gear take such pleasure in criticising.
But yeah, it is kind of scary. I'm not really sure I want my car to be "smarter" - keeping it simple seems good. But I guess it is a credit to the industry that AFAIK there haven't been any software disasters that have led to brakes failing and people being killed or similar.
- brc 16y agoWhile you're right in that computers control all that integration, you're wrong about being integrated within the car. The 'body' computer (which handles door lights, stereo controls, instrumentation, etc etc) is a completely separate system to the engine management system. One thing most people don't realise is that there isn't one 'central' computer for a car. Rather there are separate computers for each control system - one for the engine, transmission, body, ABS, airbags, suspension (in some cases) - etc etc etc. It's done like this both for separate points of failure and mixing and matching across different model ranges. Most of the things Top Gear loves to hate can actually be programmed out of your car if you can get a control system that interfaces with it. Things like warning chimes, reminders, etc are generally market-regulation specific, and can easily be switched off as an option within the computer if you have the right gear. One pet hate of mine is auto-locking doors, and in many cars you can turn this off. There is essentially zero chance of me getting carjacked, so it's definitely more trouble thant is worth.