5 ms·

Maybe this is a controversial opinion here, but I think software locks aren't inherently bad in a car that can be driven by software. I don't really trust Tesl

by slg 4y ago

Maybe this is a controversial opinion here, but I think software locks aren't inherently bad in a car that can be driven by software. I don't really trust Tesla's self-driving software as is, I certainly don't trust some random person's hack of already questionable Tesla code. This isn't an iPhone. Someone mucking about in the software can kill people.

renewiltord 4y ago
I assume you meant that the car in question was a 90 by virtue of a "random person's hack". Would you mind describing why you think this? The car is a 90 (effectively) because Tesla set it up that way.
- _aavaa_ 4y ago
  From the twitter thread: "I try to help, but without completely disconnecting the car from Tesla, when I change it back to a 90 their "teleforce" bot reaches in remotely and flips it back to a 60 within moments. There's hacky ways around this, but none are ideal."
  - renewiltord 4y ago
    I see, so that comment is not disagreeing with the original 60 -> 90 switch. They think it's a bad idea when 60 -> 90 -> 60 was completed and then the user (and their confederate) attempted to go back to 90. So that commenter would have been okay with things if Tesla had modified nothing back down to 60. Thank you for explaining.
toss1 4y ago
Absolutely true, in the realm of anything related to self-driving or even fly-by-wire controls. However, the software that artificially controls how much range the battery pack will produce (outside of the charging & self-protection algos) - that's borderline unethical to DRM.
stonemetal12 4y ago
Random person's hack maybe not but what about say Shelby, or Saleen? I would be all over a Saleen Model S.
- tianreyma 4y ago
  https://www.saleen.com/gtx/ https://www.saleen.com/gtx/ Now I kind of want to see what Shelby would do.
Ajedi32 4y ago
Whether or not the car is street legal is an entirely separate concern, and certainly not one that should be enforced by allowing the manufacturer to prohibit all software modifications of any sort. It's like preventing customers from changing their own tires because "they might do it wrong and cause an accident". Yeah, they might. But it's not the car manufacturer's responsibility to prevent that, and it certainly isn't justification for locking down the car to only be drivable with manufacturer-installed tires, or remotely disabling cars that use tires from unapproved brands.
- judge2020 4y ago
  > But it's not the car manufacturer's responsibility to prevent that Imagine someone installs a cheap third-party ADAS in a Tesla that causes a multi-car pile-up. Should we expect highway patrol officers be able to determine if some third-party software interfered with the normal operation of the car? And, even if Tesla Inc is legally in the clear because the customer did it, they are the #1 target for bad news headlines because they're 'the Apple of Cars' (at least in terms of how much hype they attract), so by the time they set the record straight they've already lost some good-will.
jonhohle 4y ago
While not exactly equivalent, what if the lock was on MPG on an ICE vehicle? Would that be reasonable? Li-ion batteries have a huge environmental cost. To hide ⅓ of that material behind software is immoral (imho). It sounds like they were swapping in a better part because they may have not had the original. In the past that was a “win” for the customer. It seems like Tesla has turned this into a loss for the customer (more weight on the vehicle) and a loss for humanity (70 tons of earth mined for unused lithium).
- vel0city 4y ago
  The energy cost difference with regenerative braking is essentially negligible between these two cars. Adding several hundred pounds to my EV driving around makes little difference by my measurements. And as to the idea of the lithium being wasted, that might not necessarily be true as well. Its not like those extra cells will never be used, its just the pack will never really hit 100% charge and will never really hit 0% charge, it'll essentially always be somewhere above 0% and below 100%. This will allow better wear leveling over the whole pack, so if the car is used a decent bit it'll get more miles on its life than the smaller pack.
10000truths 4y ago
This sort of justification would never fly if we were talking about modding ICE vehicles: * Illegal to replace your own brake rotors or pads, as faulty ones can cause safety issues. * Illegal to replace your own headlights, as bad ones could be too dim or too bright and cause safety issues. * Illegal to change your own oil, as bad ones could seize up your engine in the middle of the road and cause safety issues. * Illegal to install a turbocharger, as that makes your car accelerate faster than the manufacturer likes and could cause safety issues. The end result of this line of thinking leads to a million dollar tractor that a farmer can't fix when they need it most. I much prefer the idea that people are individually responsible for any modifications they choose to make to their cars.
- cameronh90 4y ago
  In the UK, many modifications are restricted. For example, if I was to replace my halogen car headlights with LED ones, the car would be technically illegal, uninsured and fail inspection (if they notice). Exhausts can't be noisier than factory, which means in practice all aftermarket sports exhausts are illegal. At some point, I assume modifying drive-by-wire systems will become legally restricted.
  - AinderS 4y ago
    You are talking about something subtly but crucially different. Replacing your headlights is not illegal, only the type of headlight you use is legally restricted. Modification itself is not legally restricted, only the end result.
    - kube-system 4y ago
      Yeah, a better example is modifications to homes. Those are restricted in many places in the US. I can't replace a circuit in my homes wiring, even if I follow every code.
      - AinderS 4y ago
        But even in that case, the restriction comes from law, not an arbitrary decision made by a private company.

by slg 4y ago

renewiltord 4y ago

I assume you meant that the car in question was a 90 by virtue of a "random person's hack". Would you mind describing why you think this? The car is a 90 (effectively) because Tesla set it up that way.

_aavaa_ 4y ago
From the twitter thread: "I try to help, but without completely disconnecting the car from Tesla, when I change it back to a 90 their "teleforce" bot reaches in remotely and flips it back to a 60 within moments. There's hacky ways around this, but none are ideal."
- renewiltord 4y ago
  I see, so that comment is not disagreeing with the original 60 -> 90 switch. They think it's a bad idea when 60 -> 90 -> 60 was completed and then the user (and their confederate) attempted to go back to 90. So that commenter would have been okay with things if Tesla had modified nothing back down to 60. Thank you for explaining.

toss1 4y ago

Absolutely true, in the realm of anything related to self-driving or even fly-by-wire controls. However, the software that artificially controls how much range the battery pack will produce (outside of the charging & self-protection algos) - that's borderline unethical to DRM.

stonemetal12 4y ago

Random person's hack maybe not but what about say Shelby, or Saleen? I would be all over a Saleen Model S.

tianreyma 4y ago
https://www.saleen.com/gtx/ https://www.saleen.com/gtx/ Now I kind of want to see what Shelby would do.

Ajedi32 4y ago

Whether or not the car is street legal is an entirely separate concern, and certainly not one that should be enforced by allowing the manufacturer to prohibit all software modifications of any sort. It's like preventing customers from changing their own tires because "they might do it wrong and cause an accident". Yeah, they might. But it's not the car manufacturer's responsibility to prevent that, and it certainly isn't justification for locking down the car to only be drivable with manufacturer-installed tires, or remotely disabling cars that use tires from unapproved brands.

judge2020 4y ago
> But it's not the car manufacturer's responsibility to prevent that Imagine someone installs a cheap third-party ADAS in a Tesla that causes a multi-car pile-up. Should we expect highway patrol officers be able to determine if some third-party software interfered with the normal operation of the car? And, even if Tesla Inc is legally in the clear because the customer did it, they are the #1 target for bad news headlines because they're 'the Apple of Cars' (at least in terms of how much hype they attract), so by the time they set the record straight they've already lost some good-will.

jonhohle 4y ago

While not exactly equivalent, what if the lock was on MPG on an ICE vehicle? Would that be reasonable? Li-ion batteries have a huge environmental cost. To hide ⅓ of that material behind software is immoral (imho). It sounds like they were swapping in a better part because they may have not had the original. In the past that was a “win” for the customer. It seems like Tesla has turned this into a loss for the customer (more weight on the vehicle) and a loss for humanity (70 tons of earth mined for unused lithium).

vel0city 4y ago
The energy cost difference with regenerative braking is essentially negligible between these two cars. Adding several hundred pounds to my EV driving around makes little difference by my measurements. And as to the idea of the lithium being wasted, that might not necessarily be true as well. Its not like those extra cells will never be used, its just the pack will never really hit 100% charge and will never really hit 0% charge, it'll essentially always be somewhere above 0% and below 100%. This will allow better wear leveling over the whole pack, so if the car is used a decent bit it'll get more miles on its life than the smaller pack.

10000truths 4y ago

This sort of justification would never fly if we were talking about modding ICE vehicles: * Illegal to replace your own brake rotors or pads, as faulty ones can cause safety issues. * Illegal to replace your own headlights, as bad ones could be too dim or too bright and cause safety issues. * Illegal to change your own oil, as bad ones could seize up your engine in the middle of the road and cause safety issues. * Illegal to install a turbocharger, as that makes your car accelerate faster than the manufacturer likes and could cause safety issues. The end result of this line of thinking leads to a million dollar tractor that a farmer can't fix when they need it most. I much prefer the idea that people are individually responsible for any modifications they choose to make to their cars.

cameronh90 4y ago
In the UK, many modifications are restricted. For example, if I was to replace my halogen car headlights with LED ones, the car would be technically illegal, uninsured and fail inspection (if they notice). Exhausts can't be noisier than factory, which means in practice all aftermarket sports exhausts are illegal. At some point, I assume modifying drive-by-wire systems will become legally restricted.
- AinderS 4y ago
  You are talking about something subtly but crucially different. Replacing your headlights is not illegal, only the type of headlight you use is legally restricted. Modification itself is not legally restricted, only the end result.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    Yeah, a better example is modifications to homes. Those are restricted in many places in the US. I can't replace a circuit in my homes wiring, even if I follow every code.
    - AinderS 4y ago
      But even in that case, the restriction comes from law, not an arbitrary decision made by a private company.