7 ms·

Well if this is how the new cars are gonna be, I guess I'll just go ahead and teach myself to be a Car Guy so that the one I have now will run forever. It's n

• lapetitejort 4y ago
  Go one step further and become a Bicycle Guy. Consider what will still be operational 100 years from now once fossil fuels have dried up and we have fully transitioned into Life As A Service.
  • mywittyname 4y ago
    The problem with being a "Bicycle Guy" is that people like to run them over...
    • SoftTalker 4y ago
      Also not practical for many people.
    • ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
      Here on Long Island, we shmush cyclists for sport. https://www.bicycling.com/culture/a41119529/the-most-dangerous-road-for-cyclists-in-america/ https://www.bicycling.com/culture/a41119529/the-most-dangero...
    • lmm 4y ago
      The only way to stop a bad guy with an SUV is a good guy with an SUV. Or maybe enforcing laws against homicide, but I guess that's too hard.
      • giantrobot 4y ago
        > Or maybe enforcing laws against homicide, but I guess that's too hard. If only homicide was illegal, then no one would kill anyone else.
  • Maken 4y ago
    That's true as long as you don't use one of those ungodly bluetooth shifters with built-in end-of-life cycle.
    • wardedVibe 4y ago
      > bluetooth shifters what in tarnation
      • zamnos 4y ago
        https://bike.shimano.com/en-US/information/news/new-shimano-105-di2-delivers-12-speed--shifting-and-wireless-per.html https://bike.shimano.com/en-US/information/news/new-shimano-... It's not clear to me that the wireless shifters themselves communicate via Bluetooth, though the system does use that to talk to a smartphone app, if desired.
        • wardedVibe 4y ago
          Gadget bikes for the wealthy in it as a hobby really are a world of their own.
• horsawlarway 4y ago
  > the mere capability renders the machine fundamentally untrustworthy. I've said this a couple of times before, but I find it fairly astonishing that we don't have legislation covering what manufacturers are allowed to do to a product with embedded devices after a user has purchased it. I want to be very clear - after I have bought a product, ANY CHANGE WITHOUT MY CONSENT done by the embedded software at the behest of the manufacturer is essentially breaking and entering (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)). They have the ability to stick a "little green man" inside the car, that should not absolve them of the legal repercussions of using it without my permission. I don't believe that sticking a term/clause into a user agreement that is not negotiable is an acceptable way to deal with this situation. This is rapidly becoming one of my strongest political beliefs. I think the concept of ownership is at stake. My wishlist is essentially: 1. Devices that contain digital locks MUST provide all keys to all locks to the buyer at time of purchase. The user can opt into allowing the manufacturer to keep a copy, but they must be allowed to opt out. 2. Devices that require remote services must explicitly list all services and features that depend on those services. The user must have the option to opt out of remote services. 3. Buyers of devices that choose to opt out of remote services are revoking consent for manufacturer access to the device. Any future access by the manufacturer (at all, from updating code to reporting usage to remotely starting a car) will be considered a violation of the CFAA. 4. Manufacturers must justify why a feature requires a remote service. "Profit" is not an acceptable answer.
  • Uehreka 4y ago
    > I want to be very clear - after I have bought a product, ANY CHANGE WITHOUT MY CONSENT done by the embedded software at the behest of the manufacturer is essentially breaking and entering (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)). Man, do I have bad news for you about everything.
    • horsawlarway 4y ago
      Sure - although I'll point out that technically the CFAA already covers this, it's just never applied in this manner (caveat - the CFAA can cover basically anything given the vague wording... so the value of it is up for debate) Basically - I want a simple contract that ensures that the device I've bought will continue working as expected (assuming no use of remote/internet connected features) and that the manufacturer is unable to enter my property and change how it functions after sale. I don't find that particularly unusual. I think the unusual part is rather than manufacturers have this new ability at all. For the majority of our legal history it was either prohibitively expensive or downright impossible for a manufacturer to embed a device that only obeys the manufacturer into consumer products. Now it's both possible and cheap, and I'd like to see some regulation regarding my rights to purchase a tool. A small number of places are paying at least a little attention and beginning to ban the most egregious cases of this (ex: NJ considering banning car subscriptions with a specific call out to the behavior of BMW around seat heaters). But this is going to become a tidal wave of consumer abuse in the very near future - I can fucking guarantee it. Why would anyone ever sell you a product when they can rent it to you and let their "little green man" be the property manager for free? They won't - not unless they're forced to. And while I think renting can be a useful way to acquire a product - I sure as hell think it shouldn't be the only one.
• UncleEntity 4y ago
  I worry more about some hacker type deciding to ddos all the McDonalds by telling the cars that’s where they need to be. Kind of surprised it hasn’t happened yet honestly.
  • chasd00 4y ago
    > Kind of surprised it hasn’t happened yet honestly. https://interestingengineering.com/culture/hacker-attacked-yandex-taxi-moscow https://interestingengineering.com/culture/hacker-attacked-y...
  • chadlavi 4y ago
    I'm not particularly worried about the well-being of the McDonald's corporation. I'd be more worried, if anything, about some bad actor deciding they want every car on a major interstate to wreck all at once.
    • Beaver117 4y ago
      They could also be used to harm pedestrians
    • ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      > some bad actor deciding they want every car on a major interstate to wreck all at once. like an insurance company?
    • UncleEntity 4y ago
      Yeah, “give us a million dollars or we’ll wreck every car on the highway”. How about a million dollar cruse missile? Deal?
• 20after4 4y ago
  Good luck buying it outright - and even if you do, new cars are all delivered with a bunch of tech that takes away your control and it gets worse every year.
• VLM 4y ago
  Any user interface will be misused, so "click to repo" will mostly be used accidentally in error. The vast majority of cars are not repo'd and as such the vast majority of clicks on the "repo" button will be in error. The customer service rep will be trying to click "x" to close some other website's popups or they thought they were clicking "reset" but that's right next to "repo". Or the new hire is told to click "repo" on every loan with no payment last month; I made no payment last month because I made my final payment two months ago but it hasn't closed out the process. There will be a few high profile stories of cars driving off with newborn babies strapped in the car seat, then the tech will be banned. Weirdly enough by patenting the business method, this makes every car mfgr OTHER than Ford much more appealing, so what we really is patent trolls as a service patenting really bad ideas to make sure nobody can implement them. I don't think Ford's new invention was intended to get me to buy a Toyota. Patenting bad ideas as a weapon is an interesting concept. Other than the obvious fraud issue, what's to stop me from filing a REALLY bad idea patent, then selling the stock short, then drumming up some PR, then closing out my short position at profit? At some point this is inevitable as "the internet" along with "the stock market" and everything else becomes more bot than human.
  • maxerickson 4y ago
    What if they make it take like 2 steps?
• forgetfreeman 4y ago
  Recently minted Car Guy here. Start with Ford or Chevy anything pre-1975, expect to spend 5000-7000 for a running older vehicle in need of maintenance and body work. PArts are ubiquitous and you'll be blown away by how simple engines can be to understand and work on without all of the ECM/emissions-era add-ons under the hood to contend with. Learn to love calling the support line @ JEGS or Summit Racing before ordering parts to confirm your fitment before you pull the trigger. Don't even bother thinking about stepping foot in a modern parts store, they can't help you.
  • Johnny555 4y ago
    you'll be blown away by how simple engines can be to understand and work on without all of the ECM/emissions-era add-ons under the hood to contend with But you’ve also gotta be selfish enough to think that your pollutants don’t matter and that 1970’s era smog wasn’t a big deal. And you have to hope that older cars are still grandfathered in to pollution regulations and they won’t be subject to mileage limits as cars continue to emit fewer (or no) pollutants.
    • forgetfreeman 4y ago
      Oh I bet you're a real treat at parties. You over there pretending the vanishingly small handful of classic cars that still exist and are capable of being driven aren't a rounding error in the context of air pollution in general and global warming specifically? Let me guess, you also think eliminating dairy and meat production would result in a meaningful reduction in global CO2 emissions...
      • Johnny555 4y ago
        I’m not talking about registered classic or antique cars which have mileage or usage restrictions in most states that would prevent it from being a daily driver. And neither was the person you’re replying to that wants to avoid modern cars and keep his on the road indefinitely. And I’m not even talking about CO2 pollution which doesn’t form smog.
• chucksmash 4y ago
  Having trouble thinking what user-facing technology cars have gained recently that I actually need. Backup cameras are nice, my last two cars had them but my current one does not. Life goes on. Heard anecdotally that new cars in US require then now, so I guess next car will probably have one again. Blindspot indicators on side mirrors are nice too, but physically turning and looking is too engrained in me to stop doing. It seems like there has to be a market for something other than what we are getting. I'd like something that benefits from improvements in emissions/gas mileage but doesn't bolt on infotainment or phone integrations or networked everything. Zero interest in lane-assist technology. Preemptively saying no to any O.T.A. updates. I basically want what in 2023 would be considered a work-truck level of utilitarianism but in a form I can use to get my family from A to B, since throwing young kids up front on a bench seat in a work-truck is a no-go. It would be nice if it weren't actively ugly as well, but on this point I am negotiable.
  • chadlavi 4y ago
    I think you probably want a 2017ish Subaru
    • chucksmash 4y ago
      Close. Funnily enough, the last car was a 2014 Subaru we bought in 2021. My spouse drives our kids more, so she staked out the claim on that one though. Maybe the Bronco selling like crazy will convince carmakers to issue "remastered" versions of previous cars, and maybe the remastering won't be "stick a 17inch screen in the center console."
  • kylehotchkiss 4y ago
    adaptive cruise control is another good one
  • Psychlist 4y ago
    There's a lot that can be done by disintegrated systems, too. I put cameras onto a box truck so I had reversing etc, but I used an 8-camera wired security system with video recorder and eSIM for that. The screen was optional but I found one that only had one button (to toggle views) rather than a "command console" type that by its nature gave full control over the security system. Driving around displaying the bumper-height rear camera on the screen was quite handy, normally it's a blind spot of trucks. Likewise the GPS tracking system, I bought a stand-alone navigation system (you need a truck-specific one that you can at the very least type height and weight into so it doesn't direct you down roads you can't fit through), and obviously a separate anti-theft tracker (well, two, because the immobiliser also had one). And of course there was a radio/CD player in the cab, no need to wire that into the one computer to rule them all that modern mobile infotainment systems have. I mean, "computers with wheels" or whatever the transport as a service companies call their devices these days.
• jojobas 4y ago
  They'll just outlaw "dumb" cars. Can't have too much freedom on your hands.
• matheusmoreira 4y ago
  That's the fundamental problem with computers today: we don't own them anymore. They all run the corporation's code now and they're literally everywhere. Funny how quickly an incredibly empowering technology became obscenely oppressive after they take the keys to the machine away from us. Sometimes I wish computers had never been invented.
  • autoexec 4y ago
    I'm glad they were (and I'd say it was inevitable) but I'm sad we haven't defended our rights or our democracy enough to avoid being exploited by corporations.
• alwayslikethis 4y ago
  Any guide I can follow as to how to become a "car guy"? I've long wanted to become one, for precisely the same reason as you, but unfortunately Google is filled by SEO garbage now that I'm struggling to find any general direction.