3 ms·
All true, but you have to trust the organization(s) that manufactured your bike. And unless you’re paying $Ks of dollars the manufacturing quality is sadly goin
by xixixao 3y ago
All true, but you have to trust the organization(s) that manufactured your bike. And unless you’re paying $Ks of dollars the manufacturing quality is sadly going down.
My main point is: You gotta trust someone. If you trust no one you should move out to a remote uninhabited forest.
- chubot 3y agoNo, it's not all or nothing. Good engineering is simple, relies on less, and trusts less -- it doesn't require trusting zero. I also addressed the difference in the comment -- this type of software has no end-user / operator repair, and the costs of failure are great. I know how a bike works, and I can repair it. (Time-tested materials like steel frames are also nice.) I don't know how the OneWheel works. In theory, I might be able to read some of the source code, but that counts for very little. It's certainly more complex than a bike. It also hasn't been tested over a long period of time. Well it looks like we've had a test... I haven't touched a OneWheel since I first saw them 5 years ago, and now it seems like I have some good info about them. The test of time works!
- Ylpertnodi 3y ago>And unless you’re paying $Ks of dollars the manufacturing quality is sadly going down. Nope, especially if you’re paying $Ks of dollars the manufacturing quality is sadly going down.
- ClumsyPilot 3y agoTotally not, I can take a bicycle into my workshop, check if is made of steel or aluminium, inspect quality of hardware, I can test quality of a weld, hit it with a hammer, etc.. You can't see source code of onewheel, or take out the firmware and run it in isolation. Software producing companies have the privileges of being protected from inspection, but responsibility of a guy assembling Ikea furniture.