3 ms·

It's the remedy: "Manufacturers are required to fix the problem by repairing it, replacing it, offering a refund, or in rare cases repurchasing the vehicle." T

It's the remedy: "Manufacturers are required to fix the problem by repairing it, replacing it, offering a refund, or in rare cases repurchasing the vehicle." This required the manufacturer to "recall" the vehicle physically to be repaired, replaced, or returned. That's why they used that word. But clearly that isn't needed for all "recalls" anymore. For an over-the-air software update, the NHTSA should find a better word that doesn't imply the need to recall the vehicle somewhere.

bumby 3y ago
I definitely get it, but I just think it's being overly pedantic to try and make the point. The meanings of words change with the culture and I don't think this is an exception. English if rife with examples of colloquial uses that depart from their original meanings. The word "awful" derives from "inspiring awe." "Fathom" used to mean "to encircle with one's arms." "Myriad" used to mean, very specifically, 10,000 instances of an item. "Hussy" used to mean housewife. Etc. etc. In this era, I think most people assume "recall" to mean "a required fix" not necessarily "a trip to the car dealership."
- wvenable 3y ago
  I think this entire topic proves your point wrong. The very top comment is exclaiming how insignificant this is compared to the headline. All the conversation here is a debate of this very issue in one way or another. We wouldn't even be talking about this at all if the word "recall" wasn't used. If it was just a called "a required over-the-air fix" it wouldn't have made it on to HN.
  - bumby 3y ago
    How do you know that interpretation isn't biased by the HN audience? I would be careful overgeneralizing from the opinions on this forum. I read that initial comment as "Meh, the fix isn't a big deal," which is different than "the recall is a non-issue." Just because it's an easy fix doesn't negate the need for the fix.
    - wvenable 3y ago
      It a half-a-point font-size difference is a big issue to you then we have very different ideas of what a big issue is. I'm not arguing that it isn't incorrect or that it doesn't require a fix but I would argue that the moment either one of us decided to comment it already has taken far more of our consideration and attention than it should. And it's all because of the word "Recall". > How do you know that interpretation isn't biased by the HN audience? It is objectively a small issue and the fact that the HN audience is likely better able to sniff that out due to their technical background only strengthens my argument.
      - bumby 3y ago
        If you’ve ever worked in human factors engineering, seemingly small things can make a big difference. But your comment is missing the forest for the trees IMO. The “big issue” is that Tesla missed well-established and regulated standards. It brings into question what other standardized issues fall through process gaps.
        wvenable 3y ago
        Major car manufacturers have dozens to hundreds of recalls a year. Some serious and some as minor is a missing some pages in the manual. Tesla is by-far not the highest on the list of recalls. Sometimes minor mistakes happen because they're minor. The assumption that this minor issue points to major issues is just not supported by the evidence. Now that I've looked into the hundreds of recalls other manufacturers have ever yeary it makes me wonder even more why this particularly minor one is such a big issue that we are discussing it here.
        bumby 3y ago
        Again, this misses the point. A better statement would speak to how many of those recalls pertain to well-established regulations that were not implemented by the manufacturer. I drew that distinction earlier when I wrote of recalls that relate to non-standardized issues. This was a recall about a highly standardized requirement that was not implemented. So the question is why wasn’t it implemented? Lack of competence/ignorance of the requirements? Lack of quality control? A designer unilaterally deciding the requirements didn’t matter?

bumby 3y ago

I definitely get it, but I just think it's being overly pedantic to try and make the point. The meanings of words change with the culture and I don't think this is an exception. English if rife with examples of colloquial uses that depart from their original meanings. The word "awful" derives from "inspiring awe." "Fathom" used to mean "to encircle with one's arms." "Myriad" used to mean, very specifically, 10,000 instances of an item. "Hussy" used to mean housewife. Etc. etc. In this era, I think most people assume "recall" to mean "a required fix" not necessarily "a trip to the car dealership."

wvenable 3y ago
I think this entire topic proves your point wrong. The very top comment is exclaiming how insignificant this is compared to the headline. All the conversation here is a debate of this very issue in one way or another. We wouldn't even be talking about this at all if the word "recall" wasn't used. If it was just a called "a required over-the-air fix" it wouldn't have made it on to HN.
- bumby 3y ago
  How do you know that interpretation isn't biased by the HN audience? I would be careful overgeneralizing from the opinions on this forum. I read that initial comment as "Meh, the fix isn't a big deal," which is different than "the recall is a non-issue." Just because it's an easy fix doesn't negate the need for the fix.
  - wvenable 3y ago
    It a half-a-point font-size difference is a big issue to you then we have very different ideas of what a big issue is. I'm not arguing that it isn't incorrect or that it doesn't require a fix but I would argue that the moment either one of us decided to comment it already has taken far more of our consideration and attention than it should. And it's all because of the word "Recall". > How do you know that interpretation isn't biased by the HN audience? It is objectively a small issue and the fact that the HN audience is likely better able to sniff that out due to their technical background only strengthens my argument.
    - bumby 3y ago
      If you’ve ever worked in human factors engineering, seemingly small things can make a big difference. But your comment is missing the forest for the trees IMO. The “big issue” is that Tesla missed well-established and regulated standards. It brings into question what other standardized issues fall through process gaps.
      - wvenable 3y ago
        Major car manufacturers have dozens to hundreds of recalls a year. Some serious and some as minor is a missing some pages in the manual. Tesla is by-far not the highest on the list of recalls. Sometimes minor mistakes happen because they're minor. The assumption that this minor issue points to major issues is just not supported by the evidence. Now that I've looked into the hundreds of recalls other manufacturers have ever yeary it makes me wonder even more why this particularly minor one is such a big issue that we are discussing it here.
        bumby 3y ago
        Again, this misses the point. A better statement would speak to how many of those recalls pertain to well-established regulations that were not implemented by the manufacturer. I drew that distinction earlier when I wrote of recalls that relate to non-standardized issues. This was a recall about a highly standardized requirement that was not implemented. So the question is why wasn’t it implemented? Lack of competence/ignorance of the requirements? Lack of quality control? A designer unilaterally deciding the requirements didn’t matter?