3 ms·

I haven't framed it that way either but if you're going to be biased based on this single data point, it would make sense to compare it other similar data point

I haven't framed it that way either but if you're going to be biased based on this single data point, it would make sense to compare it other similar data points across all auto manufacturers. My personal feeling is that the existence of this article itself is bias as there are literally hundreds of auto recalls every year and we are spending on awful lot of time on this particularly minor one.

bumby 3y ago
What makes you think I'm biased? In case you missed it, I said I'm also critical of other manufacturers. Pointing out a potential problem does not make someone biased. It seems like you interpret any criticism of Tesla as inherently biased which, ironically, is it's own biased worldview. I think where we differ is that I don't think everything hinges on the word "recall." The article could be titled "2MM Teslas to be fixed OTA to correct non-conformance to legal design standards" It's still true, carries the same connotations, and is completely void of the loaded term you're hung up on.
- wvenable 3y ago
  I'm pointing out that this particular article's existence and discussion is biased. The headline is obvious click bait. The issue is so minor as to not require our interest at all. "All Teslas everywhere to get marginally larger indicator icons to match standards" is not an interesting article. And this article isn't interesting. It's only interesting in contrast to it's headline and that's why we are discussing it.
  - bumby 3y ago
    We can agree that the article is sensationalist and not particularly interesting. I personally don't get hung up on that because it's what I expect. Just like I'm not shocked when a used car dealer describes a vehicle in unscrupulous terms. It's what I expect because it aligns with their incentive structure. But note that you did your own editorializing by using the word "marginally." You've staked a claim that the recall is insignificant. But that view is in direct conflict with the regulators, and it's their opinion that matters.
    - wvenable 3y ago
      It is marginally; they indicators are very tiny bit too small. Regulators operate in a binary -- either something is compliant or not. Those ideas are not in conflict.
      - bumby 3y ago
        The size can be marginally different, while the impact may not be. Just like when material specs are only “marginally” lower and cause a part failure. While measurements are always continuous, failures often are not.
        wvenable 3y ago
        That's true in general. But in this specific case the impact is also continuous because it's a visual indicator.
        bumby 3y ago
        Right, which is why there has to be a definite threshold in the standard. Otherwise, you can just keep making it "marginally" smaller, on down until it's a single pixel, and still claim it's okay. That would mean there's no standard, and every/any UI design is equally valid. Standards exist, in part, to avoid such rules-lawyering by having a consensus on what determines a valid design.
        wvenable 3y ago
        Of course no one is talking about making it continuously smaller. It was just one-time marginally smaller. Literally a tiny mistake. If it had been mistakenly rendered as a single pixel, someone probably would have noticed the issue internally.
        bumby 3y ago
        That misses the point (again). The point is you need some threshold if you’re going to have a standard, or else it’s all subjective and there is no standard. So the standard is 1/8”, and you claim 15/128” is only “marginally” different so it should be allowed. There’s nothing to stop someone from claiming 7/64”, or 15/128” are also only “marginally” non-compliant. You either is or you ain’t compliant, there’s no “kinda pregnant”. So if you think they should be safety standards, there has to be hard thresholds for compliance. And (again) the bigger issue isn’t this particular incident, it’s that it brings into question how they are managing all hard safety requirements if some apparently slip through the cracks.

bumby 3y ago

What makes you think I'm biased? In case you missed it, I said I'm also critical of other manufacturers. Pointing out a potential problem does not make someone biased. It seems like you interpret any criticism of Tesla as inherently biased which, ironically, is it's own biased worldview. I think where we differ is that I don't think everything hinges on the word "recall." The article could be titled "2MM Teslas to be fixed OTA to correct non-conformance to legal design standards" It's still true, carries the same connotations, and is completely void of the loaded term you're hung up on.

wvenable 3y ago
I'm pointing out that this particular article's existence and discussion is biased. The headline is obvious click bait. The issue is so minor as to not require our interest at all. "All Teslas everywhere to get marginally larger indicator icons to match standards" is not an interesting article. And this article isn't interesting. It's only interesting in contrast to it's headline and that's why we are discussing it.
- bumby 3y ago
  We can agree that the article is sensationalist and not particularly interesting. I personally don't get hung up on that because it's what I expect. Just like I'm not shocked when a used car dealer describes a vehicle in unscrupulous terms. It's what I expect because it aligns with their incentive structure. But note that you did your own editorializing by using the word "marginally." You've staked a claim that the recall is insignificant. But that view is in direct conflict with the regulators, and it's their opinion that matters.
  - wvenable 3y ago
    It is marginally; they indicators are very tiny bit too small. Regulators operate in a binary -- either something is compliant or not. Those ideas are not in conflict.
    - bumby 3y ago
      The size can be marginally different, while the impact may not be. Just like when material specs are only “marginally” lower and cause a part failure. While measurements are always continuous, failures often are not.
      - wvenable 3y ago
        That's true in general. But in this specific case the impact is also continuous because it's a visual indicator.
        bumby 3y ago
        Right, which is why there has to be a definite threshold in the standard. Otherwise, you can just keep making it "marginally" smaller, on down until it's a single pixel, and still claim it's okay. That would mean there's no standard, and every/any UI design is equally valid. Standards exist, in part, to avoid such rules-lawyering by having a consensus on what determines a valid design.
        wvenable 3y ago
        Of course no one is talking about making it continuously smaller. It was just one-time marginally smaller. Literally a tiny mistake. If it had been mistakenly rendered as a single pixel, someone probably would have noticed the issue internally.
        bumby 3y ago
        That misses the point (again). The point is you need some threshold if you’re going to have a standard, or else it’s all subjective and there is no standard. So the standard is 1/8”, and you claim 15/128” is only “marginally” different so it should be allowed. There’s nothing to stop someone from claiming 7/64”, or 15/128” are also only “marginally” non-compliant. You either is or you ain’t compliant, there’s no “kinda pregnant”. So if you think they should be safety standards, there has to be hard thresholds for compliance. And (again) the bigger issue isn’t this particular incident, it’s that it brings into question how they are managing all hard safety requirements if some apparently slip through the cracks.