3 ms·
> It’s better that a mat was designed in a dangerous way vs a production line mistake? That is similar to saying a simple bug is worse than an architectural fla
by chollida1 3y ago
> It’s better that a mat was designed in a dangerous way vs a production line mistake? That is similar to saying a simple bug is worse than an architectural flaw that no one caught at design time. Far more eyes are on the design flaw vs a production bug.
:) I think you're missing my point, or I 've failed to explain it clearly.
A design flaw is bad, but we can't eliminate those. According to this article an assembly line employee went rouge and introduced a change without telling anyone.
If the article is correct then clearly these two things aren't even near comparable. We expect design flaws and adapt, we don't expect employees to go rouge and change the design without telling anyone.
Now the article or Tesla could be lying here but this is the facts as we know them.
Does that help clear things up for you?
I also dont' think you deserved the downvotes I saw you got for just misunderstanding. Sorry that happend to you!
- bitexploder 3y agoI don't believe I misunderstand anything. This would be an interesting case study. It is very convenient to blame an employee "going rogue" for a dangerous issue like this. The design wasn't even changed. They just used a lubricant (soap?) to slide it on. This overall points out the immaturity in Tesla's manufacturing process if changes like this can happen and then occur or affect every vehicle of a particular type produced, does it not? Overall, it still seems like a "below the line" change. These can still be quite impactful (see: memory corruption bugs leading to compromise and functional exploits). But it is still more akin to a bug or production flaw than a design flaw.