4 ms·

I would be fascinated to entertain arguments for how the future write life of a flash memory chip, meant for storing drive-time telemetry in a wrecked car, meri

I would be fascinated to entertain arguments for how the future write life of a flash memory chip, meant for storing drive-time telemetry in a wrecked car, merits care for preservation.

1970-01-01 1y ago
Many parts, especially non-moving parts, hold value after a wreck. It does not make sense to keep the file on the disk for the lifetime of the part. The part is most likely going to be resold as used. The part will have a shorter life if the big crash data file is left on disk.
- throwanem 1y ago
  I didn't know Tesla authorized any resale of parts from any of their vehicles, used, crashed, or otherwise! Certainly I had no idea they built support for it into the system software. Was that a recent change?
  - 1970-01-01 1y ago
    https://Service.tesla.com https://Service.tesla.com has been online for I think 2 years
    - throwanem 1y ago
      Oh, I'm sure it has. Owners tell a different story about what the site is worth. Of course, Apple actually "innovated" that one. But do you seriously mean to suggest Tesla engineer their cars to discard potentially dispositive crash analysis, in order to support their own resale of junkyard pulls?
      - 1970-01-01 1y ago
        What's the alternative? Keep it on there for the next owner to view?
        throwanem 1y ago
        Okay, let's recap. Your implicit claim is that there exists a resale market for wrecked Teslas, meriting such product and engineering interest from the company that the car's data storage, in the immediate wake of a disabling collision, preemptively and correctly destroys information of use to crash investigators, so that the company can cannibalize the wrecked hulk for items which Tesla then goes on to sell as new OEM repair parts. Isn't it embarrassing to go to all this? It certainly seems like it should feel that way, for as degrading as it looks from the outside. If you can explain it, I would like to understand what makes it seem worth your while.
        1970-01-01 1y ago
        The data was not preemptively destroyed. It was uploaded and then deleted. The implications for deleting are obvious. The part can be sold and reused after the crash data is erased. The part should not be sold and reused until that information is erased because it contains a large file and this file will likely contain death footage.
        throwanem 1y ago
        > The data was not preemptively destroyed. It was uploaded and then deleted. The implications for deleting are obvious. The part can be sold and reused after the crash data is erased. The part should not be sold and reused until that information is erased because it contains a large file and this file will likely contain death footage. Okay, then your contention appears that Tesla is content with not bothering at all to refurbish the junkyard pulls it sells through OEM channels as OEM repair parts, thus denying themselves any opportunity to manually wipe sensitive data - potentially to include video of the prior owner's violent death! - as part of any remanufacturing or even basic QC process. But - as has now been made a matter of public record, in consequence of their fighting and losing this wrongful death case - Tesla do make sure to keep a copy for themselves, one of an apparently large collection of same which they went far out of their way for years to keep anyone else from discovering even exists. Is there anything you care to add to that? Feel free to take your time. You've said quite a lot already.

I would be fascinated to entertain arguments for how the future write life of a flash memory chip, meant for storing drive-time telemetry in a wrecked car, merits care for preservation.

1970-01-01 1y ago

Many parts, especially non-moving parts, hold value after a wreck. It does not make sense to keep the file on the disk for the lifetime of the part. The part is most likely going to be resold as used. The part will have a shorter life if the big crash data file is left on disk.

throwanem 1y ago
I didn't know Tesla authorized any resale of parts from any of their vehicles, used, crashed, or otherwise! Certainly I had no idea they built support for it into the system software. Was that a recent change?
- 1970-01-01 1y ago
  https://Service.tesla.com https://Service.tesla.com has been online for I think 2 years
  - throwanem 1y ago
    Oh, I'm sure it has. Owners tell a different story about what the site is worth. Of course, Apple actually "innovated" that one. But do you seriously mean to suggest Tesla engineer their cars to discard potentially dispositive crash analysis, in order to support their own resale of junkyard pulls?
    - 1970-01-01 1y ago
      What's the alternative? Keep it on there for the next owner to view?
      - throwanem 1y ago
        Okay, let's recap. Your implicit claim is that there exists a resale market for wrecked Teslas, meriting such product and engineering interest from the company that the car's data storage, in the immediate wake of a disabling collision, preemptively and correctly destroys information of use to crash investigators, so that the company can cannibalize the wrecked hulk for items which Tesla then goes on to sell as new OEM repair parts. Isn't it embarrassing to go to all this? It certainly seems like it should feel that way, for as degrading as it looks from the outside. If you can explain it, I would like to understand what makes it seem worth your while.
        1970-01-01 1y ago
        The data was not preemptively destroyed. It was uploaded and then deleted. The implications for deleting are obvious. The part can be sold and reused after the crash data is erased. The part should not be sold and reused until that information is erased because it contains a large file and this file will likely contain death footage.
        throwanem 1y ago
        > The data was not preemptively destroyed. It was uploaded and then deleted. The implications for deleting are obvious. The part can be sold and reused after the crash data is erased. The part should not be sold and reused until that information is erased because it contains a large file and this file will likely contain death footage. Okay, then your contention appears that Tesla is content with not bothering at all to refurbish the junkyard pulls it sells through OEM channels as OEM repair parts, thus denying themselves any opportunity to manually wipe sensitive data - potentially to include video of the prior owner's violent death! - as part of any remanufacturing or even basic QC process. But - as has now been made a matter of public record, in consequence of their fighting and losing this wrongful death case - Tesla do make sure to keep a copy for themselves, one of an apparently large collection of same which they went far out of their way for years to keep anyone else from discovering even exists. Is there anything you care to add to that? Feel free to take your time. You've said quite a lot already.