4 ms·
>Because it is on-brand with Musk behavior. It really isn't. I said as much in the previous thread, but the part that elevates this past the typical petty Musk
by slg 1y ago
>Because it is on-brand with Musk behavior.
It really isn't. I said as much in the previous thread, but the part that elevates this past the typical petty Musk behavior was the accusation that the car was bricked while it was being driven. That goes way past anything Tesla or Musk has done before and could easily have killed someone. Doing that doesn't just require an asshole CEO, it would require incompetence of both the legal and technical folks at the company who would actually implement this type of haphazard remote disabling.
- AlotOfReading 1y agoPretty clear this was faked, but continuing the previous discussion, a vehicle lock doesn't have to be as dangerous as you're thinking. I've implemented limp modes before and the easiest way is to prevent acceleration to over a certain speed without enabling regen. If you're already at highway speeds, you'll simply coast down to the limp speed and have plenty of time to pull over. I suspect that wouldn't fall afoul of FMVSS either, but it's never come up for me.
- slg 1y ago>Pretty clear this was faked Yet you were saying the opposite in that previous thread. >I've implemented limp modes before and the easiest way is to prevent acceleration to over a certain speed without enabling regen. If you're already at highway speeds, you'll simply coast down to the limp speed and have plenty of time to pull over. The video had the car stopped in the middle of traffic, so this wasn't the accusation being made. You are creating a hypothetical scenario in which the accusations are plausible rather than actually engaging with the accusations as they were made.