Hacker News Reader

Comment by missosoup | Hacker News Reader

If it's a user facing feature. And it fails catastrophically if some preconditions aren't met. And it doesn't have the ability to verify those preconditions. Then allowing users to invoke it is probably not user stupidity. It's just poor design.

The same topic is being explored in the 737 MAX clusterfuck where Boeing failed to provide sufficient safeguards OR sufficient training for non-expert users to manage catastrophic failure. People are stupid, yes. But you can't blame people being stupid as an excuse for insufficient safety engineering, just like you can't blame drag force being proportional to the square of the velocity. These are just the constraints we have to engineer around.

View on HN

True! I have the impression that Tesla is trying to "innovate" itself out of the corner they are finding themselves in. Already said multiple times, but there are valid reasons why the automotive sector is working the way it is. Sure, as everywhere a lot of stuff is just there because it was always there. Go ahead and brake that. But understand first which ones can be ignored and which ones not.

Kind of worked for SpaceX by ignoring all the political bullshit in aerospace. I'm slowly wondering whether that was luck or intention, so.

Just how the latest Tesla features ever became road legal is beyond my understanding so.

Interesting comment and one that conflicts with what most automakers are saying in regards to where the industry is going.

This thinking is what may cause many automakers to fail.

https://www.automotiveworld.com/articles/is-the-auto-industr...

A lot of stuff is just there because it was always there. Go ahead and brake that. But understand first which ones can be ignored and which ones not.

Chesterton’s Fence:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.

—G.K. Chesterton, “The Thing,” 1929

Tesla vehicles are the safest ever made - I'd say allow Tesla to innovate away from whatever stagnancy the status quo auto manufacturers have allowed. User education is part of good design - and perhaps driver tests will need to start including proper use of such systems. They're road legal likely because it's innovative and it hasn't been discussed nor laws written yet - it takes time for the regulatory processes to work.

> Tesla vehicles are the safest ever made

Citation needed.

I mean, I guess I can clarify that they're safest mass consumer vehicle?

I'll let you read through these links to decide where you stand:

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1124439_nhtsa-to-tesla-...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/07/business/tesla-model-3-safety...

...

It sounds like the regulatory body doesn't like that Tesla is claiming they got a 5.4 rating out of 5, as they say they don't give out higher than a 5 rating - and it sounds like Tesla is using public data points to calculate that 5.4. We'll have to wait to see if this goes to court to see if Tesla's methods for stating their 5.4/5 rating is unreasonable - or if the guidelines perhaps are if they "cap" what rating a vehicle can reach based on comparable data; as Tesla states in one of those articles alone, ~40% of vehicles have a 5-star rating - so they argue it's important to be more specific to allow consumers to better differentiate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com