this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2023
467 points (94.8% liked)
Technology
59588 readers
3168 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The reason I didn't understand your comment is that your examples just proved my point - safety critical items WERE NOT VETTED correctly. What makes you think the auto manufacturers are being careful with software? They aren't, or are doing the bare minimum. I listed multiple software issues with various manufacturer that never should have happened.
Look, I'm not a luddite. I like having nav and satellite radio and all of that. But adding a game to the already questionable software development in a car is insane. Cars are a safety critical item and everything added to them should be carefully considered and thoroughly vetted.
Someone compared it to a cell phone, but cell phones aren't 3,000 lbs of heavy machinery barreling down a highway at 70 mph. A phone needing to reset or whatever is a minor inconvenience compared to what could go wrong with a serious software bug in a car. I'm not sure why people would argue against this, it seems self-evident. I provided examples.
What, you're expecting the car to explode if somebody plays a Netflix movie or video game while waiting for someone to come out of the store?
And again, if I wanted to, I can make the same argument you just did (carefulness) about the hydraulics that hold the rear hatch door up, or the tires that were on my SUV.
Insane? That's the word you're going to use, really? Seems overly extreme.
I wouldn't disagree with that paragraph in general, but, it doesn't mean not used.
It's just a computer. Asking for cars never to use computers going forward in the future is a non-starter, that's not how Humanity works.
Would your concerns go away if somebody was doing the exact same things I've mentioned with a laptop, instead of using the computer built into the vehicle?
(And in case it has to be explicitly said, I'm speaking towards while the car is not being driven.)
Nope.
I don't know how I can explain this better, so I'll summarize.
Cars are safety-critical items, being they weigh 3000+ lbs and travel at high speed and can kill people when something goes wrong.
It's critical that the software that controls the drivetrain, brakes, etc. be as perfect as it possibly can be because of the first point.
Adding more features increases the likelihood of something going wrong.
I don't understand why this is even an argument. It's common sense. Why would anyone disagree with those three points? (Unless they're the reason vehicle deaths are up...maybe they just don't care and see their car like a cheap appliance and ignore the "potential to kill" factor.)
Your comments about the hatch and the tires only prove my point: Auto manufacturers already make plenty of mistakes on things that have existed for decades, things that should be solved problems by now. Why would software be any different? They're going to fuck things up there, too. And already have; I gave examples before.
More complex software means more bugs; anyone in software development or testing can tell you that. These are known facts. What if that game has some bug in it that lets hackers take over the brakes remotely? Unlikely, sure. Impossible? Definitely not - again, look at the Uconnect 8.4 issue in FCA vehicles a few years back; a remote attacker could break into the car and do just that. It's an extremely scary bug. Fortunately they were white hat and FCA actually listened to them and worked with them to patch the bugs, but what would have happened if it hadn't been white hats that found it? Or the manufacturer didn't care to listen, as often happens with software vulnerabilities?
No one would accept a computer program that runs an X-ray machine overdosing people (which has happened). It's the same thing. The FDA would hopefully never approve an X-ray machine that has Tetris on it, either, for the same reasons we shouldn't accept it in cars.
The advantages of computer control are huge, we're getting more mileage and more power out of smaller engines all the time. I'm not recommending we get rid of computers in cars. I'm saying it's imperative that any additional features are weighed against the benefit. Playing Tetris on a dashboard screen is not a useful feature in a car that can't be easily handled by the smartphone you almost certainly also own.
I don't think there's any more to be gained by discussing this further. I can't make it any clearer. Good day.
No one is arguing this point.
You're making an assumption, an incorrect assumption, and you're arguing a strawman.
As someone whose career was software development, and who worked on critical mission devices, I'm aware of the importance of the software working properly, and I still stand by my point.
Nothing you described would cause failure when the vehicles parked and not being driven, just because you're using the onboard computer.
Hell, even when driven, having the passenger watching Netflix movie on the monitor will not cause the vehicle to crash and kill them (notice I said passenger, not driver).
Or are you also advocating the removal of any graphic map displays and GPS, bluetooth music software, etc., that's are in computerized vehicles as well, and which is actually using when the vehicle is driven?
Cars are already computerized. What you are arguing for hasn't been a case for many years.
Before you go, I'd love to hear your opinion on the last point I made, about cars already being computerized and having features for many years, that you would deem as being hazardous to have?
I have already addressed that point twice. Why do you keep ignoring it? Some improvements are good.
I understand the game can be played only while parked. But guess what? That software is in the car all the time. It's another place there could be a bug that allows access to vital systems. It's another place where there could be some weird interaction with other systems in unintended ways.
I don't understand why you keep ignoring that point. A software developer should understand the issue better than most people. I've given example after example of why we should be careful about what we put in cars and weigh the benefits against the risks. You refuse to acknowledge that there might even be an issue.
I can only hope when this shit fails, it doesn't kill me.
Noticed you ignored my whole point of cars already being computerized for many years, and my question to you ....
You've got to be trolling. I'll quote my comments about that, then I will block you. You continue to ignore the things I say and act like I haven't responded several times. READ.