←back to thread

559 points cxr | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.522s | source
Show context
WarOnPrivacy ◴[] No.44476845[source]
I drive a Toyota that is nearly old enough to run for US Senator. Every control in the car is visible, clearly labeled and is distinct to the touch - at all times. The action isn't impeded by routine activity or maintenance (ex:battery change).

Because it can be trivially duplicated, this is minimally capable engineering. Yet automakers everywhere lack even this level of competence. By reasonable measure, they are poor at their job.

replies(13): >>44476881 #>>44476892 #>>44477024 #>>44477518 #>>44477594 #>>44477656 #>>44478016 #>>44478375 #>>44480180 #>>44480505 #>>44481914 #>>44482166 #>>44482519 #
makeitdouble ◴[] No.44477518[source]
I'm sympathetic , but think it's a disservice to the designers to present it like that:

> Every control in the car is visible

No. And that would be horrible.

Every control _critically needed while driving_ is visible and accessible. Controls that matter less can be smaller and more convoluted, or straight hidden.

The levers to adjust seat high and positions are hidden while still accessible. The latch to open the car good can (should ?) be less accessible and can be harder to find.

There are a myriad of subtle and opinionated choices to make the interface efficient. There's nothing trivial or really "simple" about that design process, and IMHO brushing over that is part of what leads us to the current situation where car makers just ignore these considerations.

replies(5): >>44478685 #>>44480195 #>>44480980 #>>44481296 #>>44481300 #
ringeryless ◴[] No.44478685[source]
i disagree. i only want minimalist functionality and therefore it's reasonable to have ALL controls always present and physical. someone needs to have the courage to say no to features that will get people killed. a simple gun doesn't jam in the heat of battle. u my 1989 Toyota corolla has manual windows and that is great.
replies(3): >>44479010 #>>44480406 #>>44481179 #
freddie_mercury ◴[] No.44479010[source]
Simple guns jam all the time bro. Even 100 year old super simple designs jam.
replies(1): >>44480194 #
bluGill ◴[] No.44480194[source]
All guns can jam. However a simpler design has less potential to jam.
replies(2): >>44482172 #>>44482222 #
okanat ◴[] No.44482172[source]
I think this is a bad analogy made with good intentions. Guns jam because the physical nature of the material is simply degradation. You need to actively fight against it by producing higher precision guns, use more advanced / tougher materials and come up with mechanisms that would reduce the possibility. That's far from simple.
replies(1): >>44484540 #
freddie_mercury ◴[] No.44484540[source]
But the badness of the analogy highlights the flaw in reasoning.

They want to go to war with a simple design? Sure, they get a Lee-Enfield bolt action rifle. They fight against people with EF88 Austeyr.

They will die and lose the war.

Longer range, higher rate of fire, lighter, grenade launcher mount, scopes, more accurate, higher lethality, etc, etc.

Simple design so it doesnt't jam doesn't mean you've maximised all the other areas that are important for winning a war.

replies(1): >>44489980 #
1. bluGill ◴[] No.44489980[source]
I fully agree with this. There is a reason long range sharp shooters use simple bolt action guns, while the vast majority of an army uses much more complex guns. A simple bolt action also happens to be the most precise gun we can make (a single shot musket would be simpler, but it wouldn't be more accurate and loading it would be a pain). You choose the best tool for the job. Properly cared for modern guns don't jam very often, and improperly cared for guns jam too often no matter how simple they are.