←back to thread

650 points clcaev | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.549s | source
1. Noumenon72 ◴[] No.45063996[source]
They should be saving every crash as a unit test to ensure it never happens again.
replies(2): >>45065502 #>>45067030 #
2. inetknght ◴[] No.45065502[source]
More than a unit test -- a whole system test. But, as a software engineer with experience in robotics and drones with a focus on software safety, yes I 100% agree.

The unfortunate thing is that the state of the industry (or, my experience in it) currently is not set up to be able to do that cheaply nor at scale. Imagine you have tens of thousands of various unique problem scenarios to run through, and some might take several minutes of simulation to run the test. Even if your release cadence is slow, but especially if you have continuous deployment with dozens of micro-releases every day: how exactly do you cheaply scale such that simulation testing doesn't become a massive bottleneck?

3. MetaWhirledPeas ◴[] No.45067030[source]
They should be bending over backwards to ensure they ALWAYS present the crash data even when it inconveniences them. Take the lawsuit "L" but boost public trust. It's worth noting that since this 2019 case I've not seen any legal cases where Tesla did not provide crash data.

I think there is a reasonable chance it was honestly mishandled. When considering which parts of the software impact the driving experience, logs are way down the list. They should do better though, and if they intentionally misled anyone they should be punished.

For any company to be significantly liable for a lane-keep crash, the behavior would have to be pretty egregious, IMO. All sorts of bad things can happen with most driving enhancements on any car, with common features such as overdrive, cruise control, or powerful engines, or even with non-features like manual transmissions. The liability for all of this should fall on the shoulders of the driver, most of the time, or we'd never get any cars on the road.