Technology

59575 readers

3075 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

435

YouTube’s Loaded With EV Disinformation (cleantechnica.com)

submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

119 comments fedilink hide all child comments

YouTube’s Loaded With EV Disinformation::When it comes to articles on a website like CleanTechnica, there are two kinds of articles. First, there are the ... [continued]

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

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.

No one is arguing this 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.

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.

I don’t think there’s any more to be gained by discussing this further. I can’t make it any clearer. Good day.

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?

[–] limelight79@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I don’t understand why you keep ignoring that point.

Noticed you ignored my whole point of cars already being computerized for many years, and my question to you ....

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.