HN user

DKnoll3

26 karma
Posts0
Comments41
View on HN
No posts found.

Well, glad you asked.

The part that goes wrong is that you don't have to view a Privacy Policy behind a tiny poorly colored hyperlink before clicking "I Agree".

I was always under the impression that the reason you couldn't undo was purely to encourage putting thought into your votes, instead of clicking after the first sentence, getting through the rest of the post, and looking to take your upvote back.

Guess I was wrong. I'd say 30 seconds should be enough, with this thought in mind =]

Yeah, tell that to the guy who wrote "ISIS beer fund" on his PayPal transfer to his mate that we have an "independent judicial system".

No - we have an outsourced judicial system, where Facebook and Google will spy on you more than the USGov, the bank will control your money more than the Government, and the insurance company will have you in an autonomous car faster than a mandate will. That's modern neoliberalism.

A Tragic Loss 10 years ago

As someone very excited about this space, I unfortunately have to agree that Tesla is playing fast and loose with autonomous safety (and more importantly, public opinion!) to be first to market. You can't be half in and half out, which is what these "assist" features are.

They're adding new features to inadequate/improperly configured hardware for what they're asking the car to do, and waiving away all liability for stupid peoples' actions with disclaimers (always be ready to take over).

Whether that's right or wrong is really subjective, especially when you take natural selection into account.

Tesla's (only!) radar sensor is located at the bottom of the bumper, if I'm not mistaken. Compare this with Google's, which is located in the arguably correct position, the roof. Also compare other manufacturers' solutions that are utilizing 2-3 radar sensors, as well as sonar.

https://forums.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/model-s-will-be-...

Actually, that's a great example, glad you brought it up. That's not less secure, and very similar to this situation.

That technology is being hailed as "more secure" because it requires you to insert, and type your secret PIN, correct?

1. In many cases, you can still use it online, just as before, without insertion+PIN.

2. Most stores will still allow you to swipe it, just as before. Some retailers aren't even allowing insertion yet, even though the hardware is there.

3. Even IF everyone required you to insert and type your PIN, you are actually less secure because the little bit you "consented to" when "upgrading" to chip + pin says that card issuers are less liable for fraudulent charges and other problems. http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/understanding-EM...

And it's still not a perfect analogy, because chip+pin isn't going to force me to subscribe to a monthly or yearly fee to use my bank card in the future, like Windows 10 assuredly will. It also doesn't implement additional technology for my bank to spy on me and my activity.

So - who's really safer?

The problem is that product changes are being rolled in with/disguised as security updates. That should be wrong, and while I'm normally on the side of less mandates - this misleading behavior should be addressed by lawmakers.