Your complaints are pretty much what I would expect to see. They're not without merit, but as you say an attentive driver does cover the weaknesses. In its current stages, as long as the driver is doing what they're supposed to be doing behind the wheel it can only be an improvement. We know people are misusing the feature, but we also know people do a number of dangerous things behind the wheel without it as well.
It's not misnamed, regardless of what you want to think. It's very aptly named. As in, it more or less does what the feature it's named after does for airplanes. Further, the feature is explained to people when they buy the cars. So, they know(in as much as anyone knows something they're told) the limitations of the feature.
It's designed to operate in conjunction with the driver, at this point in time. The old adage, the whole greater than the sum of its parts, applies. Between you and autopilot, less mistakes are bound to happen.
Autopilot requires the driver to be attentive. The driver should be stopping the vehicle in those cases. The car didn't actively seek out hitting the fire truck, it just didn't detect it and stop. Absolute worst case, autopilot never detects anything ever and we're no worse off than just having a driver behind the wheel. As soon as the autopilot detects and prevents any potential accident, we're now safer with than without.
Unless the autopilot feature is actively instigating accidents, it's impossible for it not to be safer. Anything above and beyond relying solely on driver's response is an improvement, even if only minimally.
There is nothing inherently bad about HTC phones. They're as up to spec and as well built as the competition. There is some give and take on specific features, but overall on par. The only real problem is that they just don't have the exposure they used to.
I bought an iPhone X, knowing what I was getting into. But, there are things about using a device that you won't know just from reading. The iPhone X is a great device and if it wasn't for a few minor "issues" it would be the phone for me. It had solid performance and better battery life. It gets timely updates. However, when the screen is off it is militant about preventing background activity in apps. I prefer to allow more at a cost to the battery. Carplay UI and app options aren't as good as android auto, at least for my preferences.
It wouldn't be surprising at all to see someone try going from Android to Apple and decide it isn't for them. As for going back to Android, I took only a small hit selling off my iPhone. The money after fees was enough to buy the replacement outright. No real concern of getting my money's worth.
The onus is on the driver to understand the vehicle they're driving. A lot of newer cars have features that aren't in most older cars. Lane assist, brake assist, and like all require some level of understanding from the driver to know how they operate. The driver is still responsible for anything that happens because they didn't understand. As long as the company is making available the information needed to safely use the features, it's not the company's fault.
It isn't pedantry though. The word Autopilot is used to imply a reduction in human interaction and not a removal of it, even when using it as an idiom. So, why are we defending people for thinking it's different in this particular case?
I wouldn't argue against it still being a risk on the highway, but I wouldn't consider those potential events enough to go from simple to complex. They would be certainly be dangerous at highway speeds, but not overly complex.
Yes, their website says it has full self-driving hardware. It then IMMEDIATELY says that it isn't currently full self-driving and full self-driving will be enabled in the future via updates.
In all honesty, if it isn't your car and you don't understand how something operates don't turn it on. It isn't Tesla's, or the owner's, responsibility to make sure any and every other remotely possible driver be aware of the functionality of the vehicle. That doesn't mean parents shouldn't teach their kids if they hand over the keys, but the driver is still responsible for what they choose to do while driving. If they choose to use a feature they're not familiar with, it's on them.
Their statement doesn't imply they'd be able to hack the switch remotely. It merely states that if a network can be hacked using a wired thermostat, it could be hacked using a Switch. That being the case, your Switch becomes a potential vector for attack on your network. Sure, they would need to gain physical access to the device.. but that isn't impossible. The likelihood of it happening to your average person is low, but if you were someone of import then it becomes a more realistic concern.
I don't know why your average person using a Switch would be overly concerned about the security of it. But, somehow in the off chance that you're in a position where you do.. technically this would be a risk. It's better to suggest not using it, and then letting the user make the choice on their own.
The car is designed to assist the driver, with the driver paying full attention. Unless the car is directly acting to cause the accident, despite the active intent of the driver, the problem is on the driver.
Heaven forbid we actually hold drivers accountable for their actions behind the wheel. If the driver isn't paying attention when they're supposed to be, it is the driver's fault.
A company saying they'll repair or replace at their discretion means they'll pick the cheapest option to get you a working product back. A company that says that, but then offers to let you request a repair, means they'll pick the cheaper option unless you stipulate repair. A company usually won't blatantly offer the more expensive option like that, without a reason. That reason might be due to regulations as had been suggested above. It could also be that they get enough feedback from consumers that it's in their best interest to offer the option.
I cannot confirm that as a requirement. However, I know I read a warranty recently that said they would repair/replace at their discretion unless you explicitly state you want it repaired. I can't imagine them adding that last part, unless they had to by law or large enough consumer demand.
You're talking about two separate things, though there might be some overlap. They're talking about the security questions that are there to "prove" you're you in case you forget your login info. You're talking about security questions that are usually asked to verify your identity to perform a transaction, apply for credit, or something else along those lines.
From what I can find, to knowingly do something means to deliberately do something. To engage in said conduct with an understanding that it'll likely result in what the law intends to prevent. I also find references to how loosely the term can be interpreted. Near as I can tell, it all comes back to knowing that a particular action will most likely end with a particular result. In knowing, still deciding to perform said action. From all that, it sounds like you would have to prove that the repair techs know what is causing the calls to 911, and knowing what actions are causing the calls still choose to perform the actions.
As a company, they're aware that this is happening. However, they're not aware they're doing it when the call is being placed. The wording seemed to be there to target intentional abuse. This could be considered unintentional, though definitely avoidable. I'm not saying they shouldn't be liable, or that this reasoning would protect them. It just made me curious.
I'm definitely not a lawyer. The only thing that I wonder is what the legal definition of knowingly in this case be. Yes, the company knows it's happening. However, if they don't know how it's happening then likely they're not knowingly placing the calls. The way it's worded implies the caller has to be aware of their actions when placing the call.
Slashdot Mirror
Your complaints are pretty much what I would expect to see. They're not without merit, but as you say an attentive driver does cover the weaknesses. In its current stages, as long as the driver is doing what they're supposed to be doing behind the wheel it can only be an improvement. We know people are misusing the feature, but we also know people do a number of dangerous things behind the wheel without it as well.
It's not misnamed, regardless of what you want to think. It's very aptly named. As in, it more or less does what the feature it's named after does for airplanes. Further, the feature is explained to people when they buy the cars. So, they know(in as much as anyone knows something they're told) the limitations of the feature.
It's designed to operate in conjunction with the driver, at this point in time. The old adage, the whole greater than the sum of its parts, applies. Between you and autopilot, less mistakes are bound to happen.
Autopilot requires the driver to be attentive. The driver should be stopping the vehicle in those cases. The car didn't actively seek out hitting the fire truck, it just didn't detect it and stop. Absolute worst case, autopilot never detects anything ever and we're no worse off than just having a driver behind the wheel. As soon as the autopilot detects and prevents any potential accident, we're now safer with than without.
Unless the autopilot feature is actively instigating accidents, it's impossible for it not to be safer. Anything above and beyond relying solely on driver's response is an improvement, even if only minimally.
There is nothing inherently bad about HTC phones. They're as up to spec and as well built as the competition. There is some give and take on specific features, but overall on par. The only real problem is that they just don't have the exposure they used to.
I bought an iPhone X, knowing what I was getting into. But, there are things about using a device that you won't know just from reading. The iPhone X is a great device and if it wasn't for a few minor "issues" it would be the phone for me. It had solid performance and better battery life. It gets timely updates. However, when the screen is off it is militant about preventing background activity in apps. I prefer to allow more at a cost to the battery. Carplay UI and app options aren't as good as android auto, at least for my preferences.
It wouldn't be surprising at all to see someone try going from Android to Apple and decide it isn't for them. As for going back to Android, I took only a small hit selling off my iPhone. The money after fees was enough to buy the replacement outright. No real concern of getting my money's worth.
The onus is on the driver to understand the vehicle they're driving. A lot of newer cars have features that aren't in most older cars. Lane assist, brake assist, and like all require some level of understanding from the driver to know how they operate. The driver is still responsible for anything that happens because they didn't understand. As long as the company is making available the information needed to safely use the features, it's not the company's fault.
It isn't pedantry though. The word Autopilot is used to imply a reduction in human interaction and not a removal of it, even when using it as an idiom. So, why are we defending people for thinking it's different in this particular case?
I wouldn't argue against it still being a risk on the highway, but I wouldn't consider those potential events enough to go from simple to complex. They would be certainly be dangerous at highway speeds, but not overly complex.
Yes, their website says it has full self-driving hardware. It then IMMEDIATELY says that it isn't currently full self-driving and full self-driving will be enabled in the future via updates.
In all honesty, if it isn't your car and you don't understand how something operates don't turn it on. It isn't Tesla's, or the owner's, responsibility to make sure any and every other remotely possible driver be aware of the functionality of the vehicle. That doesn't mean parents shouldn't teach their kids if they hand over the keys, but the driver is still responsible for what they choose to do while driving. If they choose to use a feature they're not familiar with, it's on them.
Their statement doesn't imply they'd be able to hack the switch remotely. It merely states that if a network can be hacked using a wired thermostat, it could be hacked using a Switch. That being the case, your Switch becomes a potential vector for attack on your network. Sure, they would need to gain physical access to the device.. but that isn't impossible. The likelihood of it happening to your average person is low, but if you were someone of import then it becomes a more realistic concern.
I don't know why your average person using a Switch would be overly concerned about the security of it. But, somehow in the off chance that you're in a position where you do.. technically this would be a risk. It's better to suggest not using it, and then letting the user make the choice on their own.
Wouldn't that just make it a man in drag?
The system isn't inherently flawed, the drivers are just idiots.
If following simple logic is causing so much trouble for you, as you just claimed, it probably isn't worth arguing over this with you
The car is designed to assist the driver, with the driver paying full attention. Unless the car is directly acting to cause the accident, despite the active intent of the driver, the problem is on the driver.
Heaven forbid we actually hold drivers accountable for their actions behind the wheel. If the driver isn't paying attention when they're supposed to be, it is the driver's fault.
A company saying they'll repair or replace at their discretion means they'll pick the cheapest option to get you a working product back. A company that says that, but then offers to let you request a repair, means they'll pick the cheaper option unless you stipulate repair. A company usually won't blatantly offer the more expensive option like that, without a reason. That reason might be due to regulations as had been suggested above. It could also be that they get enough feedback from consumers that it's in their best interest to offer the option.
I cannot confirm that as a requirement. However, I know I read a warranty recently that said they would repair/replace at their discretion unless you explicitly state you want it repaired. I can't imagine them adding that last part, unless they had to by law or large enough consumer demand.
You're talking about two separate things, though there might be some overlap. They're talking about the security questions that are there to "prove" you're you in case you forget your login info. You're talking about security questions that are usually asked to verify your identity to perform a transaction, apply for credit, or something else along those lines.
From what I can find, to knowingly do something means to deliberately do something. To engage in said conduct with an understanding that it'll likely result in what the law intends to prevent. I also find references to how loosely the term can be interpreted. Near as I can tell, it all comes back to knowing that a particular action will most likely end with a particular result. In knowing, still deciding to perform said action. From all that, it sounds like you would have to prove that the repair techs know what is causing the calls to 911, and knowing what actions are causing the calls still choose to perform the actions.
As a company, they're aware that this is happening. However, they're not aware they're doing it when the call is being placed. The wording seemed to be there to target intentional abuse. This could be considered unintentional, though definitely avoidable. I'm not saying they shouldn't be liable, or that this reasoning would protect them. It just made me curious.
I'm definitely not a lawyer. The only thing that I wonder is what the legal definition of knowingly in this case be. Yes, the company knows it's happening. However, if they don't know how it's happening then likely they're not knowingly placing the calls. The way it's worded implies the caller has to be aware of their actions when placing the call.