> That update going out immediately OTA is going to save lives compared to if Tesla waited for the cars to be serviced like other manufacturers. I don't think you can legitimately argue against that fact.
There is again no evidence to support this fact. There is evidence that Tesla's OTA software updates have introduced safety issues with Tesla cars. That's a fact.
Better braking distance is of course a good thing but if anything, the fact that Teslas were on the road for so long with a sub-par braking distance is more evidence of a problem with Tesla than it is evidence of a benefit of OTA updates.
The other factor in that brake story is that it took mere days for Tesla to release an update to "fix" the brakes. This isn't a good thing. The fact that it was accomplished so quickly means that the OTA update was likely not tested very well. It also means that the issue was easy to fix, which calls into question why it wasn't fixed before. It also highlights the fact that Tesla, for some reason, failed to do the most basic testing on their own cars for braking distance. Comparing the braking distance of their cars should have been one of the very first things they did before even selling the cars, but apparently it took a third party to do that before Tesla was even aware of the issue. This doesn't inspire confidence in Tesla cars at all.
I simply don't know what to say to you if you are going to legitimately argue that shaving 20 feet off of braking distance will not make a car any safer.
EDIT: The comment I was replying to was heavily edited after I responded. It originally said something along the lines of improving braking distance is good but there is no evidence that it would improve safety.
> if you are going to legitimately argue that shaving 20 feet off of braking distance will not make a car any safer.
Nobody is arguing that. We're arguing that there is no evidence the Tesla OTA update made the cars safer on net.
You're trying to set up some sort of "OTA updates are dangerous in general, but this one is clearly good, how do we balance it" conversation, but the problem is, this OTA update is not clearly good. OTA updates are dangerous in general, and also in this case in specific. You need to find a better example where there's actual difficult tradeoffs being made, and not just a manufacturer mishandling things.
> I simply don't know what to say to you if you are going to legitimately argue that shaving 20 feet off of braking distance will not make a car any safer.
If the car can’t see the obstacle, the braking distance simply does not matter.
And yet again, the same OTA update changed other parameters about the way the car drives that do make it less safe. I don't know why you're trying to ignore that fact. If I drastically improve the braking distance of a car, but in the same update I also make it so that the car crashes itself into a wall and kills you, is the car safer? Hint: no
As for your edit, you clearly misread the original comment, which is why I edited it for you. I said that there was no evidence that the OTA made the car safer. Please try to read with better comprehension instead of trying to misrepresent my comments.
If I drastically improve the braking distance of a car, but in the same update I also make it so that the car crashes itself into a wall and kills you, is the car safer? Hint: no
You don't have enough information to come to that conclusion.
It's quite common to have to brake hard to avoid a cousin. It's pretty uncommon to see the specific scenario triggering this crash behavior.
I never denied that. Your comment pointed out a problem with OTA updates and I agreed calling it "a clear flaw". I pointed out a benefit of OTA updates then asked an open ended question about how they should be handled. You responded be attacking the example I provided. I was looking to debate this serious issue, not getting into a pissing match about it.
I never said you denied it, I said you ignored it. If you wanted to debate this serious issue, then maybe you shouldn't keep ignoring one of the crucial cornerstones of the discussion. If you're unwilling to discuss points that challenge your own opinion, then it's clear that you're just trying to push an agenda rather than have an actual discussion.
There is again no evidence to support this fact. There is evidence that Tesla's OTA software updates have introduced safety issues with Tesla cars. That's a fact.
Better braking distance is of course a good thing but if anything, the fact that Teslas were on the road for so long with a sub-par braking distance is more evidence of a problem with Tesla than it is evidence of a benefit of OTA updates.
The other factor in that brake story is that it took mere days for Tesla to release an update to "fix" the brakes. This isn't a good thing. The fact that it was accomplished so quickly means that the OTA update was likely not tested very well. It also means that the issue was easy to fix, which calls into question why it wasn't fixed before. It also highlights the fact that Tesla, for some reason, failed to do the most basic testing on their own cars for braking distance. Comparing the braking distance of their cars should have been one of the very first things they did before even selling the cars, but apparently it took a third party to do that before Tesla was even aware of the issue. This doesn't inspire confidence in Tesla cars at all.