Frequent software updates are part of having a Tesla. If the vehicle is unable to do a software update, then it is broken and would require service regardless of the recall.

Which IMHO just shows that the recall in the first place was just NHTSA unnecessarily flexing on them

Sorry we don’t think like that anymore. Nuance and multiple truths are a waste of time. Elon supports a Republican that means he is bad and everything he does is bad and everything he has ever done is bad and he has no vision or leadership of his own he is just a rich asshole using Daddy’s money to buy cars and rockets and Twitter. Thus he is unworthy of praise for anything at all that he has done since he was born into a life of luxury and anything he touches is automatically shit worthy of being canceled or outlawed.

The warning icons were the exact same size as the car I had before that. No recall on that car, and if anything icons were even easier to see because the contrast was higher and they are closer to your face.

Yes absolutely. The term recall is supposed to be when they literally recall the cars, like bring them back in, in the same context as you recall your dog after he runs around the yard.
No cars are being brought back in. No dealers are involved here. It’s just a bug fix for the next software release.

I also don’t like how the ability to fix bugs is creating a huge number of ‘recalls’. For example, last year Tesla had a ‘recall’ because NHTSA decided the warning icons on the dashboard screen weren’t big enough. Like the icons for parking brake and seat belt. Which is frustrating because the car is operated for years with the original icons and nobody had a complaint.

But if this was an old style car, where those were individual LEDs silkscreened in an instrument cluster, that would never be a recall because it would cost millions to replace every single instrument cluster on every single car. But because it is remotely fixable, it becomes a recall.

This is a very good point. The other issue is security. The little mechanic shop that has no dynamic content, technically should be static pages, so when it’s left alone and not updated for 3 years it doesn’t get hacked by some WordPress vulnerability.

Absolutely. They were so arrogant they never thought it would happen to us. After all, we are in charge of our own networks so why would we expect the enemy to be at the gates? Let’s make those gates out of cardboard so it’s easier to spy on everyone.

Of course then you have things like CALEA mandating a back door, you have cheap telecom companies that will happily buy cheap lowest bidder Chinese hardware and install it "everywhere* without concern for security (after all, it’s not their data being stolen) and now the enemy isn’t just at the gates but inside the walls.

A decade ago, making sure the feds could read everyone’s mail was the national security priority. Suddenly when the Chinese can read everyone’s mail, good security is the national security priority.

It’s too bad there was no way to predict this in advance. Oh wait…

Yeah I’m also not a fan of the arc fault breaker thing. I get the concept, but there should be a calculation of expense caused versus safety increase.

A good example of that in another field is NHTSA is going to start requiring seat belt reminders and nag beeps for every seat in the vehicle. This will increase the cost of every single vehicle, annoy the hell out of drivers who store cargo in the backseat, and the problem it addresses? Yearly 50 deaths and a few hundred injuries caused by unbelted passengers. Most of whom will probably ignore the nag beep anyway- it’s 2024, if you don’t wear your seatbelt because you want to stay alive you’re not going to start wearing it because of a nag beep. Thus you have yet another regulation, yet another little specification box that has to be checked building a new car, and yet another bundle of sensors and wires and harnesses and programming for every single vehicle (which isn’t free, those costs will be passed on to the person who buys the car) all for a change that will probably have zero practical benefit whatsoever but will cause a ton of annoyance when drivers throw their groceries in the back seat. And it may even make the problem worse- The driver who puts groceries in the back will probably buy one of those defeat devices that’s like a seat belt buckle but with no seatbelt and you put it in the slut so the car thinks you are buckled in. And that might actually reduce the number of people who wear the seatbelt in the back.

I agree it should be higher, but I don’t agree that it’s useless. At my place I am using plain old level 1 charging, 120 volts 15 amps. It’s actually tolerable most of the time. I don’t always get up to 80% every night, and I do sometimes have to stop at a supercharger, but it’s usable enough for probably 90% of my charging. 240 volt 20 amp circuit call that 15 amps at the EVSE is 3.6 KW. That would be entirely usable for me.

I think they probably did it this way so it doesn’t mess with panel size and service size calculations too much. Still, I wish it was bigger.

I think there’s some merit to both sides of this. Using codes to mandate quality construction is a good thing IMHO. Even when it increases building cost.

What I dislike is the fact that every little municipality has their own individual special snowflake set of building codes. Some use one version of the national code, others use another version of the national code, others use the national code with a whole bunch of special stuff added on, etc. Then throw in wildly different enforcement and inspections and a handful of inspectors who just want to see it done their way code be damned and it becomes a confusing morass that needlessly increases cost.

That’s actually kind of sad. They should have mandated 50 amps

This is fantastic. It’s not super expensive either. Just an extra 240 volt 50 amp cable with a 14-50 outlet. If done at the build stage it’s a few hundred bucks.

I mean in regards to this situation. There is anger with cops, none of it has to do with health care. Two completely separate issues. Thus, to suggest that people like Luigi Mangione or copycats are likely to hurt cops or courts is ridiculous

Oh come off it already.
Yeah we all agree shooting people is wrong.
But just about everyone in the general public more or less agrees Thompson had it coming. We’ve all dealt with scummy insurance companies.
Playing up the threat at this point seems like an obvious psyop. And it’s not even being done well.

That I’ve seen, nobody, anywhere, at all, has suggested targeting police or courts. This has been solely framed as a class war between the rank and file citizens of the nation and a very small number (10-25) of CEOs whose companies destroy lives every day. There is no anger with cops or the courts.

Hoy fuck the disconnect in those people.

Amen to that.

Listen to these guys talk about how they’re proud of what they did… NO recognition that all those ‘denials’ are denying real people the care they need.

— “My challenge is keeping employees engaged. How do you maintain a sense of purpose if you think your customers hate you?”

Your customers DO hate you. It’s not just what you think, it’s reality.

Maybe rather than trying to maintain a sense of purpose for what you’re doing, you should take a step back and question WHAT you’re doing, and whether it has any purpose in society at all other than making you money?

I can absolutely understand why people stay in abusive relationships. Much study has been done on that subject.

I’m simply saying that being in an abusive relationship doesn’t make it okay to cheat. Even if your partner is abusive.

Do you believe it’s okay for someone in an abusive relationship to cheat? I’m saying it’s not okay, and you’re criticizing me for saying that, which suggests you think it’s okay to cheat on an abusive partner. But then you say that’s not what you’re saying. So can you clarify your own position?

I have zero tolerance for abuse, especially in a relationship. If you’re an abuser go get fucked with a cactus. Get therapy or heal before you take your shit out on someone else.

I don’t think being abused gives that person a free pass to be shitty themself. That doesn’t just apply to cheating. For example, if you have a partner who’s verbally abusive, and you start verbally abusing them (NOT just self-defense, but instigating yourself) then you’re wrong too. Perhaps less wrong, but still wrong.
To be clear- self-defense is always acceptable. Words with words, force with force. Nobody is EVER required to be a victim. I feel very strongly about that.

‘I’m gonna stay in my shitty abusive relationship I’ll just cheat on them’ is not a good POV IMHO.

A larger motor solves the problem of mechanical wear by replacing mechanical components with solid state ones. Yes you need bigger IGBTs, bigger current handling capacity starting at the cell level, parts must be stronger to handle more torque, etc. There are downsides.

But in almost all engineering situations, it’s well understood that replacing mechanical components with solid state ones is almost always the right call and leads to better reliability / durability. I can think of MANY situations where the evolution of a product went from mechanical to solid state (with quality and reliability increasing as a result), I can’t think of any situations where a solid state system was replaced with a mechanical system and it ended up being better or cheaper.

My mind is open though, feel free to provide some examples.

If you’ll recall, Eberhard was trying to keep costs down so that ordinary folks could afford the vehicle.

What I recall was the plan from the beginning was always that Roadster would be an expensive ~$150k+ rich people toy that would finance development of the $80k luxury car that would finance development of the $30k car for everyone. I don’t remember anyone talking about ‘ordinary folks’ driving a Roadster.

I remember many journalists were allowed to drive early versions of the car, but locked in 2nd gear.

If you want to argue that there was a negative trickle down effect- that starting with Roadster, sizing the motor and power handling for extreme accel led to higher costs, it’s a valid argument but I personally disagree.
I think a more valid argument is that putting such extreme accel in a car set an extremely high standard and it became expected that an EV would be quick off the line. Whereas, an EV that has ‘normal gas engine accel’ (say 0-60 in 6-8 seconds) could use smaller motors, smaller IGBTs, smaller wiring, etc and thus cost less but wouldn’t sell as well since Tesla set the bar so high. That’s a valid argument.
Personally I don’t agree- I drive a Tesla Model Y long range, and the rapid acceleration is one of my favorite features of the car. Other than just being fun, it means there’s never a question of ‘can I accelerate fast enough to turn in front of that guy?’ or ‘do I have space to pass this person?’.

I also note that mainstream automakers were focused on large format pouch cells for their battery packs, which suffered issues of thermal expansion and containing a runaway reaction. Tesla used a couple crates of 18650s and coddled them, and in time ‘large number of small cells’ became the industry standard.

I also note that other automakers are now talking about ‘shifting’ EVs but they’re simulating the effect with motor control tricks and a speaker that plays fake engine noise. You could say big auto had no imagination 10-20 years ago, but now EVs are going mainstream and that excuse no longer holds up. If an automaker is going to the trouble of making a fake electronic ‘transmission’, why wouldn’t they just put a real transmission and a smaller motor / smaller power handling system?
I’d argue because even without a need for extreme accel, the big mechanical transmission costs more in cost and weight than the larger motor and power system would.

Coming damn close at least.