And I'll continue to buy older cars that I can repair myself and don't watch my every move. Not because I drive under the influence of anything, but because all this unserviceable, unreasonable,...
And I'll continue to buy older cars that I can repair myself and don't watch my every move. Not because I drive under the influence of anything, but because all this unserviceable, unreasonable, and intrusive bullshit just makes cars obsolete faster.
Nothing like being unable to rush to the hospital in an emergency because my car thinks I'm impaired or the system flat out fails.
I was shouting and swearing fixing my 2004 just last week, swearing I was going to get rid of it. But this just reminds me I need to keep it going as long as I can. Unfortunately, it's getting to...
I was shouting and swearing fixing my 2004 just last week, swearing I was going to get rid of it. But this just reminds me I need to keep it going as long as I can. Unfortunately, it's getting to the point where I'm beginning to see parts only available via junkyard and this is a pretty common car (Grand Caravan), so it's likely on borrowed time.
Isn't it the opposite? If you want to maximize the time before you'll have to acquire a car that is under these regulations, you should try to buy a new 2026 model right now from a car brand that...
Isn't it the opposite? If you want to maximize the time before you'll have to acquire a car that is under these regulations, you should try to buy a new 2026 model right now from a car brand that is known for reliability, and drive that til the wheels fall off. A 2004 car is inevitably going to break down within 5-6 years of 2027.
Yes and no. New regulation doesn't negate the immense level of other surveillance and nuisances that have crept into the default car experience that really ramped up since 2014. I remember when...
Yes and no. New regulation doesn't negate the immense level of other surveillance and nuisances that have crept into the default car experience that really ramped up since 2014.
I remember when clicking 'up' on the motorized window control would raise the windows 100% of the time without fail. In my ID.4, it's a crapshoot if it will raise, lower, go the whole way, or only as long as I held it. It's maddening.
I want an EV that is barely smarter than a cordless drill.
Oh gosh, rest of the thread aside, televisions are not allowed to connect to the Internet in my home. Had a chat with some coworkers five years my junior saying their televisions were useless...
Oh gosh, rest of the thread aside, televisions are not allowed to connect to the Internet in my home. Had a chat with some coworkers five years my junior saying their televisions were useless without smart apps.
Hard disagree. A TV with a mac/Linux/windows computer and a trackpad/keyboard hooked up does an amazing job as a fully cord-cut user.
My TVs have all the lovely smart features they want. They'll just never ever ever ever be allowed to connect to the internet. That's not their job!
I don't know if having to use a keyboard and mouse to watch tv really counts as an "amazing job". I used to do something similar a long time ago when I was in college, but then moved to XBMC/Kodi,...
I don't know if having to use a keyboard and mouse to watch tv really counts as an "amazing job".
I used to do something similar a long time ago when I was in college, but then moved to XBMC/Kodi, and eventually settled on Chromecast.
Personally, I like a dedicated streaming box like a Chromecast or fire stick paired with a tv, because the interface is so much better suited for it, and because someone else takes care of updates for me. I don't think I could deal with even one more device that I'm responsible for patching in my house.
You can literally just use your phone if you want. Once you have a full fledged computer hooked up with internet access it's very very trivial to control it in whatever way you want, especially if...
I don't know if having to use a keyboard and mouse to watch tv really counts as an "amazing job".
You can literally just use your phone if you want. Once you have a full fledged computer hooked up with internet access it's very very trivial to control it in whatever way you want, especially if you're willing to make a few basic bookmarks.
Sounds like more points of failure and more friction, particularly compared to just pressing a button on a remote. How trivial is trivial in this case?
Sounds like more points of failure and more friction, particularly compared to just pressing a button on a remote. How trivial is trivial in this case?
https://www.unifiedremote.com/ Personally the difference as far as points of failure go is sorta like saying the batteries never die on the TV dial. It’s insanely minimal if you’re not doing...
Personally the difference as far as points of failure go is sorta like saying the batteries never die on the TV dial. It’s insanely minimal if you’re not doing anything complex.
It's not more trivial than picking up a remote though. There are front ends and software that make it easier (like Kodi), but it still requires some non standard hardware and manual setup. I...
It's not more trivial than picking up a remote though. There are front ends and software that make it easier (like Kodi), but it still requires some non standard hardware and manual setup.
I didn't really mind messing with a computer to watch tv when I was younger and I was the only one using it, but now that I have a wife and family, and less time to mess with computer stuff, it's not exactly feasible.
I already posted a link to what I’m talking about and if I recall what Kodi is it’s a lot simpler. It just turns your phone into a remote control, nothing more. If you’ve got your media sites...
I already posted a link to what I’m talking about and if I recall what Kodi is it’s a lot simpler. It just turns your phone into a remote control, nothing more. If you’ve got your media sites bookmarked and logged in it’s as simple as picking up your phone, opening an app, and then a couple of buttons/swipes.
Edit-
yeah kodi seems like a frontend. I'm talking making a few bookmarks to your streaming/video sights on your desktop and double click on them with your phone.
I think you may be trivializing how simple it is. I've used similar setups in the past, but its really a lot more fiddly than sitting down and pressing a button on a remote. For one thing,...
I think you may be trivializing how simple it is. I've used similar setups in the past, but its really a lot more fiddly than sitting down and pressing a button on a remote.
For one thing, everyone that wants to use my tv now has to have an app installed on their phone or use mine.
Which i found easier than having everyone search for the remote or play "wait which button does...." again and again. These are pretty trivial things, and my main point here is it's a literally...
For one thing, everyone that wants to use my tv now has to have an app installed on their phone or use mine.
Which i found easier than having everyone search for the remote or play "wait which button does...." again and again. These are pretty trivial things, and my main point here is it's a literally free app unless you feel like donating to the creator and takes all of 10 seconds to test IF you already have the setup.
Like...the actual problem to adopting this kind of thing is the whole "spend at least $200+ on a computer to hook up to every TV" with a side of "and keep it updated" which isn't too bad, and sadly now a problem if you do have smart TVs, but less of one.
The minisforum s100 was PERFECT for this, but no longer exists (in part because it was problematic for its ACTUAL POE use case, but appears to work fine if powered), and some quick googling show's you're looking at, at best, $150 + per device in your house, and I'm unsure if you can get thin enough on a "thin client" that standard streaming could become problematic.
If you’re not afraid of Apple, Apple TV 4K is the best of them all imo. Infuse is painless for Jellyfin et al and VLC can navigate to smb shares for music.
If you’re not afraid of Apple, Apple TV 4K is the best of them all imo. Infuse is painless for Jellyfin et al and VLC can navigate to smb shares for music.
I had an apple tv a long time ago. It was nice, but the lack of the ability to sideload was a dealbreaker for me. It also had very limited codec support, but that was much more of an issue 15 or...
I had an apple tv a long time ago. It was nice, but the lack of the ability to sideload was a dealbreaker for me. It also had very limited codec support, but that was much more of an issue 15 or so years ago when we hadn't standardized on three major codecs yet.
You think this, but you’re wrong. A big part of the smarts in an EV is there to do things like manage the acceleration/deceleration curves so the drive isn’t all jerky, intelligently control...
I want an EV that is barely smarter than a cordless drill.
You think this, but you’re wrong. A big part of the smarts in an EV is there to do things like manage the acceleration/deceleration curves so the drive isn’t all jerky, intelligently control charging to maximize the battery’s usable life, report how fast the car is going, and do onboard diagnostics to help with servicing.
The software part is basically what makes the car, without that it’s just a skateboard made of batteries with some motors on it.
That would more or less qualify under that 'barely' umbrella. I wouldn't even class that stuff as smart, it's just part of the core functionality that should be baked into the relevant firmware....
That would more or less qualify under that 'barely' umbrella. I wouldn't even class that stuff as smart, it's just part of the core functionality that should be baked into the relevant firmware. The same way an LCD TV needs that kind of stuff without being at all related to the functionality commonly associated with 'smart.'
Even then, while the adjustment curve would be harder, most drivers could adjust to default jerkiness. And there would be plenty of ways to control that curve with 'pure' hardware as well.
Every feature you mention had ICE equivalents as far back as 2004, if not longer. And there is precisely 0 reason any of that needs to be connected to the internet to function.
ICE cars don’t do battery management, which works best when connected to a network because the local utility company exposes usage data by an API that the car uses to dynamically manage how much...
ICE cars don’t do battery management, which works best when connected to a network because the local utility company exposes usage data by an API that the car uses to dynamically manage how much power it draws based on the load on the grid. This is designed both to avoid stressing the infrastructure by having a few thousand cars all plugging in at the same hour and to help manage your utility bill by working around peak load.
Most of the networking stuff in infotainment systems just comes downstream of the fact that you’re building 90% of the stuff you need to do all kinds of shit once you get in-car navigation. And, like it or not, that’s basically a dealbreaker for the vast majority of the market. There’s fewer people who will buy a new car without it than will buy a car with a manual transmission. And once you have that, there isn’t much of an argument, besides usability, for not just building more and more features into it.
My understanding is that that sort of power management from utility is at the station level, not the car itself. Either way....hardly a mandatory feature. Which I would argue is the single most...
My understanding is that that sort of power management from utility is at the station level, not the car itself. Either way....hardly a mandatory feature.
besides usability
Which I would argue is the single most important aspect of designing a peice of heavy machinery operated by the general public.
And yes, I know the market for truely dumb cars is pretty small. Even though GPS can be done with a $150 standalone device, or a $20 cellphone mount.
I would 100% buy an EV that looked like my 2011 prius, especially if it had a nice spot to mount my cellphone or standalone GPS.
It’s both. The vast majority of EV charging is off residential outlets not charging stations. Then the move would be to regulate UI/UX standards for safety and non-distraction rather than removing...
My understanding is that that sort of power management from utility is at the station level, not the car itself
It’s both. The vast majority of EV charging is off residential outlets not charging stations.
Which I would argue is the single most important aspect of designing a peice of heavy machinery operated by the general public.
Then the move would be to regulate UI/UX standards for safety and non-distraction rather than removing functions that will drive people to use their smartphones (I.e. devices designed for sapping attention) while driving.
I'd say the better move is to mandate right to repair, giving customers (and third parties) the right to modify (and reverse engineer) their cars as they deem fit. The inevitable 3rd-party...
I'd say the better move is to mandate right to repair, giving customers (and third parties) the right to modify (and reverse engineer) their cars as they deem fit.
The inevitable 3rd-party dashboards that don't suck would soon follow.
Car head units are functionally interfacing with a proprietary API layer to communicates with and manages all the connected systems in the car. Every car has a different suite of systems and it...
Car head units are functionally interfacing with a proprietary API layer to communicates with and manages all the connected systems in the car. Every car has a different suite of systems and it would be basically impossible to economically create 3rd-party head units that can match that sort of functionality for anything but the most common Toyota and Honda on the streets. And, since it can’t really match the functionality, there’s basically no way to make one besides serving a market that wants to be quirky.
Modern cars are just extremely complex. It’s part of the reason they’re safer and last longer and are more tolerant of bad driving and neglect than ever before. I get that it’s frustrating that they’re not simple machines that can be managed without specialized knowledge and equipment, but that’s just evolution.
Yes, this is the part that needs to be banned via IP/trade law reform. Once you've eliminated all secrets, all becomes possible. Once it's all out in the open, there becomes no point of...
proprietary API layer
Yes, this is the part that needs to be banned via IP/trade law reform.
Once you've eliminated all secrets, all becomes possible.
Once it's all out in the open, there becomes no point of pointlessly deviating something that you then have to maintain yourself.
And the people most clamoring to do this stuff are the ones with deep specialized knowledge. They just don't necessarily work for the company that made the thing.
Never underestimate the power of a dedicated hobbiest with an axe to grind.
I think you saw the word “proprietary” and went on autopilot here. It’s proprietary because components are different from manufacturer to manufacturer, and often bespoke and custom tuned. “Banned...
Yes, this is the part that needs to be banned via IP/trade law reform.
I think you saw the word “proprietary” and went on autopilot here. It’s proprietary because components are different from manufacturer to manufacturer, and often bespoke and custom tuned. “Banned via trade law reform” would necessitate creating a fixed standard for how every one of the thousands (literally thousands) of connected systems in a car operate that the automakers would need to get checked by a regulatory commission any time they wanted to change something. You’d get an automotive sector that’s as innovative and dynamic as the health insurance industry at that point, and the cars certainly aren’t going to be cheap.
That's how we typically regulate things, but why not require documentation of these systems, then? That's still banning a proprietary layer without introducing bureaucratic load.
That's how we typically regulate things, but why not require documentation of these systems, then? That's still banning a proprietary layer without introducing bureaucratic load.
They are documented, but they change too often to really be able to support a production process around having third-party hardware. That’s beyond building an internal connected system, you’d need...
They are documented, but they change too often to really be able to support a production process around having third-party hardware. That’s beyond building an internal connected system, you’d need to start running it like a hardware/software platform which is going to put you on the hook for all kinds of backwards compatibility, security, safety standards, and fault tolerance under a significantly more complex set of use cases. Instead of having to narrowly design around one expected set of interactions patterns you’d need to design all that around an open-ended one.
I would much rather the range of possibilities be narrower so the UI requirements around non-distraction can be stricter.
Not entirely wrong about the autopilot. But somehow having PCIE and USB take over the PC space didn't kill innovation... if anything eliminating competing busses allowed for innovation efforts to...
Not entirely wrong about the autopilot.
But somehow having PCIE and USB take over the PC space didn't kill innovation... if anything eliminating competing busses allowed for innovation efforts to be focused elsewhere. We have millions of bespoke USB devices that all need dedicated drivers, but we somehow can make this work in the PC space but not cars? For all of Apple's complaining about standards holding them back....it hasn't really materialized in any significant fashion.
We did also created an OBD standard for this exact reason in the 90s. Headlights used to be standardized in the 60s.
Make the equivalent of PCI Express for car component interconnect. Backward compatible, but allows plenty of space for innovating.
Could even quite easily tuck the proprietary bits behind a standard interface connector, which would allow for a proper separation between functionality and UI. The proprietary signalling mechanism for the door windows could even remain proprietary so long as there is a documented format for writing a configuration.
PCs aren’t 2-ton pieces of heavy machinery that cruise through communities at 45+ miles an hour. Everything has to run predictably and the essential driving functions need to be rock-solid...
PCs aren’t 2-ton pieces of heavy machinery that cruise through communities at 45+ miles an hour. Everything has to run predictably and the essential driving functions need to be rock-solid reliable. Computer systems that have to operate under those conditions are also full of proprietary stuff because they mostly don’t want to have to test for a bunch of open-ended use cases to make sure it’s reliable. Enabling people to tinker with them in ways that let them hurt themselves is actually dangerous. It’s not just a “it’s my machine I should do what I want with it” because if some dumbass overrates their own competence they’re going to end up running over a kid.
Even those Slate trucks aren’t really designing around allowing you to customize all the tech, they’re mostly sticking the customizability to body kit level stuff and expecting you to install a tablet as your “head unit” that’s not connected to any of the car systems. I don’t think it’s gonna work, largely because all these cost savings still can’t seem to get the thing down cheaper than a base Honda Civic with none of those compromises.
(only a response to some of the ideas in the comment I am replying to, NOT to the identity of the individual to whom I am replying) I am able to separate the interior and telemetry choices from...
(only a response to some of the ideas in the comment I am replying to, NOT to the identity of the individual to whom I am replying)
I am able to separate the interior and telemetry choices from the drivetrain/fuel type of my person vehicle.
As a lifetime 'car guy' the time is long since passed where Americans should be arguing that daily drivers should still be ICE for their personal or small business uses.
Frankly, it's my moral compass, and thus partially my patriotic (not only to own and advocate for BEV, but to call out ICE apologist commentary) duty, to stop driving gasoline or diesel vehicles.
I really can't comprehend the choice process behind the folks that are reproducing for the future generations yet choose to prioritize burning fossil fuel over charging up a BEV.
I could enumerate all the reasons why I feel this way ... But at this point I imagine Tildes folks will come out of the woodwork and tell me why I am wrong and bad and personally offensive. So I'll leave it at cost. Used or off lease BEVs can be had at less or competitive prices with ICEs in nearly all market segments; and used Leafs can be had for $8k or less.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. I was just saying I want an electric car minus the mandatory telemetry, stupid touchscreens, app and subscription gated functionality. I still have an EV, I...
I'm not sure what you're getting at. I was just saying I want an electric car minus the mandatory telemetry, stupid touchscreens, app and subscription gated functionality. I still have an EV, I just want it to suck less. And I feel for the people who favor a car that sucks less over an EV. I can't judge them that hard because my EV is worse in so many other aspects than my 1993 Ford Bronco was, other than the fact that it has an electric engine.
I want to be allowed to hack up the firmware of my ID.4 to allow for more than two scheduled departure times. I want my window controls to always come up when I pull up and always go down when I push down, without the system trying to guess what I want. I want to be able to choose the data provider, to connect my car to my wifi, or tether my phone's data, and have access to the whole car's API without any subcriptions.
I want to be able to replace the head unit the way we used to be able to replace car stereos.
EVs have the potential to be even more wonderfully modifiable than ICE cars were. But the legal frameworks were all borked to hell by the likes of Apple that give car manufacturers unlimited power to gouge us forever and cripple the car whenever they deem necessary.
I'm currently in the planning phases with a gearhead in the family of taking nissan leaf parts and using them to convert an old ICE car.
Considering your account and my account registered at the nearly the same time, I don't think I have anything to say to you beyond: I hope you got what you needed out of showing me the door.
Considering your account and my account registered at the nearly the same time, I don't think I have anything to say to you beyond: I hope you got what you needed out of showing me the door.
I didn't show you the door, I suggested you take a break. If you're getting confrontational vibes from your interactions here and that bothers you, you don't need to keep subjecting yourself to...
I didn't show you the door, I suggested you take a break. If you're getting confrontational vibes from your interactions here and that bothers you, you don't need to keep subjecting yourself to it. That does no one any good.
I mean, most cars built in the last 10 years are subject to this nannying. My newest car is a 2012 and doesn't have any of this technology, so realistically, that's probably my cut off date. So...
I mean, most cars built in the last 10 years are subject to this nannying. My newest car is a 2012 and doesn't have any of this technology, so realistically, that's probably my cut off date. So inevitably, I'm buying something old anyway.
But also, I can't afford a new car. My wife and I do not have the money to spend $1000 a month on a car payment with insurance. However, I do have the skills, knowledge, tools and space to repair my old cars, as long as parts are still available. My 2004 costs me roughly $400-$500 a year to drive (excluding gasoline).
It's really tough being between wanting a car that I can repair myself (or at least, allow for 3rd party repairs), but also wanting to move to an FEV one day. The last few decades made every...
It's really tough being between wanting a car that I can repair myself (or at least, allow for 3rd party repairs), but also wanting to move to an FEV one day. The last few decades made every technological push come with some caveat of trying to remove freedom (as in liberty) and I hate it.
Boy, I sure do feel lucky that I have tools and knowledge to keep my old junker motorcycle driving for decades to come. Possibly preaching to the choir here, since this is Tildes and most of us...
Exemplary
Boy, I sure do feel lucky that I have tools and knowledge to keep my old junker motorcycle driving for decades to come.
Possibly preaching to the choir here, since this is Tildes and most of us are former Redditors disgruntled with its enshittification. But this needs said:
The world does not heed the powerless. However, you do have power. The greatest power, the power that builds and destroy businesses. The power of your choice to spend here or there.
Keep buying used vehicles that you can maintain yourself. Keep refusing to pay for subscriptions. Own your games. Own your media. Own your vehicle. Own your computer. Refuse to patronize businesses that engage in anticonsumerist practices. Refuse to consume enshittified slop. Do support mom and pop shops. Do support big businesses, but only if the deal is fair and square. Run open source, free software when a good alternative that meets your needs is available.
Eh, I'm good. I don't particularly care about cars. I don't want to know about cars. I wouldn't own one if it weren't required in the US. I'll just continue the strategy of "buy new reliable car...
Eh, I'm good. I don't particularly care about cars. I don't want to know about cars. I wouldn't own one if it weren't required in the US. I'll just continue the strategy of "buy new reliable car and pay other people to deal with it".
I think planned obsolescence is too conspiratorial an explanation. The complexity of these machines has absolutely skyrocketed. Today’s cars have way more fiddly components than cars from decades...
I think planned obsolescence is too conspiratorial an explanation. The complexity of these machines has absolutely skyrocketed. Today’s cars have way more fiddly components than cars from decades ago. Extremely intricate computer control systems. There are just more potential points of failure. A machine with 100 moving parts has 95 more ways to break than a machine with 5.
I do think there have been some serious regressions in quality control, and automakers are a bit too happy to cheap out on materials to eke out extra margins. Those are real. But in my estimation the crux of the matter is just that today’s cars aren’t as reliable because they have too many new failure points, that just didn’t exist 20+ years ago.
I think 'planned obsolescence' has a new meaning these days. Before, your only option for PO was to engineer the failure into the system which was challenging (light bulbs are a famous example),...
I think 'planned obsolescence' has a new meaning these days. Before, your only option for PO was to engineer the failure into the system which was challenging (light bulbs are a famous example), but these days it's quite a bit easier to make something obselete when all you have to do is take down or reallocate some servers. Look at how many Google projects have evaporated... killedbygoogle.com
If your access to everything is at their whim, "obsolescence" is a Sword of Damocles.
But the "too many failure points" is specifically a tool of planned obsolescence? The idea is that all these points of failure are electrical and complicated with secretive documentation thats not...
But the "too many failure points" is specifically a tool of planned obsolescence? The idea is that all these points of failure are electrical and complicated with secretive documentation thats not available to a garage owner, let alone hobbyist. You have to go to the dealership, buy their extended warranty cause out of warranty repairs are 3x the price, etc.
I think that's the word that people like Balooga and me get caught on. There have absolutely been products maliciously designed to fail so as to force buying new ones. There's no doubt, there's...
Exemplary
Planned
I think that's the word that people like Balooga and me get caught on.
There have absolutely been products maliciously designed to fail so as to force buying new ones. There's no doubt, there's proof it's occured.
But it's not NEARLY as common as people think, nor as "mustache twirling" in intent. The simple truth is the two biggest drivers of shitty products are customers and government.
Customers, on the whole, want cheaper now, not better longer. There are very real economic reasons (Vimes boots theory goes here), but there are also very real shortsighted reasons with just how people think. When you're making a product for 300m people, which is just the US, you start running into issues with how the lowest common denominator behaves, and how you can be driven out of a market by an inferior product because of that.
On the other side, we pass terrible laws, as a species. They're hard to do right, and most people think they're easy, and it leads to piles and piles and piles of regulation to make important and potentially dangerous products (like cars and houses) and following those piles of regulation tend to cost tons and tons of money. Worse they bring legacy debt because they're also hard to rollback, so you wind up bending over backwards to deal with things that haven't been relevant since 1960
Worse, in both cases, the question often asked is "what can we do", not "what can we do RELIABLY", and this leads to the frequent failure of products and parts. CAN you make a system that can determine if a person is inebriated? Maybe? Can you make it so it's remotely reliable given the utter lack of respect and maintenance most cars see while keeping it cheap to repair? Absolutely not.
This happens all over in much much much higher quantities than any planned pattern. Yes there's weird reinforcement of the behavior because "line went up", but the amount of times they even clock it's because they're selling more of a product because it's shit and then say "well keep it shit" vs "well yeah we had to keep it cheap/meet regs and that hasn't changed" is not nearly as much as people gripe about.
It's really not just some malicious force that will magically disappear if you just get good people in the right positions. It's wildly more complicated than that and a lot closer to a Tragedy of the Commons situation
I'm not even sure I agree with this philosophically. If customer's only wanted the cheapest goods, entire industries would collapse overnight. No dessert industry, no indoor dining experiences, no...
Customers, on the whole, want cheaper now, not better longer.
I'm not even sure I agree with this philosophically. If customer's only wanted the cheapest goods, entire industries would collapse overnight. No dessert industry, no indoor dining experiences, no diet supplement industry, no luxury industry.
These are all markets that exist by injecting demand for something past the basics. There's a lot of things people don't care about, but there's enough audience to maintain luxury/premium markets.
And back to the automotive industry: cars are more and more expensive than ever with more features.
It's really not just some malicious force that will magically disappear if you just get good people in the right positions.
Magic, no. But it'd be lessened. Power does corrupt, though.
But yes, the big issue here are perverse incentives from decision makers.
I don't think I need to preach to the choir about ending citizens united, making stock buybacks illegal, and massively raising capital tax, so I'll keep it brief: change the incentives, change the outcomes. CEO's have no skin in the game to maintain quality, and shareholders in fact drive companies to pursue a long term road to ruin. We need to change that for anything to truly change for the better.
(or somehow we change human nature, or shareholders start demanding long term quality. But I think altering man itself or the stock market's dynamics are much harder endeavors)
I genuinely don't think its intrisnic human nature to be selfish and greedy. Just we've been conditioned for a few thousand years to reward people with material comfort for being greedy. Fixing...
I genuinely don't think its intrisnic human nature to be selfish and greedy. Just we've been conditioned for a few thousand years to reward people with material comfort for being greedy.
Fixing the incentives is exactly right: eliminate the incentives that reward competition and greed and create ones that encourage altruism and cooperation. Over time, what gets defined as 'human nature' will shift.
I really don't want to claim bad faith, but this feels like a deliberate misreading of what @Eji1700 said. None of those (with the partial exception of luxury goods) are about the products lasting...
I'm not even sure I agree with this philosophically. If customer's only wanted the cheapest goods, entire industries would collapse overnight. No dessert industry, no indoor dining experiences, no diet supplement industry, no luxury industry.
I really don't want to claim bad faith, but this feels like a deliberate misreading of what @Eji1700 said.
None of those (with the partial exception of luxury goods) are about the products lasting longer. Just because humans have other animal desires (sweet/fat, convenience, convenience, status) doesn't mean that they don't prioritize cheap goods over durable goods.
I'd like to go on, but there's really nothing more to say because you simply didn't respond to their claim.
Less about "durable", but I don't think "cheap" is what people optimize towards either. The cheapest good, by simple supply and demand, will do well in supply. But it won't always be the most...
Just because humans have other animal desires (sweet/fat, convenience, convenience, status) doesn't mean that they don't prioritize cheap goods over durable goods.
Less about "durable", but I don't think "cheap" is what people optimize towards either. The cheapest good, by simple supply and demand, will do well in supply. But it won't always be the most profitable venture. We shouldn't confuse "there's a lot of cheap stuff out there" with "people prefer cheap stuff".
Regardless, that was a big tangent for my main point. There's no true "customer choice" if customers aren't given choice to begin with. This whole point is moot if we're not in anything resembling a proper free market. .
The might not specifically plan for 'obsolescence', they just optimize for all the conditions that cause it, and discourage all practices that prevent it. Or in other words, they plan it with...
The might not specifically plan for 'obsolescence', they just optimize for all the conditions that cause it, and discourage all practices that prevent it.
Or in other words, they plan it with plausible deniability. Like tobacco execs pretending that they're not conspiring to give kids cancer.
If engineers are instructed to make the cheapest possible product that will not cause massive recalls or warrantee claims, those engineers will get that product to fail within months of that liability date. Not because the engineers are malicious, but because they work to fulfill the requirements set forth by management.
I don't think there is such a thing as a tragedy of the commons. There are only greedy assholes who are abstractd from consequences of their actions.
I used "planned" a more colloquially, here. Are they literally planning around the car failing after 100k miles? Maybe. I don't think they're unaware of certain parts breaking down fast. But it's...
I think planned obsolescence is too conspiratorial an explanation.
I used "planned" a more colloquially, here. Are they literally planning around the car failing after 100k miles? Maybe. I don't think they're unaware of certain parts breaking down fast.
But it's not the primary objective of bulding a new car. It's simply a convenient side effect of reducing R&D time and speeding up production. In that lens, it still is "planned" in some way. Planning around worse QC and parts that can't keep up with the rest of the car.
A machine with 100 moving parts has 95 more ways to break than a machine with 5.
Yes, and that's one of the more exciting parts about EV's. Much less parts to break down. But with current trajectories we sure aren't taking advantage of that in the US for some reason...
For people that can work on their own stuff, I don't think this will really be an issue. I usually buy 5-10 year old cars. If, in 2032, I'm buying a 2027 vehicle, I'd imagine hackers and mechanics...
For people that can work on their own stuff, I don't think this will really be an issue.
I usually buy 5-10 year old cars. If, in 2032, I'm buying a 2027 vehicle, I'd imagine hackers and mechanics will have long since made circumventing any of this nanny-state crap on the 2027 model year easy to do for someone that can plug in an OBDII scanner and maybe snip a few unnecessary GPS/modem/camera/sensor wires or swap in a new ECU.
I imagine doing this to your car will make it basically uninsurable and possibly even increase your criminal liability if you get into an accident. We basically have 3 options here: Accept that...
I usually buy 5-10 year old cars. If, in 2032, I'm buying a 2027 vehicle, I'd imagine hackers and mechanics will have long since made circumventing any of this nanny-state crap on the 2027 model year easy to do for someone that can plug in an OBDII scanner and maybe snip a few unnecessary GPS/modem/camera/sensor wires or swap in a new ECU.
I imagine doing this to your car will make it basically uninsurable and possibly even increase your criminal liability if you get into an accident.
We basically have 3 options here:
Accept that drunk or distracted drivers continue to kill ridiculous numbers of pedestrians
Nanny state surveillance
Become extremely aggressive about suspending licenses or imposing fines on people driving distracted, which will involve a different kind of “boots on the ground” heavy surveillance
It’s not really surprising why the second option would be the favored one.
Wasnt there just an article a few days ago where NHTSA said these systems are unreliable and that the tech isn't there yet? Seems like a boneheaded move but I shouldn't expect different from our...
Wasnt there just an article a few days ago where NHTSA said these systems are unreliable and that the tech isn't there yet? Seems like a boneheaded move but I shouldn't expect different from our administration.
The timeline of negotiations and its passage on Wikipedia is fun reading too. A great place to start digging from, for tracing who conceded what to whom to get their part of the agenda along for...
The timeline of negotiations and its passage on Wikipedia is fun reading too. A great place to start digging from, for tracing who conceded what to whom to get their part of the agenda along for the ride.
Okay so what's the latest? If I'm understanding correctly (piecing together information from this thread and the other one) the 2027 mandate went into law five years ago... but now NHTSA is...
Okay so what's the latest? If I'm understanding correctly (piecing together information from this thread and the other one) the 2027 mandate went into law five years ago... but now NHTSA is telling congress they can't meet the deadline? Where does that leave us? I guess they'll have to get an extension and kick the can down the road a few more years... how else could this play out? It seems doubtful they're going to move forward with tech that doesn't work, so unless I'm missing something I guess automakers are off the hook for now.
I'd like to know more about the legal requirements for this tech. It sounds annoying, paternalistic, expensive, and consumer-hostile. It continues the technofeudalist trend of disallowing people to have control over equipment they own. But is it "surveillance"? That word appears nine times in this article and I'm not sure it's justified. Of course, the actual devices don't exist yet so who know what they'll actually do... but it seems like not much more than a fancy ignition interlock. Unless the law says otherwise, I wouldn't expect it to keep logs at all, and certainly not to phone home with that data. Then again, most automakers are already aggregating telematics over vehicles' onboard cellular so I could totally see them including this data in the bundle. Compared to everything else they collect — which we should all be up in arms about — this data would be pretty damn benign. These articles act like it would be transmitting a live video feed of every driver directly to the FBI. I'd like to see this mandate tossed in a shredder, but also we should demand facts from our reporting, not hyperbole.
An always online car and a system to disable it is an excellent technical foundation to disable the car of anyone anytime for any reason. Just as requirements for Windows 11 are an excellent...
An always online car and a system to disable it is an excellent technical foundation to disable the car of anyone anytime for any reason. Just as requirements for Windows 11 are an excellent foundation to lockdown desktop computers just as phones once the cultural expectations move on a bit. Just as any number of recent trends.
I suppose people are fine with not owning things and being unable to make their own decisions otherwise they would care about more that just themselves a year from now at best.
"Oh say, can you see" You can't buy a car any more. Only a rolling computer. Wait wait wait. Just how will the car measure blood alcohol level? Continuous in-cabin air testing? Intravenous...
Infrared cameras and sensors will monitor eye movement
"Oh say, can you see"
You can't buy a car any more. Only a rolling computer.
If the AI determines you’re impaired (blood alcohol ≥0.08% or showing fatigue),
Wait wait wait. Just how will the car measure blood alcohol level? Continuous in-cabin air testing? Intravenous interface? If air: How will the system distinguish between a drunk passenger (of a taxi driver, or designated driver) and a drunk driver?
Your car simply watches and decides whether you’re fit to drive.
And what happens in the scenario that you are fit to drive when you start driving, and are later deemed unfit during the trip? Is your vehicle forced to come to a dead stop in the middle of 60 mph traffic flow?
manufacturers could potentially upload biometric data to corporate servers, raising concerns about sharing with insurance companies
Not to mention the ever-constant threat of data leakage/theft.
I would say "Americans: have fun with your Oh Say Can You See Act", but it's more likely than not that Canada's government would follow suit and enact similar legislation.
I wonder how this affects the Slate Truck if it's a bare minimum vehicle? Either way, we can barely get acceptable accuracy on "are you looking at the road," I don't know how we're going to get a...
I wonder how this affects the Slate Truck if it's a bare minimum vehicle? Either way, we can barely get acceptable accuracy on "are you looking at the road," I don't know how we're going to get a visible sobriety test and it's way more of an issue if it gets it wrong.
Well hmmmm. There are multiple posts here about how scary it is that cars are/will be spying on us and we are losing freedom. And I agree but I’m not very annoyed by all the nanny stuff in new...
Well hmmmm.
There are multiple posts here about how scary it is that cars are/will be spying on us and we are losing freedom.
And I agree but I’m not very annoyed by all the nanny stuff in new cars. Maybe I’ve watched too many episodes of “Not Just Cars” so I’m getting over my “car brain” anyway. Here is my hot take:
I’ve always been told driving is a privilege, not a right. Because when you drive you are operating a dangerous machine that can easily kill people. That’s why we have licensing and rules on the road. I’d rather not have so many people killed in the road. There are other ways to make cars safer, especially keeping them smaller and lighter. But driving aids and detection of impairment could help
btw when you are public roads you are being monitored by cameras anyway. And I’m sure if they can detect people by their face or even their walking gait, they can also detect a driver’s impairment through cameras and AI. Even I can tell if a driver is going to do stupid shit by just observing them for a few seconds on the road - they constantly give subtle clues. So all the people holding in to old cars are still going to be monitored.
it would be best if we work on public transportation in the US. It doesn’t matter if lightly buzzed people are on the bus as long as they aren’t too loud and annoying.
None of this justifies further encursions on privacy. While driving is a privilege, one of the few aspects of the 4th Amendment that law enforcement hasn't found a reliable workaround for is the...
None of this justifies further encursions on privacy. While driving is a privilege, one of the few aspects of the 4th Amendment that law enforcement hasn't found a reliable workaround for is the juridical precedent regarding the car as a private domicile. Countless vulnerable people who would have been abused by cops with perverse incentives are protected by these rulings, and this opens the door to demolish those civil rights as well.
Or should we all just stop caring and gave up already and just feed ourselves to the stock market directly? If we deserve nothing but what we get, that's the only productive option, right? It'd be best if people just stopped standing in the way of progress, eh?
Yeah you make a good point. I admit I'm not super strong in my arguments. In my defense I did call it a "hot take". I have a 2026 Camry and it has a few aids like lane assist and some collision...
Yeah you make a good point. I admit I'm not super strong in my arguments. In my defense I did call it a "hot take".
I have a 2026 Camry and it has a few aids like lane assist and some collision detection which I think are pretty useful. I'm also quite sure it knows exactly where I am at all times and reports that to Toyota and God knows where else. I guess I could learn how to remove or disable the cell radio to stop that.
The bitter part is that, while I near-baselessly suspect that those gray areas of self-driving are more self-advertisements than real safety features, we can have them (and fully-automated...
The bitter part is that, while I near-baselessly suspect that those gray areas of self-driving are more self-advertisements than real safety features, we can have them (and fully-automated driving) without the overreach! Our legislators and the manufacturers, however, both get what they want if they work together on this.
The concern is the technology isn't there yet. I recently had to drive myself to urgent care while in intense pain. If my car determined I was impaired, and refused to let me drive, it would have...
The concern is the technology isn't there yet.
I recently had to drive myself to urgent care while in intense pain.
If my car determined I was impaired, and refused to let me drive, it would have delayed the care I desperately needed.
The DOT basically issued a memo saying they’re going to delay on enforcing this until the technology is proven to work. I frankly have no clue how such a detection system would work when people...
Exemplary
The DOT basically issued a memo saying they’re going to delay on enforcing this until the technology is proven to work. I frankly have no clue how such a detection system would work when people are wearing sunglasses that doesn’t involve regulating sunglasses for driving, so this is probably gonna be one of those rules that never gets enforced. Like did you know that, technically swearing in public within the City of Chicago could subject you to a $50 fine?
And I'll continue to buy older cars that I can repair myself and don't watch my every move. Not because I drive under the influence of anything, but because all this unserviceable, unreasonable, and intrusive bullshit just makes cars obsolete faster.
Nothing like being unable to rush to the hospital in an emergency because my car thinks I'm impaired or the system flat out fails.
I was shouting and swearing fixing my 2004 just last week, swearing I was going to get rid of it. But this just reminds me I need to keep it going as long as I can. Unfortunately, it's getting to the point where I'm beginning to see parts only available via junkyard and this is a pretty common car (Grand Caravan), so it's likely on borrowed time.
Isn't it the opposite? If you want to maximize the time before you'll have to acquire a car that is under these regulations, you should try to buy a new 2026 model right now from a car brand that is known for reliability, and drive that til the wheels fall off. A 2004 car is inevitably going to break down within 5-6 years of 2027.
Yes and no. New regulation doesn't negate the immense level of other surveillance and nuisances that have crept into the default car experience that really ramped up since 2014.
I remember when clicking 'up' on the motorized window control would raise the windows 100% of the time without fail. In my ID.4, it's a crapshoot if it will raise, lower, go the whole way, or only as long as I held it. It's maddening.
I want an EV that is barely smarter than a cordless drill.
This.
I would like to request TVs that also fit in this category.
Oh gosh, rest of the thread aside, televisions are not allowed to connect to the Internet in my home. Had a chat with some coworkers five years my junior saying their televisions were useless without smart apps.
Hard disagree. A TV with a mac/Linux/windows computer and a trackpad/keyboard hooked up does an amazing job as a fully cord-cut user.
My TVs have all the lovely smart features they want. They'll just never ever ever ever be allowed to connect to the internet. That's not their job!
I don't know if having to use a keyboard and mouse to watch tv really counts as an "amazing job".
I used to do something similar a long time ago when I was in college, but then moved to XBMC/Kodi, and eventually settled on Chromecast.
Personally, I like a dedicated streaming box like a Chromecast or fire stick paired with a tv, because the interface is so much better suited for it, and because someone else takes care of updates for me. I don't think I could deal with even one more device that I'm responsible for patching in my house.
You can literally just use your phone if you want. Once you have a full fledged computer hooked up with internet access it's very very trivial to control it in whatever way you want, especially if you're willing to make a few basic bookmarks.
Sounds like more points of failure and more friction, particularly compared to just pressing a button on a remote. How trivial is trivial in this case?
https://www.unifiedremote.com/
Personally the difference as far as points of failure go is sorta like saying the batteries never die on the TV dial. It’s insanely minimal if you’re not doing anything complex.
It's not more trivial than picking up a remote though. There are front ends and software that make it easier (like Kodi), but it still requires some non standard hardware and manual setup.
I didn't really mind messing with a computer to watch tv when I was younger and I was the only one using it, but now that I have a wife and family, and less time to mess with computer stuff, it's not exactly feasible.
I already posted a link to what I’m talking about and if I recall what Kodi is it’s a lot simpler. It just turns your phone into a remote control, nothing more. If you’ve got your media sites bookmarked and logged in it’s as simple as picking up your phone, opening an app, and then a couple of buttons/swipes.
Edit-
yeah kodi seems like a frontend. I'm talking making a few bookmarks to your streaming/video sights on your desktop and double click on them with your phone.
I think you may be trivializing how simple it is. I've used similar setups in the past, but its really a lot more fiddly than sitting down and pressing a button on a remote.
For one thing, everyone that wants to use my tv now has to have an app installed on their phone or use mine.
Which i found easier than having everyone search for the remote or play "wait which button does...." again and again. These are pretty trivial things, and my main point here is it's a literally free app unless you feel like donating to the creator and takes all of 10 seconds to test IF you already have the setup.
Like...the actual problem to adopting this kind of thing is the whole "spend at least $200+ on a computer to hook up to every TV" with a side of "and keep it updated" which isn't too bad, and sadly now a problem if you do have smart TVs, but less of one.
The minisforum s100 was PERFECT for this, but no longer exists (in part because it was problematic for its ACTUAL POE use case, but appears to work fine if powered), and some quick googling show's you're looking at, at best, $150 + per device in your house, and I'm unsure if you can get thin enough on a "thin client" that standard streaming could become problematic.
If you’re not afraid of Apple, Apple TV 4K is the best of them all imo. Infuse is painless for Jellyfin et al and VLC can navigate to smb shares for music.
I had an apple tv a long time ago. It was nice, but the lack of the ability to sideload was a dealbreaker for me. It also had very limited codec support, but that was much more of an issue 15 or so years ago when we hadn't standardized on three major codecs yet.
Keyboard and mouse are easier and simpler than many of the controls I've seen for our numerous tvs (that I use maybe once a year).
You think this, but you’re wrong. A big part of the smarts in an EV is there to do things like manage the acceleration/deceleration curves so the drive isn’t all jerky, intelligently control charging to maximize the battery’s usable life, report how fast the car is going, and do onboard diagnostics to help with servicing.
The software part is basically what makes the car, without that it’s just a skateboard made of batteries with some motors on it.
That would more or less qualify under that 'barely' umbrella. I wouldn't even class that stuff as smart, it's just part of the core functionality that should be baked into the relevant firmware. The same way an LCD TV needs that kind of stuff without being at all related to the functionality commonly associated with 'smart.'
Even then, while the adjustment curve would be harder, most drivers could adjust to default jerkiness. And there would be plenty of ways to control that curve with 'pure' hardware as well.
Every feature you mention had ICE equivalents as far back as 2004, if not longer. And there is precisely 0 reason any of that needs to be connected to the internet to function.
ICE cars don’t do battery management, which works best when connected to a network because the local utility company exposes usage data by an API that the car uses to dynamically manage how much power it draws based on the load on the grid. This is designed both to avoid stressing the infrastructure by having a few thousand cars all plugging in at the same hour and to help manage your utility bill by working around peak load.
Most of the networking stuff in infotainment systems just comes downstream of the fact that you’re building 90% of the stuff you need to do all kinds of shit once you get in-car navigation. And, like it or not, that’s basically a dealbreaker for the vast majority of the market. There’s fewer people who will buy a new car without it than will buy a car with a manual transmission. And once you have that, there isn’t much of an argument, besides usability, for not just building more and more features into it.
My understanding is that that sort of power management from utility is at the station level, not the car itself. Either way....hardly a mandatory feature.
Which I would argue is the single most important aspect of designing a peice of heavy machinery operated by the general public.
And yes, I know the market for truely dumb cars is pretty small. Even though GPS can be done with a $150 standalone device, or a $20 cellphone mount.
I would 100% buy an EV that looked like my 2011 prius, especially if it had a nice spot to mount my cellphone or standalone GPS.
It’s both. The vast majority of EV charging is off residential outlets not charging stations.
Then the move would be to regulate UI/UX standards for safety and non-distraction rather than removing functions that will drive people to use their smartphones (I.e. devices designed for sapping attention) while driving.
I'd say the better move is to mandate right to repair, giving customers (and third parties) the right to modify (and reverse engineer) their cars as they deem fit.
The inevitable 3rd-party dashboards that don't suck would soon follow.
Car head units are functionally interfacing with a proprietary API layer to communicates with and manages all the connected systems in the car. Every car has a different suite of systems and it would be basically impossible to economically create 3rd-party head units that can match that sort of functionality for anything but the most common Toyota and Honda on the streets. And, since it can’t really match the functionality, there’s basically no way to make one besides serving a market that wants to be quirky.
Modern cars are just extremely complex. It’s part of the reason they’re safer and last longer and are more tolerant of bad driving and neglect than ever before. I get that it’s frustrating that they’re not simple machines that can be managed without specialized knowledge and equipment, but that’s just evolution.
Yes, this is the part that needs to be banned via IP/trade law reform.
Once you've eliminated all secrets, all becomes possible.
Once it's all out in the open, there becomes no point of pointlessly deviating something that you then have to maintain yourself.
And the people most clamoring to do this stuff are the ones with deep specialized knowledge. They just don't necessarily work for the company that made the thing.
Never underestimate the power of a dedicated hobbiest with an axe to grind.
I think you saw the word “proprietary” and went on autopilot here. It’s proprietary because components are different from manufacturer to manufacturer, and often bespoke and custom tuned. “Banned via trade law reform” would necessitate creating a fixed standard for how every one of the thousands (literally thousands) of connected systems in a car operate that the automakers would need to get checked by a regulatory commission any time they wanted to change something. You’d get an automotive sector that’s as innovative and dynamic as the health insurance industry at that point, and the cars certainly aren’t going to be cheap.
That's how we typically regulate things, but why not require documentation of these systems, then? That's still banning a proprietary layer without introducing bureaucratic load.
They are documented, but they change too often to really be able to support a production process around having third-party hardware. That’s beyond building an internal connected system, you’d need to start running it like a hardware/software platform which is going to put you on the hook for all kinds of backwards compatibility, security, safety standards, and fault tolerance under a significantly more complex set of use cases. Instead of having to narrowly design around one expected set of interactions patterns you’d need to design all that around an open-ended one.
I would much rather the range of possibilities be narrower so the UI requirements around non-distraction can be stricter.
Not entirely wrong about the autopilot.
But somehow having PCIE and USB take over the PC space didn't kill innovation... if anything eliminating competing busses allowed for innovation efforts to be focused elsewhere. We have millions of bespoke USB devices that all need dedicated drivers, but we somehow can make this work in the PC space but not cars? For all of Apple's complaining about standards holding them back....it hasn't really materialized in any significant fashion.
We did also created an OBD standard for this exact reason in the 90s. Headlights used to be standardized in the 60s.
Make the equivalent of PCI Express for car component interconnect. Backward compatible, but allows plenty of space for innovating.
Could even quite easily tuck the proprietary bits behind a standard interface connector, which would allow for a proper separation between functionality and UI. The proprietary signalling mechanism for the door windows could even remain proprietary so long as there is a documented format for writing a configuration.
PCs aren’t 2-ton pieces of heavy machinery that cruise through communities at 45+ miles an hour. Everything has to run predictably and the essential driving functions need to be rock-solid reliable. Computer systems that have to operate under those conditions are also full of proprietary stuff because they mostly don’t want to have to test for a bunch of open-ended use cases to make sure it’s reliable. Enabling people to tinker with them in ways that let them hurt themselves is actually dangerous. It’s not just a “it’s my machine I should do what I want with it” because if some dumbass overrates their own competence they’re going to end up running over a kid.
Even those Slate trucks aren’t really designing around allowing you to customize all the tech, they’re mostly sticking the customizability to body kit level stuff and expecting you to install a tablet as your “head unit” that’s not connected to any of the car systems. I don’t think it’s gonna work, largely because all these cost savings still can’t seem to get the thing down cheaper than a base Honda Civic with none of those compromises.
(only a response to some of the ideas in the comment I am replying to, NOT to the identity of the individual to whom I am replying)
I am able to separate the interior and telemetry choices from the drivetrain/fuel type of my person vehicle.
As a lifetime 'car guy' the time is long since passed where Americans should be arguing that daily drivers should still be ICE for their personal or small business uses.
Frankly, it's my moral compass, and thus partially my patriotic (not only to own and advocate for BEV, but to call out ICE apologist commentary) duty, to stop driving gasoline or diesel vehicles.
I really can't comprehend the choice process behind the folks that are reproducing for the future generations yet choose to prioritize burning fossil fuel over charging up a BEV.
I could enumerate all the reasons why I feel this way ... But at this point I imagine Tildes folks will come out of the woodwork and tell me why I am wrong and bad and personally offensive. So I'll leave it at cost. Used or off lease BEVs can be had at less or competitive prices with ICEs in nearly all market segments; and used Leafs can be had for $8k or less.
Edit: minor typos
I'm not sure what you're getting at. I was just saying I want an electric car minus the mandatory telemetry, stupid touchscreens, app and subscription gated functionality. I still have an EV, I just want it to suck less. And I feel for the people who favor a car that sucks less over an EV. I can't judge them that hard because my EV is worse in so many other aspects than my 1993 Ford Bronco was, other than the fact that it has an electric engine.
I want to be allowed to hack up the firmware of my ID.4 to allow for more than two scheduled departure times. I want my window controls to always come up when I pull up and always go down when I push down, without the system trying to guess what I want. I want to be able to choose the data provider, to connect my car to my wifi, or tether my phone's data, and have access to the whole car's API without any subcriptions.
I want to be able to replace the head unit the way we used to be able to replace car stereos.
EVs have the potential to be even more wonderfully modifiable than ICE cars were. But the legal frameworks were all borked to hell by the likes of Apple that give car manufacturers unlimited power to gouge us forever and cripple the car whenever they deem necessary.
I'm currently in the planning phases with a gearhead in the family of taking nissan leaf parts and using them to convert an old ICE car.
If this is the impression you get of Tildes, perhaps you should take a break from it. This isn't Reddit.
Considering your account and my account registered at the nearly the same time, I don't think I have anything to say to you beyond: I hope you got what you needed out of showing me the door.
I didn't show you the door, I suggested you take a break. If you're getting confrontational vibes from your interactions here and that bothers you, you don't need to keep subjecting yourself to it. That does no one any good.
I mean, most cars built in the last 10 years are subject to this nannying. My newest car is a 2012 and doesn't have any of this technology, so realistically, that's probably my cut off date. So inevitably, I'm buying something old anyway.
But also, I can't afford a new car. My wife and I do not have the money to spend $1000 a month on a car payment with insurance. However, I do have the skills, knowledge, tools and space to repair my old cars, as long as parts are still available. My 2004 costs me roughly $400-$500 a year to drive (excluding gasoline).
And in 10 years, you should be able to find a used car that's in better shape than if you had driven it every day for the past decade.
It's really tough being between wanting a car that I can repair myself (or at least, allow for 3rd party repairs), but also wanting to move to an FEV one day. The last few decades made every technological push come with some caveat of trying to remove freedom (as in liberty) and I hate it.
Boy, I sure do feel lucky that I have tools and knowledge to keep my old junker motorcycle driving for decades to come.
Possibly preaching to the choir here, since this is Tildes and most of us are former Redditors disgruntled with its enshittification. But this needs said:
The world does not heed the powerless. However, you do have power. The greatest power, the power that builds and destroy businesses. The power of your choice to spend here or there.
Keep buying used vehicles that you can maintain yourself. Keep refusing to pay for subscriptions. Own your games. Own your media. Own your vehicle. Own your computer. Refuse to patronize businesses that engage in anticonsumerist practices. Refuse to consume enshittified slop. Do support mom and pop shops. Do support big businesses, but only if the deal is fair and square. Run open source, free software when a good alternative that meets your needs is available.
Eh, I'm good. I don't particularly care about cars. I don't want to know about cars. I wouldn't own one if it weren't required in the US. I'll just continue the strategy of "buy new reliable car and pay other people to deal with it".
The thing is "new" and "reliable" have been divorcing each other in the car world for quite a while. Planned obsolescence is too big an incentive.
I think planned obsolescence is too conspiratorial an explanation. The complexity of these machines has absolutely skyrocketed. Today’s cars have way more fiddly components than cars from decades ago. Extremely intricate computer control systems. There are just more potential points of failure. A machine with 100 moving parts has 95 more ways to break than a machine with 5.
I do think there have been some serious regressions in quality control, and automakers are a bit too happy to cheap out on materials to eke out extra margins. Those are real. But in my estimation the crux of the matter is just that today’s cars aren’t as reliable because they have too many new failure points, that just didn’t exist 20+ years ago.
I think 'planned obsolescence' has a new meaning these days. Before, your only option for PO was to engineer the failure into the system which was challenging (light bulbs are a famous example), but these days it's quite a bit easier to make something obselete when all you have to do is take down or reallocate some servers. Look at how many Google projects have evaporated... killedbygoogle.com
If your access to everything is at their whim, "obsolescence" is a Sword of Damocles.
But the "too many failure points" is specifically a tool of planned obsolescence? The idea is that all these points of failure are electrical and complicated with secretive documentation thats not available to a garage owner, let alone hobbyist. You have to go to the dealership, buy their extended warranty cause out of warranty repairs are 3x the price, etc.
I think that's the word that people like Balooga and me get caught on.
There have absolutely been products maliciously designed to fail so as to force buying new ones. There's no doubt, there's proof it's occured.
But it's not NEARLY as common as people think, nor as "mustache twirling" in intent. The simple truth is the two biggest drivers of shitty products are customers and government.
Customers, on the whole, want cheaper now, not better longer. There are very real economic reasons (Vimes boots theory goes here), but there are also very real shortsighted reasons with just how people think. When you're making a product for 300m people, which is just the US, you start running into issues with how the lowest common denominator behaves, and how you can be driven out of a market by an inferior product because of that.
On the other side, we pass terrible laws, as a species. They're hard to do right, and most people think they're easy, and it leads to piles and piles and piles of regulation to make important and potentially dangerous products (like cars and houses) and following those piles of regulation tend to cost tons and tons of money. Worse they bring legacy debt because they're also hard to rollback, so you wind up bending over backwards to deal with things that haven't been relevant since 1960
Worse, in both cases, the question often asked is "what can we do", not "what can we do RELIABLY", and this leads to the frequent failure of products and parts. CAN you make a system that can determine if a person is inebriated? Maybe? Can you make it so it's remotely reliable given the utter lack of respect and maintenance most cars see while keeping it cheap to repair? Absolutely not.
This happens all over in much much much higher quantities than any planned pattern. Yes there's weird reinforcement of the behavior because "line went up", but the amount of times they even clock it's because they're selling more of a product because it's shit and then say "well keep it shit" vs "well yeah we had to keep it cheap/meet regs and that hasn't changed" is not nearly as much as people gripe about.
It's really not just some malicious force that will magically disappear if you just get good people in the right positions. It's wildly more complicated than that and a lot closer to a Tragedy of the Commons situation
I'm not even sure I agree with this philosophically. If customer's only wanted the cheapest goods, entire industries would collapse overnight. No dessert industry, no indoor dining experiences, no diet supplement industry, no luxury industry.
These are all markets that exist by injecting demand for something past the basics. There's a lot of things people don't care about, but there's enough audience to maintain luxury/premium markets.
And back to the automotive industry: cars are more and more expensive than ever with more features.
Magic, no. But it'd be lessened. Power does corrupt, though.
But yes, the big issue here are perverse incentives from decision makers.
I don't think I need to preach to the choir about ending citizens united, making stock buybacks illegal, and massively raising capital tax, so I'll keep it brief: change the incentives, change the outcomes. CEO's have no skin in the game to maintain quality, and shareholders in fact drive companies to pursue a long term road to ruin. We need to change that for anything to truly change for the better.
(or somehow we change human nature, or shareholders start demanding long term quality. But I think altering man itself or the stock market's dynamics are much harder endeavors)
I genuinely don't think its intrisnic human nature to be selfish and greedy. Just we've been conditioned for a few thousand years to reward people with material comfort for being greedy.
Fixing the incentives is exactly right: eliminate the incentives that reward competition and greed and create ones that encourage altruism and cooperation. Over time, what gets defined as 'human nature' will shift.
I really don't want to claim bad faith, but this feels like a deliberate misreading of what @Eji1700 said.
None of those (with the partial exception of luxury goods) are about the products lasting longer. Just because humans have other animal desires (sweet/fat, convenience, convenience, status) doesn't mean that they don't prioritize cheap goods over durable goods.
I'd like to go on, but there's really nothing more to say because you simply didn't respond to their claim.
Less about "durable", but I don't think "cheap" is what people optimize towards either. The cheapest good, by simple supply and demand, will do well in supply. But it won't always be the most profitable venture. We shouldn't confuse "there's a lot of cheap stuff out there" with "people prefer cheap stuff".
Regardless, that was a big tangent for my main point. There's no true "customer choice" if customers aren't given choice to begin with. This whole point is moot if we're not in anything resembling a proper free market. .
The might not specifically plan for 'obsolescence', they just optimize for all the conditions that cause it, and discourage all practices that prevent it.
Or in other words, they plan it with plausible deniability. Like tobacco execs pretending that they're not conspiring to give kids cancer.
If engineers are instructed to make the cheapest possible product that will not cause massive recalls or warrantee claims, those engineers will get that product to fail within months of that liability date. Not because the engineers are malicious, but because they work to fulfill the requirements set forth by management.
I don't think there is such a thing as a tragedy of the commons. There are only greedy assholes who are abstractd from consequences of their actions.
I used "planned" a more colloquially, here. Are they literally planning around the car failing after 100k miles? Maybe. I don't think they're unaware of certain parts breaking down fast.
But it's not the primary objective of bulding a new car. It's simply a convenient side effect of reducing R&D time and speeding up production. In that lens, it still is "planned" in some way. Planning around worse QC and parts that can't keep up with the rest of the car.
Yes, and that's one of the more exciting parts about EV's. Much less parts to break down. But with current trajectories we sure aren't taking advantage of that in the US for some reason...
Is there any data showing increasing unreliability, particularly on major systems?
For people that can work on their own stuff, I don't think this will really be an issue.
I usually buy 5-10 year old cars. If, in 2032, I'm buying a 2027 vehicle, I'd imagine hackers and mechanics will have long since made circumventing any of this nanny-state crap on the 2027 model year easy to do for someone that can plug in an OBDII scanner and maybe snip a few unnecessary GPS/modem/camera/sensor wires or swap in a new ECU.
I imagine doing this to your car will make it basically uninsurable and possibly even increase your criminal liability if you get into an accident.
We basically have 3 options here:
It’s not really surprising why the second option would be the favored one.
There are already devices like the Polish Zenbox that permanently disable RSA, TSR, and ISA for 2026 cars.
Wasnt there just an article a few days ago where NHTSA said these systems are unreliable and that the tech isn't there yet? Seems like a boneheaded move but I shouldn't expect different from our administration.
This law was passed in 2021 under Biden in the INVEST in America Act.
The timeline of negotiations and its passage on Wikipedia is fun reading too. A great place to start digging from, for tracing who conceded what to whom to get their part of the agenda along for the ride.
Okay so what's the latest? If I'm understanding correctly (piecing together information from this thread and the other one) the 2027 mandate went into law five years ago... but now NHTSA is telling congress they can't meet the deadline? Where does that leave us? I guess they'll have to get an extension and kick the can down the road a few more years... how else could this play out? It seems doubtful they're going to move forward with tech that doesn't work, so unless I'm missing something I guess automakers are off the hook for now.
I'd like to know more about the legal requirements for this tech. It sounds annoying, paternalistic, expensive, and consumer-hostile. It continues the technofeudalist trend of disallowing people to have control over equipment they own. But is it "surveillance"? That word appears nine times in this article and I'm not sure it's justified. Of course, the actual devices don't exist yet so who know what they'll actually do... but it seems like not much more than a fancy ignition interlock. Unless the law says otherwise, I wouldn't expect it to keep logs at all, and certainly not to phone home with that data. Then again, most automakers are already aggregating telematics over vehicles' onboard cellular so I could totally see them including this data in the bundle. Compared to everything else they collect — which we should all be up in arms about — this data would be pretty damn benign. These articles act like it would be transmitting a live video feed of every driver directly to the FBI. I'd like to see this mandate tossed in a shredder, but also we should demand facts from our reporting, not hyperbole.
There was, you remember correctly.
An always online car and a system to disable it is an excellent technical foundation to disable the car of anyone anytime for any reason. Just as requirements for Windows 11 are an excellent foundation to lockdown desktop computers just as phones once the cultural expectations move on a bit. Just as any number of recent trends.
I suppose people are fine with not owning things and being unable to make their own decisions otherwise they would care about more that just themselves a year from now at best.
"Oh say, can you see"
You can't buy a car any more. Only a rolling computer.
Wait wait wait. Just how will the car measure blood alcohol level? Continuous in-cabin air testing? Intravenous interface? If air: How will the system distinguish between a drunk passenger (of a taxi driver, or designated driver) and a drunk driver?
And what happens in the scenario that you are fit to drive when you start driving, and are later deemed unfit during the trip? Is your vehicle forced to come to a dead stop in the middle of 60 mph traffic flow?
Not to mention the ever-constant threat of data leakage/theft.
I would say "Americans: have fun with your Oh Say Can You See Act", but it's more likely than not that Canada's government would follow suit and enact similar legislation.
https://tildes.net/~transport/1twf/nhtsa_tells_us_congress_advanced_impaired_driving_detection_tech_isnt_ready
I’m skeptical about this article which is why I did a search and found the other one.
"The other one"?
From another post
Ah, thanks! And oof.
I wonder how this affects the Slate Truck if it's a bare minimum vehicle? Either way, we can barely get acceptable accuracy on "are you looking at the road," I don't know how we're going to get a visible sobriety test and it's way more of an issue if it gets it wrong.
Well hmmmm.
There are multiple posts here about how scary it is that cars are/will be spying on us and we are losing freedom.
And I agree but I’m not very annoyed by all the nanny stuff in new cars. Maybe I’ve watched too many episodes of “Not Just Cars” so I’m getting over my “car brain” anyway. Here is my hot take:
I’ve always been told driving is a privilege, not a right. Because when you drive you are operating a dangerous machine that can easily kill people. That’s why we have licensing and rules on the road. I’d rather not have so many people killed in the road. There are other ways to make cars safer, especially keeping them smaller and lighter. But driving aids and detection of impairment could help
btw when you are public roads you are being monitored by cameras anyway. And I’m sure if they can detect people by their face or even their walking gait, they can also detect a driver’s impairment through cameras and AI. Even I can tell if a driver is going to do stupid shit by just observing them for a few seconds on the road - they constantly give subtle clues. So all the people holding in to old cars are still going to be monitored.
it would be best if we work on public transportation in the US. It doesn’t matter if lightly buzzed people are on the bus as long as they aren’t too loud and annoying.
None of this justifies further encursions on privacy. While driving is a privilege, one of the few aspects of the 4th Amendment that law enforcement hasn't found a reliable workaround for is the juridical precedent regarding the car as a private domicile. Countless vulnerable people who would have been abused by cops with perverse incentives are protected by these rulings, and this opens the door to demolish those civil rights as well.
Or should we all just stop caring and gave up already and just feed ourselves to the stock market directly? If we deserve nothing but what we get, that's the only productive option, right? It'd be best if people just stopped standing in the way of progress, eh?
Yeah you make a good point. I admit I'm not super strong in my arguments. In my defense I did call it a "hot take".
I have a 2026 Camry and it has a few aids like lane assist and some collision detection which I think are pretty useful. I'm also quite sure it knows exactly where I am at all times and reports that to Toyota and God knows where else. I guess I could learn how to remove or disable the cell radio to stop that.
The bitter part is that, while I near-baselessly suspect that those gray areas of self-driving are more self-advertisements than real safety features, we can have them (and fully-automated driving) without the overreach! Our legislators and the manufacturers, however, both get what they want if they work together on this.
The concern is the technology isn't there yet.
I recently had to drive myself to urgent care while in intense pain.
If my car determined I was impaired, and refused to let me drive, it would have delayed the care I desperately needed.
The DOT basically issued a memo saying they’re going to delay on enforcing this until the technology is proven to work. I frankly have no clue how such a detection system would work when people are wearing sunglasses that doesn’t involve regulating sunglasses for driving, so this is probably gonna be one of those rules that never gets enforced. Like did you know that, technically swearing in public within the City of Chicago could subject you to a $50 fine?