Comment by NamTaf | Hacker News Reader

Comment by NamTaf | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Precisely. People can harp on about 'oh but it says to pay attention whilst using it' and 'oh but it's still in beta' all they want, but good engineering in the real world, where shit kills people regularly, means engineering out all possible human-machine failure modes.

This is the result of applying 'she'll be right' cavalier software engineering attitudes to real-world engineering (civil, mechanical, structural, etc.) because in the vast majority of cases, software engineering is completely erasable and is fixed with a simple refresh. Agile doesn't work in the real world. It hasn't ever worked in the real world and that's why waterfall approaches and FEED is so engrained - it's proven to be the best method to avoid killing people and creating garganutan cock-ups.

Tesla should not include features that are 'beta' in a car. Tesla should not include features that promote inattentive operation of the vehicle if they are not absolutely, several-sigma robust. It doesn't matter how many disclaimers you slap on it or how cool and futuristic it is, the feature fundamentally encourages people to stand away from their vehicle, press a button, do something else and have it magically arrive next to them. This is bad engineering design no matter how you try to spin it as 'innovation' and doesn't cut it in the real world.

edit: The entire aviation industry is a textbook in this concept.

For a bit of perspective, just in 2014:

- 7 million vehicles by multiple brands were equipped with Takata airbags that could blast out metal shards (2 deaths and 30 injuries reported).

- 30 million GM vehicles were recalled for faulty ignition switches that could shut down the engine while driving, plus prevent the airbag from deploying (at least 124 deaths in accidents where that happened).

"Stericycle, a recall consultant and service firm for automakers, said there have been 544 separate recalls announced [in 2014]"

Damn. You just reminded me that I received a recall notice for having Takata airbags in my car. I need to figure out when that recall is available (the letter said it was yet to be determined).

Considering the number of airbags needing replacement, you might be waiting a while.

The funny thing is that, for decades, there've been jokes back and forth about "if automotive engineering was like software development".

Now we're seeing what it's really like when automotive engineering and software development come together. And it's sometimes really similar to the jokes. :P

"Bringing the reliability of the internet to time-tested automotive engineering."

If the statistical reliability is better than a human driver, then this is good engineering.

"Man bumps car into trailer" would not have been a headline, because this happens so often it's completely boring. Notably the cost of failure here is property damage. If the car were moving fast enough to endanger human life, then a driver would be behind the wheel, and fully responsible by law and common sense for the motion of the vehicle.

These headlines are going to become more common as autopiloted cars become more popular. It is important to frame them in the context of transitioning from a system that is also unreliable-- the human nervous system.

We should also expect to see a few machine failures in specific situations where a human could have avoided damage, but we must also consider them against the easily avoidable mistakes that humans make every day, which a machine can avoid with near 100% reliability.

People are afraid of airplane crashes because they're dramatic, scary, newsworthy, and out of the passengers' control, but the complete story is that stepping on a plane is a safer activity than driving to the airport. Headlines about autopilot failures will get clicks for the same reasons, but if not framed with statistics, it's just noise.

If the statistical reliability is better than a human driver, then this is good engineering.

The statistical probability of a human driver crashing into a stationary object while not behind the wheel is zero.

i would say that is not quite true. i know of a number of cases where people where getting out of their stopped automatic car (brakes applied) and forgot to put it into park before standing up.

Also people forgetting to use the handbrake in manual transmission cars and the car rolls away after some time etc or when they put it into neutral instead of park.

Not quite true? It isn't true and easily proven so with a few minutes research. One could say it's so close to zero that it barely factors though.

I am not sure what your point is. The statistical probability of a human crashing into a stationary object while parking is pretty high. If the statistical probability of the machine crashing into a stationary object while parking is lower, then it is sensible (and even advantageous) to allow the machine to do the job, even if it is not 100% perfect at it.

In other words, move fast and break things doesn't apply to shit that can kill people when it does break. Many of SpaceX's problems seem to stem from the same mentality. I'm a fan of both, fwiw.

SpaceX has problems?

If they follow their trend, any major new tech they trial fails the first few times. Two or three rockets blew up launching. Two or three rockets blew up landing.

You probably don't want the first two or three crew-rated capsules failing to stay pressurised.

Assuming they run them without crew the first few times, why not? Media aside.

Well yes of course like every space programs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX#Setbacks

But it's slightly different to assume a risk into an ambitious space program where everybody know that risk exists than to put a beta functionality that remotely move a 2 tons of steel into random consumer's hands.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com