Python straw man aside, Comma could improve their safety dramatically, today, by documenting their safety systems, requiring a specific, audited checklist for new vehicles to be introduced, producing a real change management and detailed test result report for each release, utilizing a real safety processor in their "Panda" CAN intercept product, and working to reduce their use of bus effects like message-stuffing or first-in-wins racing with CAN control messages where possible.

But there's no way I would bring this up in their GitHub, for example, because it isn't the culture of the project - and that's the problem. For example, their "leader" shows up and makes commits to their safety code like "WTF WHY WAS THIS SHIT EVERYWHERE."

To Comma's credit, they have made great strides in safety since the first two years of their product - since 2018, they've introduced safety checks that (while undocumented), seem to be somewhat consistent (or trying to be) across vehicles, are written in MISRA C which is at least something that's actually used in the field, and exist at the low level of the system. Commits are signed now, and their founder seems to make fewer non-documenting troll commits to the product. These are all signs that the company is growing up (and, if we look at the history of the company and their leadership, we certainly see some signs as to why this may be the case...).

But, these are things that should have been in place since day one, and the founders and company were certainly not unaware. It is absolutely fair to judge products and companies for the decisions they make, ESPECIALLY when their product is purportedly "world-changing," and in the case of Comma, safety does not seem ingrained into the decision-making process.

As an aside, this blog post is killing me, between extensive Peter Thiel quotes, random jabs at California's COVID policy, Elon worship, and a lionization of a startup company with an immature founder building safety-related hardware.