The terminology has to change. A "recall" is a typically an inconvenient event for the owners of a product -- this ain't that.
>A recall is issued when a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a vehicle, equipment, car seat, or tire creates an unreasonable safety risk or fails to meet minimum safety standards. Most decisions to conduct a recall and remedy a safety defect are made voluntarily by manufacturers prior to any involvement by NHTSA.
>Manufacturers are required to fix the problem by repairing it, replacing it, offering a refund, or in rare cases repurchasing the vehicle.
The idea that the manufacturer can fix a minor safety issue without the owner of the vehicle having to do anything is relatively new.
The terminology is too broad now. It wasn't before, but it is now, because technology has changed.
No, it is the plain dictionary meaning of "recall"[1] (see sense #7, which states the "return of (a faulty product)".
Words in headlines should be the plain dictionary meaning, not a legal term of art for specialists.
It has nothing to do with how the product is put together, how it functions, how it's used, whether it's software or hardware.
Whether a company voluntarily issues a recall, or a recall is issued through a regulatory body, it's a process that ultimately attempts to fix safety problems with products sold to consumers, but does so in a way that protects the company from being sued for the problem.
They define it as "when a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a vehicle, piece of equipment, car seat, or tire poses an unreasonable safety risk."
It's entirely based on risk and a duty to the consumer. It's possible that you're leaning too heavily on the etymology of the word rather than the industry definition.
This required the manufacturer to "recall" the vehicle physically to be repaired, replaced, or returned. That's why they used that word. But clearly that isn't needed for all "recalls" anymore. For an over-the-air software update, the NHTSA should find a better word that doesn't imply the need to recall the vehicle somewhere.
The word "awful" derives from "inspiring awe."
"Fathom" used to mean "to encircle with one's arms."
"Myriad" used to mean, very specifically, 10,000 instances of an item.
"Hussy" used to mean housewife.
Etc. etc.
In this era, I think most people assume "recall" to mean "a required fix" not necessarily "a trip to the car dealership."
All the conversation here is a debate of this very issue in one way or another. We wouldn't even be talking about this at all if the word "recall" wasn't used. If it was just a called "a required over-the-air fix" it wouldn't have made it on to HN.
I read that initial comment as "Meh, the fix isn't a big deal," which is different than "the recall is a non-issue." Just because it's an easy fix doesn't negate the need for the fix.
> How do you know that interpretation isn't biased by the HN audience?
It is objectively a small issue and the fact that the HN audience is likely better able to sniff that out due to their technical background only strengthens my argument.
Sometimes minor mistakes happen because they're minor. The assumption that this minor issue points to major issues is just not supported by the evidence.
Now that I've looked into the hundreds of recalls other manufacturers have ever yeary it makes me wonder even more why this particularly minor one is such a big issue that we are discussing it here.
The fact that you think the font-size of an indicator somehow is indicative of a larger problem makes no sense to me. We can look at actual data -- this minor thing being a "test" that they failed is just something you want be significant but isn't supported by anything.
I honestly don't know how many automobiles recalls are related to non-standardized issues in other car manufactures so what are you comparing this to? How do you know that Tesla is better or worse than other manufacturers in this way?
I think where we differ is that I don't think everything hinges on the word "recall." The article could be titled "2MM Teslas to be fixed OTA to correct non-conformance to legal design standards" It's still true, carries the same connotations, and is completely void of the loaded term you're hung up on.
"All Teslas everywhere to get marginally larger indicator icons to match standards" is not an interesting article. And this article isn't interesting. It's only interesting in contrast to it's headline and that's why we are discussing it.
But note that you did your own editorializing by using the word "marginally." You've staked a claim that the recall is insignificant. But that view is in direct conflict with the regulators, and it's their opinion that matters.
So if you think they should be safety standards, there has to be hard thresholds for compliance. And (again) the bigger issue isn’t this particular incident, it’s that it brings into question how they are managing all hard safety requirements if some apparently slip through the cracks.
> it’s that it brings into question how they are managing all hard safety requirements if some apparently slip through the cracks.
Again there is no evidence for that. The fact that all automakers have dozens to hundreds of recalls every year means that this one instance from Tesla is entirely meaningless.