Cybertruck's Many Recalls
wired.com
wired.com
I wonder if you exclude "recalls" resolved by software updates, for all cars, where it would rank then?
For Tesla, the software recalls are nearly automatic (one click install, just like other update), such that few owners even know that their car ever had a recall.
- charge port needing replaced shortly after I bought: mobile service
- front and rear suspension forks replaced: 2 trips to service center (common according to them)
- rear light needed replacing (mobile service)
4 years old.
Still not as bad as our last car (diesel VW Sharan), but Teslas have plenty of defects that can’t be fixed OTA.
The CT OTOH had many "classical" physical recalls due to hardware issues.
Even ignoring software recalls, then, the Cybertruck has a significantly higher recall rate (per unit time) than anything I've owned, so the fact that it has had even more recalls that could be serviced OTA is really neither here nor there. The user-facing software systems in these modern luxury cars really do seem to cause a lot of issues.
Ahh, yes, the dinosaurs and their bumbling cavemen 'techs'.
Meanwhile in the real world, while my Audi gets a lot of OTA updates, updates done at the dealership are done by plugging a USB drive into the car.
Hopefully the techs can figure that out, if we give them a few days...
I guess on a positive note they stopped posting that Tesla is almost bankrupt for the 1000th time because Elon.
Elon is Trump's next Omarosa...
I've seen plenty of articles, contemptuous tweets, etc. that conflated OTA updates that were classified as 'recalls' by the safety authorities with physical issue recalls.
And I'm annoyed that the article didn't provide the answer itself.
But per https://www.cars.com/research/tesla-cybertruck/recalls/ 5/6 of the recalls for the cybertruck to date have been physical, only the immediately previous one was resolveable by an OTA update.
(I'm in the "I think Elon is a dick but Tesla is pretty cool and SpaceX is awesome" camp personally, so bad criticism of Tesla annoys me not just on a basis of hating bad criticism of things in general but also because I get doubly annoyed when somebody criticises somebody I believe *is* worth of criticism and then manages to do it inaccurately ... you're in a target rich environment! Stop shooting at squirrels instead!)
Why have you put "recalls" in quotes? It gives the impression you think this makes it somehow lesser. The cybertruck, for example, was subject to a recall because the rearview camera wouldn't come up, but the mirrors are insufficient to back the vehicle up safely without the camera.
That's a safety issue, irrespective of whether or not the fix was in software.
Maybe because an over-the-air update is hard to seriously consider a "recall"?
Also, in the head of most people, I think, a recall is something where the car needs to be returned physically. But still, obviously, the issues can be as serious as physical issues. It’s just that we’re used to physical recalls.
(The etymology of a word can be quite different from its current meaning today.)
It does not, no more than gaslighting implies lighting a gas lamp or the phrase crossing the Rubicon implies actually crossing a river in Italy, in any case. It hasn't meant anything of that sort since the mid-sixties.
Recall is what legislation requires you to call it if something is unsafe for public use and it has to be withdrawn for the market until it's remedied. It doesn't matter how that's done. The NHTSA guidelines don't include physically getting the product to a manufacturer or a distributor as a requirement to issue, or as a criteria for fulfillment, of a recall. (I don't think recall guidelines in any industry do, it's just the NHTSA's that apply in this case).
Yes, this also applies for firmware upgrades. No, it doesn't matter where they're performed. The FDA has issued firmware-related recalls for devices with programmable logic since programmable logic in medical devices was a thing so like... fourty years. If anyone in some company's safety staff just learned about that's let's all please give them a warm welcome to the 20th century.
The main reason why recalls typically involve returning the product to the manufacturer (or, more often, as the vast majority of recalls are for food, medicine or cosmetics, to the distributor) is traceability. Manufacturers need to maintain documentation that shows they took reasonable action to notify all customers, that depending on how they chose to handle it they made repairs for free, replaced them for free, or that the refund they issued made reasonable allowances for depreciation, and so on. Some foodstuffs or medicine also have disposal safety rules that require you to maintain adequate documentation as well. It's just the easiest way to deal with it, both in terms of remedying the actual issue, and in terms of legal risk.
But it's got nothing to do with returning something to the factory, it hasn't meant anything of that sort in like half a century.
....And yes, this IS leading to this place becoming more and more Reddit like (no, that isn't a tired cliché, no matter what the FAQs claim).
Downvoting needs to be reserved for comments that detract from the conversation. At this rate, we will need some form of meta moderation to ensure this happens.
I understand where you're coming from but truth is a post like that one does detract from the usual excusemaking conversation that some companies enjoy here, so I'm not surprised it was downvoted :-). It's one of the many ways in which karma points killed online discourse. I just happen to be old enough to have racked up a lot of pre-karma posting (including, of course, flamewars, what would life be without spice?) so downvotes don't really register on my radar.
Not all recalls are for big mechanical problems. I've received several recall notices for issues that just required the dealership to flash the ECU or some other controller with new firmware. Whether that update is flashed OTA or with a special dongle at the dealership doesn't really make a difference if you're looking at it from the perspective of vehicle safety/reliability/stability. The point is that a recall is a significant enough issue that the manufacturer _must_ notify their customers about it.
I agree that if you count _every_ OTA update as a recall, you can't really do an apples-to-apples comparison. The cost of pushing an OTA update is much lower than the cost of a recall, so Tesla probably pushes a bunch of minor OTA updates that other manufacturers wouldn't bother with. But it's a fair comparison if only some subset of OTA updates are counted as recalls (i.e. updates addressing a safety issue).
That it's used for OTA updates just (to me) means they should use some more suitable wording for it. And yeah, as other people have pointed out it's the word used for the legislation. I still think they should use some kind of different wording though.
So no, the word recall is used because is the official terminology used for these issues regardless of the solution required to fix them.
The word does have its origin in a world where solutions were rarely software updates. That they are software issues make them no less serious though. I suspect that in some cases the software issues might indeed be far more dangerous than errors which mandate physical recalls.
"We use a silly word for OTA software updates: 'recalls'"
"Recalls is the word we use"
"Yes..."
If that doesn't happen there are legal consequences.
The fact that software is involved changes exactly nothing. And honestly - the entire industry needs to get over the bizarre belief that software has a magical right to be less performant, less competent, less reliable, less robust, and more consumer hostile than hardware, just because it can be updated.
Tesla is treating its product-launches like it's just some browser-game in the cloud, instead of treating it as what it is: The handover of a 6000 pound bullet into the hand of a customer who will fire it into a crowd in expectation to not hit anyone...
This conversation happens every single time Tesla produces a product that is legally unsafe. We keep having this conversation because Tesla keeps making an unsafe product.
> "I changed your oil, and I also replaced one of your door seals because there was a recall for the rubber cracking in cold weather"
> "Oh, okay."
It doesn't colloquially imply that the manufacturer is going to come take your car due to some major issue.
Maybe this is one of those situations where the US uses this term differently from the rest of the world? In a way that waters the term down so much that it might as well be meaningless?
Nah, doesn't really seem like it.
Exactly. But not just for vehicles or other durable goods. We see recalls of all sorts of food products[0] pretty regularly, and no one has to bring their carrots or ground beef back to the store/manufacturer to "remediate" the issue. Rather, you just throw it away.
And such activities are unfailingly called recalls.
[0] https://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls-market-withdrawals-safety...
Which of these would you, a Tesla stakeholder, prefer the news to report:
- Tesla Cybertruck has recall
- Tesla Cybertruck receives software update that resolves issue that put public safety at risk
And for equivalence, the first would need to be:
- Tesla Cybertruck has recall that resolves issue that put public safety at risk
> And for equivalence
But that's the whole point of my post.
Because the term "recall" often technically means "issue that put public safety at risk". But would you want that spelled out every time if you were a marketer?
Doesn't really matter if it hw, sw or maybe even the owners manual that needs to be changed ASAP.
I'm not misinterpreting; I'm saying the definition is too broad. A useful reply seems simple enough:
- yes it is too broad, and here's the additional criterion to narrow it correctly
- no it is not too broad, and here's why a flat tyre is a recall
E.g.
> "Murder" is a legal term, it means the act was premeditated.
Somebody who says that is not claiming that all premeditated acts are murder.
There’s also a “safety recall” system run by NHTSA, which is what most people think of by recall. Which then has a bunch of reporting requirements so people who aren’t taking their cars to the dealership still get notified.
Last time I took my car in they handled two recalls: the bracket for the spare tire could crack (mine wasn’t) and a floor drain plug was the wrong size.
Very few recalls are urgent or prohibit the car from being g driven.
No it doesn't. Sometimes it does, but certainly not always.
I drive a Ford Everest (SUV version of the Ranger). It has an open recall at the moment for a software issue where if you obstruct the power windows while they're closing, they may not detect the obstruction and stop automatically.
I can continue to drive the vehicle, I just need to get the issue rectified when I next get it serviced.
If you're opposed to it based on the assumption that it wouldn't take as long, I agree that might be true, but by that logic we should be categorizing _all_ recalls based on length (regardless of whether it's a software update or otherwise), since I'm not convinced that the average length of time until a problem is fixed will always be perfectly split with the software ones being super quick and the ones that would need to happen in person being super slow. What if the mechanics are already aware of how to fix the issue and can do it the same day, or if the software issue turns out to take a long time due to the developers needing a lot of time to fix the bug?
If you're opposed to it purely from the perspective of linguistics and "recall" sounds like "return to the manufacturer", I think I'd disagree due to the word "recall" not being super commonly used for that in other circumstances. If anything, the other usage of the word that springs to mind most readily to me is recalling someone or something "from service", which I think fits perfectly here.
Surely this causes a lot of confusion at the very least people thinking those vehicles actually have to be brought back.
First 2 answers in asq.org and wikipedia
Recall is the act of officially summoning someone or something back to its place of origin. A product recall is defined as a request to return, exchange, or replace a product after a manufacturer or consumer watch group discovers defects that could hinder performance, harm consumers, or produce legal issues for the producers.
and
A product recall is a request from a manufacturer to return a product after the discovery of safety issues or product defects that might endanger the consumer or put the maker or seller at risk of legal action. Product recalls are one of a number of corrective actions that can be taken for products that are deemed to be unsafe.
It specifically says "request to return."
It's very important because the word "recall" to me is rather about the cost to the business and consumer rather than severity of an issue or it being specifically safety issue.
Recall could be something that is done as a response to a safety issue, but recall could be done for some other reasons as well. E.g. the product could not just be performing as well, but not be a safety issue. There's a defect that means product lifetime will be limited, etc.
I did, just to be safe, once again look up the legal definition of recall (both in regard to cars and other products) and continue to find that it was never written in a way that would make OTA not fit the term. It isn't limited to vehicles, but extends even to perishables for which a physical return directly to the manufacturer is not expected even using a more liberal interpretation of the word.
Here, this is what recall, in this context means:
> 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.
Source: https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls#recalls-7746
OTA falls under that. Can you perhaps find some source saying the contrary somewhere on the internet (just like one can find numerous sources proclaiming the earth to be flat)? Yes.
Does that change the legal definition as it has been in place for decades? No.
And if you want to fully ho by whatever some random person may believe recall to mean, then does that mean that product recalls for produce, milk, etc. do not exist according to you, because the item isn’t necessarily interfacing with the manufacturer again, but may just get disposed?
That was my point. If people feel this definition should be changed, more power to them, but arguing that OTA have as of yet not been covered by the definition is just dishonest.
I'd be partial to calling these recalls something akin to "Mitigating unreasonable safety issue", but I feel that for some reason, some people may feel compeled to argue that this wouldn't be fair to Tesla either, no matter how dangerous or forseeable a fault might be.
> some people may feel compeled to argue that this wouldn't be fair to Tesla either, no matter how dangerous or forseeable a fault might be.
Also the point isn't about whether it's fair to Tesla or not. I don't care about Tesla here. It could be any manufacturer, point is that it makes it seem like it's a financial and logistical nightmare to come, but clicking on headline, it's just a software update.
Of course by now, I've personally seen this in headlines many times and grown indifferent, but it occurs to me still every time.
In my native language the term "recall" has even stronger implications of physical return, it means "call to bring it back". It sounds even more bizarre than in English for a software update.
If we go by what "it seem[s] like" (to a layperson), we could reasonably argue that the word (scientific) "theory" should be changed because a significant part of the populus confuses that with the definition of hypothesis.
This also, again, ignores that, long before OTA was a thing for cars, the logistics behind recalls for items ranging from meat, over mattresses, to medical equipment, etc. differed widely in execution and financial impact, yet again, have all been covered under the same term.
This started because you stated that by considering severe safety issues as recalls we'd have to adapt to a "new meaning", simply because you felt it is weird that OTA addressable safety issues are covered by that, when this has historically been the accepted, commonly used and well worn definition. If you want to change it, than more power to you, but don't claim that yours is the original definition, when it isn't. Especially since terms like these are regulated to ensure companies cannot weasel around them.
> In my native language the term "recall" has even stronger implications of physical return, it means "call to bring it back".
German? If we go purely by the literal definition of words, then I'd question why no one ever saw fit to complain that a recall/Rückruf rarely contains an actual call (or shout in the case of German) to the customers affected.
Add to that, is it really reasonable to just point at the most literal definition a, both well established and for good reasons regulated, word has? One that, again, has been in use for decades across many product types where the remedy was not having to bring the item to a garage for a fix to get wrenched on?
Idiomatic expressions exist, I hope deadlines aren't taken literally at any modern workplace.
Nilpferd also sounds bizarre considering they are closer to whales than horses, evolutinary speaking, yet we somehow manage, so I feel Rückruf isn't even close to the worst offender in that regard.
> but don't claim that yours is the original definition, when it isn't. Especially since terms like these are regulated to ensure companies cannot weasel around them.
I'm not claiming it's an original definition. It's just a very confusing and misleading term, that gets used in odd ways.
Someone in here suggested "Public Dangerous Defect Notice". Doesn't have to be this, but what about something similar?
You might note that while the definition presented doesn’t explicitly exclude over the air updates, it also didn’t explicitly include them. Very likely because it was written before they were a thing.
In my opinion this definition of the recall uses the original definition, and people are now saying that since an OTA update is not specifically precluded from being a recall under this definition, surely that must be part of the original meaning of the word (which the parent comments have already established is incorrect).
If I'd said "Electronic Mail" then maybe you would have a point, but I didn't.
I had plenty of recalls and it never happened even once that I could not drive the car before the recall.
I'm imagining (uneducated guess) that the software is updated more often than it is recalled, and so a "recall" is an update that addresses a safety issue.
"The Boombox function allows sounds to be played through an external speaker while the vehicle is in motion, which may obscure the Pedestrian Warning System (PWS) sounds. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard number 141, "Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles"
"A software error may cause a valve in the heat pump to open unintentionally and trap the refrigerant inside the evaporator, resulting in decreased defrosting performance. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard number 103, "Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems."
" A factory reset muted the Pedestrian Warning System (PWS) sounds. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard number 141, "Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles."
"An incorrect font size is displayed on the instrument panel for the Brake, Park, and Antilock Brake System (ABS) warning lights. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard number 105, "Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems" and 135, "Light Vehicle Brake Systems."
Outside of these there are a handful of FSD recalls and a couple that are more critical, like rear-view cameras not working due to software. Stating again for the eventual naysayers, all of these absolutely should be fixed but I believe they are shades of gray in terms of how critical they are to safety.
That's not to say there are not more serious issues like the rear-view camera that did not work for specific models/software version combos.
They know they can fix problems cheaply. If they had to physically update vehicles they would have a lot more incentive to make updates unnecessary.
Think about how, even in software, knowing that a physical shipping of a product (CD / Blu-ray) can be updated from "day 1" has led to poor quality releases with last minute patches.
The cost of having to physically recall / resend CDs back in the day meant that what went out had to work. The cost of sloppy software has now been externalised.
Back in the day it was a major milestone for video game projects to "go gold". It meant that the rigorous QA process was passed, and that retail copies were ready to be manufactured. Since that involved significant costs and physical logistics, companies certainly didn't want major bugs shipped at this stage. There were some exceptions, but ultimately this led to much higher customer satisfaction. Removing this "inconvenience" for companies and allowing them to ship updates and fixes at any point is a major reason why most modern game releases are a clusterfuck at day one. They treat it as public betas, and day one customers (or, worse, preorder suckers) are testers and a replacement for a QA process they don't have. It's essentially crowdsourced development. This also allows them to hype the game up to boost initial sales, and then go "oops, sorry" while they finish implementing it. This scam has been pulled numerous times over the past decade+, yet these companies keep doing it because it's profitable and there's no legal accountability for it.
The fact these practices are now seeping into software on which human lives depend is criminal, and should be prosecuted and strictly regulated.
I had no idea. That sounds like fraud.
Those two somewhat offset and you end up with the classic business decision of whether quality is important.
Tell that to your kid this December, when you gift them a new console and a newly released game. Watch the wonderful experience of it taking forever to download a few gigabytes of patches from overloaded servers, and then not starting anyway because auth/billing/DRM/other bullshit server couldn't handle the demand.
Game studios love releasing around Christmas. I'm surprised they're not being held accountable for ruining that holiday for kids year over year.
I hope industry heads realize that they're actively pushing consumers towards piracy. These days you often get a better experience with a pirated game than a legally bought one: it runs better without DRM and doesn't infect your system, you can play it offline, and no license change will take it away from you. At least GOG seems to be the only store giving you DRM-free and offline installers, but not all games are released on it.
In the US there are still a lot of regions where a 50-100 GB download is just not reasonable.
I know console manufacturers hate retail and the used market, and want that sweet direct income. but it would be a powerful brand move to set higher standards for the physical release. I believe Nintendo has gone this direction.
For example, no copy of Space Station Silicon Valley for the N64 is completable because of a bug that prevents you from collecting the final plot device.
I'd say it's definitely worse now, with nothing meaningful being on the disc you pay $70 being insane.
It's not a matter of not relying on patches or updates altogether. The issue is when companies use this as a crutch to offset their shoddy development practices. Or worse: scamming consumers into buying their broken/incomplete game, and then taking years to deliver a stable experience or what they advertised (No Man's Sky, Fallout 76, Cyberpunk 2077, etc.), shutting down (Redfall, The Day Before, etc.), or straight up taking the money and running. Consumers are lucky if they even get their money back. Thankfully most storefronts have decent refund policies, but that's not an excuse.
The saddest thing is that a lot of people either don't care, or end up forgetting about this if companies appear to work hard to ship updates, which is how they eventually gain their good will back. The reputations of studios like Hello Games, CDPR and even Bethesda are practically untarnished despite of their scams, which gives them the freedom to keep doing this.
For the manufacturer this is still mainly a win I'd say... possibly even for the customer (because he gets features and fixes faster, at least), even though it sounds bad.
The same way that updates to Google Maps and Apple Maps kill people due to UI changes.
All systems are safety critical.
Back in the days before home internet was common I worked at a place that developed software for personal computers. The software was sold in retail stores such as Egghead, CompUSA, etc on floppy or CD.
Management was very insistent on high software quality. If a bug got through that was bad enough that an update to existing customers was needed the only option, aside from the small number of customers who would be able to use a modem to download an update from a dial up BBS, would be for us to mail them a floppy or CD with the update.
Even minor bugs that could be easily worked around by the customer were bad, because we had no means of contacting our customers except by writing or calling those who had filled out and returned in the prepaid registration card that was in the box when they bought the software. Instead what would happen is they would call our toll free support line.
Remember, this was not a subscription service. It's a one time purchase. If someone needs a long support call to solve a problem that could easily wipe out all profit made on that customer and more.
This wasn't just about bugs. If they had trouble using some feature due to poor UI or inadequate documentation that also meant calls to the toll free support line and so management also was very insistent on clear, well written, comprehensive documentation.
Compare to today. Updates are easy, you can have FAQs and searchable support articles on your website, someone will make a Reddit group where your customers can help each other, there will be bloggers and YouTubers posting tricks and solutions that in the old days would have been in the manual, and no one expects everything to work in any given release.
But then how will you know what you HAVE to fix. /s
To be frank I find the whole Tesla cult to be mind blowing. Seems to be the realization of believing in something that seems so good to be true alwith a company who promises to do so many great things, delivers non road worthy vehicles and people still dedicate their time and money defending them.
Is it sunk cost fallocy? Or just people who just wish Tesla was what they promised they would be?
Of which sunk cost were a huge thing. Your parents bought you only one...
And which Lamborghini specifically?
It's faster than a Lamboghini Spire.
In the old days, governments had departments which would inspect cars, verify they complied with legislation, and even examine build quality.
Quite easy, when everything was basically physical.
Now the ECU and modules are a black box, unknowable to such entities. Things can be caught (see VW scamming fuel/emissions tests), but it's by luck.
So solution? We pass laws that all code, every bit of it, all chip schematics too, all firmwares are open source.
Note I said open source, which in the old days just meant "readable". We're not talking GPL, all copyright would remain.
On top of that, all build scripts and methods to flash modules / etc would be provided to governement test environments.
Now we can test. Now, we can look for crappy code, hacky junk, fake emission cheats, bugs and more.
Don't like it? You don't sell cars. Tough.
The entire supply chain would be required to fall inline.
It's really not that hard.
In terms of security, that's what signing updates is for.
And (for example) you can already take hobby tools, such as forscan (for fords) amd flash updates to modules.
As long as it is signed.
I have NEVER heard that. It makes zero sense and sounds more like the fever dream of a Teslarati: "Wow, I know the median home price in my area is $500K, and the median household income $80K, but all of a sudden there is this explosion of million dollar Teslas on the road!"
Companies need to leave some value for regular people to live.
All car companies comply with thousands of regulations, and it's fine. If you have a simple view of the world, I don't think inverting it and claiming the people you think are the baddies hold that inverted view is going to get anyone closer to understanding anything.
How about the latest Palo Alto networks vulnerability? Lots of critical infrastructure behind their firewalls.
All in all, I'd say Tesla is among the top on software and hardware engineering, and I'd hire any of their engineers in a heartbeat.
> There are reasons why strict car safety regulations exist.
Besides, companies the size and influence of Tesla can lobby their way out of regulations. With Musk now becoming more politically involved, it's doubtful we'll see any of this change in the next 4 years at least.
Interesting to note that this thread seems to be full of a lot of people choosing to be pedantic over the word "recall" rather than taking a critical look at the Cybertruck and it's issues. While I agree that language is important (and dynamic), I suspect that discussion around this vehicle is also charged by politics and sycophantic thinking.
If I remove my personal opinions about Musk, I find that I actually do not hate the Cybertruck. Sure, I think it looks absolutely stupid and it bothers me that the flat paneling does not line up perfectly, but I am also cheering on it's attempts to break some rules, try something different and possibly spark some future innovation. With that in mind, it's easy for me to expect that it will have problems since anything new that breaks the mold tends to, so with that reframing, a lot of recalls make sense and could even be looked at as good since solutions are being developed.
The whole issue is a spectrum of consequences. Right now it seems that the term used confusingly is always justified because the issue is binarily bad in the first place.
Being pedantic over a single word out of 100 is HN's bread and butter. How many times have you read a comment here that boiled down to "The author's entire article is invalid because in paragraph 3, word 65 he used the wrong word!"
Bonus points when the poster is himself also wrong about the meaning of the word, as is the case in this thread where people don't know what a "recall" is in the automotive world.
We do kind of exist in a strange space where the meaning and intention of words matter for the sake of clarity, but to ignore the dynamic nature of language results in less clarity. If that makes any sense?
As others have noted, 'recall' brings to mind physically returning an item. I have, repeatedly, had to clarify to people that it was actually an OTA software update, which - to most people - is a lot less significant than the idea of having to return your car several times a year.
I'm quite surprised that that is allowed at all. Seems like an unnecessary risk.
Why can’t I choose that feature as a consumer? Did their brother in law have the patent for backing cameras?
The cost at this point is pretty negligible.
Mandate went into effect (in the US) in 2018: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backup_camera#Mandates
Yeah the cost is negligible if you are already planning to have a screen running chrome on Ubuntu server, but I hope it was still an option not to have that.
Zero software required.
To a lot of folks, maybe older than the average HN user at this point, the reason recalls were such a hated thing was not primarily that it implied a safety defect, but because they were super inconvenient.
For example, I had a recall on my Tesla having to do with the automatic window closing being dangerous. That is a safety issue, and I do have kids, so I realize that there's a very small chance they could damage or lose a finger with it, so I do want it fixed. But because it was fixed OTA, I don't really mind it or hold it against them. In contrast, if fixing it meant taking it into a dealership and losing a day, it would be a hugely negative thing! I ascribe a negative sentiment to the fact that there was a safety issue in proportion to the chance of damage and how severe it was, so: minor.
In other words, I know why it's called a "recall" and it makes sense. But on the other hand, you have to realize why people put it in scare quotes, too. The plain denotation of the word hasn't changed, but the connotation is really disproportionate to the experience of someone with a Tesla.
Every vehicle since 2018 has been required to have one for safety. No car or truck is sufficiently safe without one.
While I agree that the term "recall" is overloaded, the Cybertruck has had some pretty spicy safety related "recalls". Issues that, frankly, it should not have been allowed onto public roads with.
As we can see raging HN discussion, being pedantic or not.
I would rank it as "still isn't legal to import or drive in most of the Europe".
Why would you? A recall is part of *safety* process, where company internal safety lifecycle failed to a level that adults had to step in and say "this is actually unsafe, fix your shit or it gets pulled out of market".
The fact that issue can be remedied with software update is irrelevant, because in the end the core issue is that an unsafe product was distributed to the market.
The fact that you put recall into quotes is telltale sign how Tesla managed to undermine public safety concerns drawing a divide between software-only and hardware fixes.
Recall mean an error the manufacturer to fix, the how doesn’t matter at that point.
Not sure where it would rank at '5 recalls' instead of '6 recalls' but suboptimal nevertheless.
(I think the article noted that because the immediately previous one *was* a software update ... but it appears that's the only one that was)
That depends, are you also going to exclude recalls for other cars, like one I got last year, "Please insert this piece of paper between page 129 and 130 of your owner's manual. It contains supplemental information about the operation of a vehicle system"?
Or will only CyberTruck get this special treatment?
For me the cybertruck looks like something out of a low budget'70s Sci-Fi movie. Who knows in 10 years maybe it will start to appeal to me but for right now it doesn't.
Stop trying to tell people what they should think.
I laughed, it was worth it.
I love my Honda Element, but even I admit it’s not a great looking vehicle.. it’s old enough that it’s no longer sticks out, though easy to find in a parking lot as few cars are shaped that boxy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Element
62 page pdf about how the design of vehicle came together which is kind of interesting. (Function driving design)
It never gets old how ridiculous they look.
I believe many manufacturers also look at data from people like Munro & Associates who tear down cars, figure out what they're made from, and how they were made.
Also, in my experience, it’s road salt/ice melt chemicals that really exacerbate rust rather than just rain. I assume that is why I see a lot more old cars everyday in PNW compared to the northeast.
Cars are galvanized now so they don’t rust. Is that truck running bare stainless with no finish?
Are you going to stick to it during the winter?
It has been a legitimately awesome purchase for me so it’s pretty easy to be positive.
paint is a bit more than just corrosion protection at this point, otherwise mfgs would just slap on the thickest toughest machine-tool grade enamel and call it a day.
why don't they? because it looks terrible.
I live in New England, neighbor has a cybertruck that lives in the (outside) driveway. Every panel has a like....brown tinge to it.
2 years from now it will be manhole covered.
> Similar to other critics (earlier this year, a CNN reviewer called the pickup a “disturbing level of individual arrogance in hard, unforgiving steel”)—Drury believes Cybertruck buyers are people “who think ‘I don’t care if I kill people when I drive this thing down the street,’” he says. “There aren’t many of those people out there, so there’s a relatively small market for the Cybertruck.”
The Josh Johnson on this one is gonna be good.
People buy them because they are politically charged, and you can be seen as a tribe member.
But I kinda think it's sad, because I think most tribes make fun of the cyber truck buyer, so they've bought a very expensive, very shoddy ticket into an in group, only to mark themselves as an outsider who bought their way in.
I ... do not agree with that opinion ... but people are allowed to have different taste than I do, even if I think theirs is terribad.
Not sure which group I was supposed to be buying a ticket into. Around where I live the group seems to be Asian men with families, but I was already a member of that group before the truck :)
Sorry, these are expensive, multiple-ton machines being sold at incredible profit, and we all deserve to get to take pot shots at it. We collectively pay for the privilege
It's not a particularly positive article but (unusually for articles about Tesla, admittedly) calling it a smear piece is counterfactual.
> The latest recall—the wedge wagon’s sixth this year—requires shop time, not an over-the-air (OTA) update.
For most automakers, a recall involves hundreds of thousands to millions and is almost never an OTA software update.
I cannot find any evidence that previous physical recalls this year only affected a few hundred units. Two are 2000+ units and the others seem to be however many had sold by the date of the recall (10k+ in both instances).
This article is a hack job. I didn't see any positive commentary. Wired is cooked.
Legacy industries view software projects as a 1-and-done deal. The "we'll fix it live" approach in tech is a short-coming of our discipline. We can ignore it when failure means a mild inconvenience. But, hard engineering isn't as forgiving.
Even if the fix is 'just' a software update, the bug can put lives at risk. [1]
Each industry and its regulators come with certain norms. Cars are expected to be delivered as 'complete' products. If Tesla can't abide by that expectation, then that's their problem. Don't drag the entire software industry into this.
A recall is a public dangerous defect notice. The dangerous product version can no longer be deployed, existing systems suffering from the dangerous defect are identified, and then the version with those dangerous defects is removed from the market with all due speed by either refunding, replacing, or remediating at the manufacturer’s expense. The defective version is thus no longer present, i.e “recalled”.
The term has a precise meaning as I laid out. Unfortunately, it has been so thoroughly intentionally poisoned by bad actors in recent years that the term should be retired. We should use the descriptive term: “Public Dangerous Defect Notice” to avoid such bad faith misrepresentation going forward.
I think that is where the two clusters of people that I see commenting here are converging / possibly arguing past each other.
One popular form of headline that comes to my mind from business new channels of which I remember no specific instance basically goes like this: “Car manufacturer recalls X many cars costing over them Y dollars because of some fault”. X is usually in the tens of thousands or more and Y is usually in the millions of dollars (now maybe tens of millions of dollars).
Yes that's a much better term. In peoples minds "recall" means MY vehicle has to be transported somewhere to be fixed.
For the individual customer, a recall can be a massive frustrating hassle, which an OTA isn't. That doesn't change the severity of the issue, but a model that has 9 physical recalls to fix some brake issue, and 1 OTA update is going to be seen as a disaster, while a model that has 0 physical recalls and 10 OTA updates will be seen as a pleasure to own.
Recalls in consumers' minds are a frustration measurement more than a safety record. Most recalls are about very small/hypothetical risks, so the risk I want to avoid when I look at manufacturers recall history is the risk of having to fix my vehicle physically. Because that's a real/large risk, while the risk of it catching fire spontaneously could be catastrophic but is usually tiny.
Recalls are frustrating precisely because they're safety issues. Otherwise, customers could safely ignore recall notices and experience no frustration.
There's no law that says a customer has to respond to a recall. That's entirely voluntary.
In this respect, there's no difference between OTA updates and dealership repairs.
Think about non-vehicle software bugs, like in your computer operating system. Those are frustrating, even though they can be fixed OTA.
Yes and the way software development tends to work is absolutely unacceptable in safety-critical systems in a 7000 lb vehicle.
There's been been a number of physical recalls for the Cybertruck, including:
- Accelerator pedal sticking[1]
- Trunk bed trim detaching[2]
- Front windshield wiper failures[3]
- This latest drive problem[4]
From what I could find via the NHTSA there's only been six this year for Cybertrucks, so it seems like the majority are physical problems.
Edit: Forgot HN's formatting for lists.
[1]: https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=24V276000
[2]: https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=24V457000
Of course it's bad. If this were a purely software discussion, would anybody be saying "It's OK they have a bazillion zero-days every year because they're quick to fix them when they learn about them"?
Also, remember that the flipside is also true: with aggressive OTA updates, they have the ability to create new issues that weren't there to begin with. I wouldn't trust somebody with that bad a QA track record to not introduce new issues.
Despite this, seems like at least the regular Teslas are among the safest vehicles on the road all things considered.
Why people buying it? To show off. Why people are buying Mercedes G-wagon? Or several expensive watches?
One might, but that would be incorrect. Trump received ~77,000,000 votes[0], which was 49.9% of the votes cast. As such, plurality is the appropriate term in this case.
What's more, there were ~240,000,000 eligible voters and ~161,000,000 registered voters at the time of the 2024 election.[1]
So the winner received less than a majority of votes cast by a small margin, and less so among registered voters (~48%) and even less so among eligible voters (32%).
[0] https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELECTION/RESULTS/zjpqne...
[1] https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/election-explained-ho...
People would agree that the Labour government in Britain received the majority of votes in the recent UK elections.
But they had only received 33.7% of casted votes. Which is 20% among eligible voters.
Majority = a greater number
Majority: (n.):[0]
1: a number or percentage equaling more than half of a
total
a majority of voters
a two-thirds majority
Feel free to quibble about whose definition is correct. I'm sure the King will richly reward you for defending his English.
[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/majority
Edit: Fixed formatting.
It seems that liberals dislike Teslas because they dislike Elon Musk.
And conservatives dislike Teslas because they dislike new and different things.
"Oh the recalls are just software updates, so it's fine there were so many safety issues with my car, they fix them quickly and I don't even buy half the regulations are important anyways"
"Oh it's fine if the trunk cuts your finger off, who puts their finger in a trunk anyways?"
And on and on
The only thing I can imagine why people would defend the more expensive option is due to vanity. I suspect that is important to some people. As somebody more cash strapped it just seems absurd, at least to me.
Am a happy CT owner. I paid an amount that is in line with a "fully loaded F150" according to a google search. I consider the two vehicles fairly comparable both on price and on features at a very broad level, but of course different people value different things.
Why I like it: the looks, the performance, FSD, the covered/secured truck bed, convenience (no more gas stations or regular oil changes & tune-ups).
One benefit that I didn't even know when I bought it, is that if you get some hardware installed at your electrical panel, the truck can actually serve as a whole house battery backup. This was huge last week when the PNW had a windstorm that took out power to 500K houses. My family was able to stay at home, comfortable, well-fed, and entertained. Many of my friends and coworkers had to book far away, expensive hotels and throw away everything in their fridge/freezer.
..and it looks weird. It doesn't have a dashboard in front of you, or even drive select or turn signal stalks.
I suspect a lot of EV stuff is adjacent to "the ikea effect".
When you struggle with something you get more attached.
With the cybertruck, you have to learn all the ev stuff like range and charging.
And the cybertruck specific stuff, like opening the door, and helping your passenger open theirs. Ignoring the rearview mirror and using the cameras. And figuring out the gear selection. And learning all the many settings, like steering or suspension. And get it to drive itself.
I think once people have conquered that, they minimize the ridiculous stuff and over emphasize the rest.
I am not trying to make a point here. Clearly some people care about that. I'm legitimately curious why.
Because it hurts the feelings of Tesla owners who not only own at least one Tesla vehicle, they also own at least one $TSLA share and they think it's some conspiracy to destroy their share value.
The historical financial punishments to writing buggy software are gone, and now it's infecting cars I'm concerned that safety standards will begin to slip and potentially injure someone.
Side note: I know a common response to buggy software is the market won't pay because it takes longer to develop etc. But writing robust software is a hard skill,and it you haven't seen an industry write robust software for a long time, why should you trust they still can?
It appears to be a triumph of aesthetic over function, needing only EL-wire underlighting to look like it escaped from the Tron storyboards and into low-poly life. I could only wonder if the entertainment system comes with a hidden Sirius/XM channel that only plays vaporwave music.
Need more William Gibson movies. I'm incredibly disappointed that The Peripheral was cancelled.
It's a very different and new design. How many of the 91% we're comparing to are completely new designs. What's the correct benchmark?
Let's rewrite the headline. "A radical new EV design from Tesla, the Cybertruck, is already ahead of 9% of all 2024 vehicles in quality as it just ramps up production".
I'll likely never own this - not my style. But I can appreciate doing things differently and being successful at that. Getting those gas guzzling truck owners to go electric would be nice too.
I don't think they said only the cyber truck should be illegal.
I honestly like the way it looks, but I am happy I never preordered it or anything. The reviews are shocking. Even the positive reviews tend to hyperfocus on situations that can be capably dealt with by a standard hatchback. You can take a honda jazz across more terrain.
Its a failure, one that was likely very familiar to HN members. I am sure that internally engineers made every single one of these issues very apparent to management and they shipped anyway.
This is true of most automobile design.
There are legitimate criticisms of Musk and Tesla. "I don't like how someone else's car looks" is not one of them.
Yes. Not offering utility in design is common in cars. Most people don’t buy a truck to haul. Most people don’t buy an off-roader to go off road. (Most people don’t buy a sports car to race.)
> Most people don’t buy a truck to haul.
But if they do need to haul or tow something, they can.
> Most people don’t buy an off-roader to go off road.
But if they do need to go off-road, they can.
> Most people don’t buy a sports car to race.
Sports cars can be enjoyed (relatively) legally on the street. Quick acceleration combined with very good handling and a sense of connection to the road is a feeling you can enjoy at 55mph. Many people won’t drive their sports cars to the limit, but they are still a more enjoyable driving experience than a regular car for people who care about that.
A cybertruck can’t really haul things, it can’t really tow things, and it can’t be that fun to drive. I hope it’s at least comfortable, but based on my experience with their other vehicles, I doubt it.
> cybertruck can’t really haul things, it can’t really tow things, and it can’t be that fun to drive
This reminds me of people who complain about expensive garments being impractical.
That isn’t the point. They’re articles of fashion. Same as most trucks and sports cars. Cybertruck is outselling the F-150 Lightning. Consumers don’t care about hypothetical utility.
Hard to square this with:
> There are legitimate criticisms of Musk and Tesla. "I don't like how someone else's car looks" is not one of them.
Whether or not other people like your look is of course not the be-all and end-all of fashion, but it's certainly relevant. "I don't like how it looks" is a legitimate criticism of an article of fashion.
"I dont like how this looks" isnt a universal truth, and isn't a prescription for others.
It seems like with the CT, there is a vocal group of people who seem upset that others like them and that they exist at all. I seems to extend from "I dont like how it looks, and you cant either."
I think they look cool and fun. Cost an utility wise, I'll take my contractor truck every time. I understand however that other people have more money and different priorities.
I suspect what people are actually bothered by is the underlying reality that some people simply have an extra $80k to drop on a truck because that is cool and fun for them.
I think people tend to be grumpier about things they consider ugly if those things take up a large amount of public space. People get similarly riled by brutalist architecture.
But really, there's nothing new about people having strong feelings about other people's tastes. Fashion is as much about communication as personal pleasure.
I think the CT hate taps into something more deeper than fashion for most people, relating to politics and culture conflict. It makes people angry in a way at more expensive and even less practical Maserati doesn't.
Cybertruck are the equivalent of a pair of thick nerdy glasses.
I like how it looks. Its the everything else thats an issue.
In what ways has it failed predictably? There are a number of things that could contribute to various failures/recalls that relate to utility provided by the (novel) design. For example the steer-by-wire system or the mid-voltage (48 V DC) electrical system.
The main example of "this is just dumb design for no reason" is the recall due to the pedal cover sliding up and jamming, but that was only 1 out of 6.
Needing a specialised Car Wash Mode to protect the interior. They very obviously saw the issue coming, did engineer around it. Any other car manufacturer would simply try and make the vehicle as watertight as possible in all scenarios.
Frunk causing injuries. (I would add the word "frunk" is also a fail state but thats subjective)
Theres hundreds of these, all you need to do is find a couple of cybertruck owners complaining without feeling the need to be defensive.
Congratulations, you solved 1 issue related to car dependency and proliferation of huge vehicles, namely tailpipe emissions. Now the other 99 remain.
The solution to gas guzzling trucks is "boring", it's good trains, it's protected bike lanes in urban environments, it's smaller and safer cars in less dense environments, etc. But these things don't make Mr Musk money :)
I'm all for better transit, but it doesn't change that the trucks/SUVs keep selling and getting more polluting, and will do so for decades as part of the fleet
Hell, I just found out those same commuter lines extend all the way north to Kenosha, Wisconsin, and east to South Bend, Indiana, so into neighboring states. I did know people who commuted to Chicago from Indiana everyday so that's not too surprising.
Like I'd have to drive an hour and a half to get to Rockford from where I'm at in the far Chicago suburbs. And I'd be driving past a lot of corn fields to do so. So that's pretty far.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockford_Intercity_Passenger_R...
Sorry but they are not solutions to gas guzzling trucks. Trucks are utility vehicles which carry things. Materials to building sites, hay bales to fields, sports equpiment to the beach/river etc. These functions are not going to be replaced by bike lanes, trains, and small efficient cars.
The real solutions are hydrogen and synthetic fuel.
For example, it has steel panels but... an aluminium frame. That's an odd choice. If you're towing something heavy then up and down motion makes the frame prone to snapping.
Big trucks (eg F150, F250, F350) exist because of a quirk in regulation where so-called "work vehicles" were exempted from emissions standards. This part is a real shame because the US doesn't have vehicles lik the Toyota Hilux, which actually have an equivalent tray size and would be much more economical to run.
An electric truck may allow a smaller truck because it's not affected by emissions (obviously). Perhaps battery weight makes this impractical. It would be nice. I mean some people import Japanese K trucks now.
Competition-wise the Ford F150 Lightning looks like a much better proposition. It looks like a truck. It's built on a proven frame. Still, sales seem to be weak. For work vehicles in particular (and, yes, a lot of trucks aren't work vehicles; they're essentially ornamental) could be quite limited by EV charging issues vs the convenience of filling up a tank of gas.
Yes! That was the first and only truck (or any car) I've ever owned! It was just called the "Toyota Pickup" in the US but it's the same model that was named "Hilux" in many other countries.
I used it to drive ladder racks and paint around Denver while I was in the house painting business to pay my way through college. It had almost 200k miles on it when I gave it to my dad after I graduated and decided to move abroad. To the best of my knowledge, he's still driving it and when I last asked him about it several years ago, it had well over half a million miles on it.
At least for autos made in the 90s, Toyota's quality was unmatched. My dad is a former plane mechanic and has undoubtedly extended its life, but I had no idea what I was doing and that pickup seemed virtually impervious to normal wear and tear. It's a shame it was discontinued in the US.
but 90% of those 2024 vehicles are much cheaper, so you would expect a lower quality. Also remember the cybertruck was presented five years ago.
There's just a lot of easy things to point at with the Cybertruck because of what was promised vs what was delivered. This happens with model cars from other manufacturers too though what changes there is often more looks than promised functionality.
Today in damning with comically faint praise...
What are the other 9% of vehicles that are worse? Yeeshhh
[2024,"THOMAS BUILT BUSES","SAF-T-LINER C2",11]
[2024,"MAZDA","CX-90-PHEV",10]
[2024,"MAZDA","CX-90-MHEV",10]
[2024,"INTERNATIONAL","MV",9]
[2024,"JEEP","WRANGLER 2-DOOR",8]
[2024,"JEEP","WRANGLER 4-DOOR",8]
[2024,"JEEP","WRANGLER 4-DOOR 392",8]
[2024,"JEEP","GRAND CHEROKEE L",8]
[2024,"JEEP","GRAND CHEROKEE",8]
[2024,"JEEP","GRAND CHEROKEE",8]
[2024,"FOREST RIVER","WILDWOOD",8]
[2024,"VOLVO","VHD",8]
[2024,"MACK","GRANITE (GR)",8]
[2024,"FORD","MAVERICK",8]
[2024,"FORD","MAVERICK",8]
[2024,"FOREST RIVER","SALEM",8]
[2024,"BMW","X5",7]
[2024,"BMW","X5",7]
[2024,"SPARTAN FIRE","METROSTAR",7]
[2024,"VOLVO","VNR",7]
[2024,"VOLVO","VNL",7]
[2024,"FORD","MUSTANG",7]
[2024,"FORD","MUSTANG",7]
[2024,"THOMAS BUILT BUSES","SAF-T-LINER C2 JOULEY",7]
[2024,"KENWORTH","T380",7]
[2024,"PETERBILT","537",7]
[2024,"PETERBILT","548",7]
[2024,"KENWORTH","T280",7]
[2024,"KENWORTH","T480",7]
[2024,"PETERBILT","536",7]
[2024,"PREVOST","H3-45",7]
[2024,"VOLVO","VN",6]
[2024,"TESLA","CYBERTRUCK",6]
API will only give you 50 at a time
https://api.nhtsa.gov/vehicles/bySearch?offset=0&max=50&sort...
Or with the "do not drive" or "park outside" labels.
Hmm... ordering a cybertruck was different a month or two ago. For example cyberbeast used to come with full self driving and the home power interface. It also talked about wraps (which you had to order through the app?) and which would schedule at the service center.
Now the website has changed, fsd is 8k, and no mention of wraps during cybertruck ordering.
I see mentions:
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-six-cybertruck-wrap-colors/
https://electrek.co/2023/11/30/tesla-cybertruck-comes-in-two...
but no longer on the tesla website?
Of course, anyone can still get a third party wrap.
It reminds me of the Chevy Bolt. Fabulous car, after all the recalls.
Either way, it's true for both.
Nothing happened. Everyone I know who owns a Tesla loves it. So I’m going to file this under “internet hates guy; tries to make it sound like he makes bad things” which people do a lot with Musk stuff.
None of the Tesla cars are one I’ll buy (need 3 rows comfortably - might even buy the new VW electric van) but I’m getting the feeling from the online techies like I did at the AirPod release and the iPad release: my instinct is that this is great stuff; then my friends who buy it love it; then everyone online hates it; then it sells billions of dollars worth.
Small consolation for the pedestrian who gets run over. Massive cars and distracting screens are two of the main reasons traffic deaths are on the rise, and they're both two selling points people like about Teslas.
I think that is a lot of the bias with Tesla owners many of them have never owned a car in that price range before and they bought it because of the hype surrounding the Tesla. Prior to that they would have never thought of buying a car in that price range. Often times when you buy a car in that price range you're getting a better quality car because it's from a manufacturer who's been around longer.
We had a “bomb cyclone” last week in the PNW that took out power for half a million homes, and my cybertruck was a lifesaver. Powered my house for multiple days, allowing my family to stay at home. Our fridge and freezer stayed powered and I even ran my clothes dryer one day just because I could. I can’t sing its praises enough after this experience.
It’s true that the smaller team has succeeded with uptime on the core service. It’s also true, however, that the platform is in serious decline, and that’s partly due to the product becoming more and more shitty over time. It turns out skeleton crews can’t make things that are nice to use. Have you tried the X mac app lately? It’s just horrible. Broken modals, empty loading screens, janky layout with desperate upsell message slapped everywhere.
Keeping the platform online with a smaller team was a win, sure. But don’t pretend there’s been no impact.
A vocal minority of leftists moving to Bluesky isn't a decline.
But since you mention it: yes, a vocal minority of leftists moving to a new platform is indeed a decline! Get your politics out of it and think about what it means for a business. Part of twitter’s value was that it was where news broke, people made statements, etc. It was cited on the news. There was no other platform like that (except perhaps Instagram, usually with pop culture figures). There is indeed a small group of people who, if you lose them, cause enormous damage to a platform like Twitter, because for many people using it they are using it because of the other people using it. Network effects cut both ways.
Makes sense. Valid argument.
>yes, a vocal minority of leftists moving to a new platform is indeed a decline! Get your politics out of it and think about what it means for a business.
Nothing. They will all come back.
>Part of twitter’s value was that it was where news broke, people made statements, etc. It was cited on the news.
It still is. Nothing has changed.
>There was no other platform like that (except perhaps Instagram, usually with pop culture figures).
There still isn't. Bsky is no competition in that regard. There's nothing of value for 'normal' people there.
>There is indeed a small group of people who, if you lose them, cause enormous damage to a platform like Twitter, because for many people using it they are using it because of the other people using it.
And yet they are not the people leaving. How many of these supposed giant exoduses were we supposed to have by now? First the death of artists on Twitter after the Japanese left to misskey? Out of whom many are back on Twitter regardless? All the Mastodon refugees, who also in great numbers have returned and only the fanatics have stayed? Twitter is not dying anytime soon and you (and others like you) are once again crying wolf over a situation we've been in multiple times.
And as for people crying wolf, remember: at the end of the fable, there were indeed wolves. The boy was lying, yes, but the lesson is not that there was never any danger - it’s that people stop listening.
I'm finding Bluesky a perfect Twitter replacement so far. Twitter was becoming a cesspool; an increasingly rancid algorithm that promoted one particular person's politics, and a lack of moderation that meant many conversations just degenerated into abuse.
> How many of these supposed giant exoduses were we supposed to have by now?
All platforms eventually get superseded.
Twitter only thrived over competitors because of the network effect. Other platforms were technically superior / had better QoL, but either had flaws or didn't achieve critical mass.
Bluesky is different. It's as easy to use for the average person, gives more control to the user, is far more civil, and is now big enough already be a replacement.
Almost all the people I was following on Twitter are now posting on there. I followed a lot of scientists, and many have moved entirely. That fewer people are on Bluesky is a feature, not a bug; the signal to noise is more distilled.
I think another interesting aspect is that Musk confirmed that tweets with links to external sources are penalized on Twitter. That would particularly hit the kind of people that make these platforms interesting to me because they also post longer content somewhere else.
I agree people tend to overreact and overblow expected consequences, but I mean, twitter's valuation is down 80%[0] and they haven't released anything new in two years, after exhausting the backlog of already developed things.
It's not going great.
[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2024/09/30/elon-musk...
Despite the fact that these predictions ended up being completely wrong, there seems to have been very little reflection from the people who were making them.
So yeah. Good job.
It's certainly possible to argue that Musk hasn't done a good job of running Twitter. But the claim - made by many people here - that the site wouldn't remain function after 80% of the staff was laid off certainly proved to be incorrect.
I'm not a Twitter user, so I might miss the lack of some essential features, but it seems to me that the platform is mostly feature-complete. Just further bloating the software for the sake of it is not necessary a good strategy, yet it is one that a lot of startups follow, just because that VC R&D money has to go somewhere.
They are a 15k car at best with 20k worth of batteries masquerading as a nice car. They’re not. They’re a reasonably cost-effective EV, compared to the rest of the market, but they’re not even close to gas cars in the same price range when it comes to anything other than cost per mile.
Rightfully so? I mean you can't build up a personality cult and then separate the guy from the product.
But regardless of musk, you have to agree that the cybertruck has issues and underdelivered.
Where do you live? In the bay area, I know a lot of Tesla owners, and 100% of them are absolutely sick of Elon's antics and are not considering another Tesla. (They also all are sick of the poor reliability and terrible service.)
Seriously. This is a virtually universal opinion in my experience, but, I wonder if it's different depending on the political alignment of your area. People may be starting to consider Teslas as political signaling.
Most of my Asian friends (mostly first-generation immigrants) have Teslas. Same with many Asians (East & South) at work. The politics don't even register, so the evaluation is purely based on utility. Based on that, they all seem to be satisfied.
Among the second-generation Asians there is more political awareness and it's more 50:50 whether they go for a Tesla or not.
Like its shape is weird and 'dangerous', but the F150, RAM truck etc etc are MORE dangerous shape wise, but because it has a 'conventional' shape and the change happened gradually, some how it's ok?
The strangest was the carrot test, they kept doing this test the Cyber truck frunk... but guess what, same happens if you put carrots across the opening of other EV truck with auto close... I saw a video of it same happening with an F150 EV...what even was the point of this whole hullabaloo
I am not American, I don't even have a car, I just hate that this nonsense is polluting my internet feeds.
It's a big car with a long truck, congrats, it's not the anti christ, shut up about it.
What do you mean by shape?
Generally, safety is proportional to the relative weight of your car in the collision.
The F150, generously, is 2/3 the weight. (median F150 vs. lowest cybertruck)
Generally, when people discuss car safety in the context of SUVs, they're discussing this weight.
Rest of the stuff seems irrelevant or strawmen I've never seen (truck is antichrist!?; you're in Europe)
Either do something about the terrible truck design... or shut up and tolerate the cyber truck like you tolerate the F150 EV or whatever.
Fluff like this just pollutes the EV news space without providing any new info.
It's not the front shape or slicing people. It's the weight. I have no idea why you think anyone is hand-wringing about slicing people. No one thinks slicing people with hard edges is the problem.
It makes sense if you're A) mad about All Duh People Lying About Slicing Car or B) Actually All Heavy Cars Are Bad. You are stuck on saying A but wanting to make sense, as in B, which is at least internally coherent and reality-based, if purist.
> It's not the front shape or slicing people. It's the weight. I have no idea why you think anyone is hand-wringing about slicing people. No one thinks slicing people with hard edges is the problem.
Please read the links, I'll share them here again.
https://www.wired.com/story/a-rubberized-cybertruck-is-ploug...
https://www.transportenvironment.org/uploads/files/2024-10-0...
The F150 EV has similar weight and speed[1], not sure how it's relevant?
In fact it proves the point, no one talks about how the F150 EV or the Silverado EV etc etc having similar characteristic flaws as the cyber truck, because that doesn't generate clicks.
If anything should be generating articles, it should be the Hummer EV, that things in absurdly big, heavy and fast, even for american trucks... but that doesn't generate clicks.
Cybertruck gets undue attention, mostly negative because clickbait, and we should stop clicking such obvious baits.
[1]: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a40120063/2022-ford-f-150-...
> What do you mean by shape?
If publications want to talk about bad truck shapes in good faith, talk about ALL truck shapes! Singling out the truck made by Tesla when the trucks made by other American automakers is just as dangerous is obvious click bait, and just pollutes the EV news scape.
> The F150, generously, is 2/3 the weight. (median F150 vs. lowest cybertruck)
Also I was referring to the line in this article where they talk about how it doesn't meet EU regulations, which leads to another article[1] of their, which talks a LOT about cybertruck's bad front shape... (which I must mention for clarity, IS bad)... but make no mention of the even WORSE shapes by other competing American trucks.
Because the fact is... Tesla sells clicks. They reference a letter [2] by the NGO protesting about the (private) import of this particular turck... but said NGO's website makes no mention of OTHER dangerous american trucks privately imported to europe and parading about. The story is not the shape or pedestrian safety... it's click.
[1]: https://www.wired.com/story/a-rubberized-cybertruck-is-ploug...
[2]: https://www.transportenvironment.org/uploads/files/2024-10-0...
____
Btw, I am not in Europe. I live in a 3rd world country, not sure where I gave that insinuation.
TL:DR; ALL american trucks are terribly shaped and designed or whatever. ALL american trucks have multiple other issues and recalls... as is routine with the damn things.
Yet this particular stupid truck gets posted because it's click bait, NOT because there is some actual information to be gained. We should downvote such clickbait pollution on our feeds.
I care about EVs and climate change and emission reduction and all that.
What I don't care about is the Electric vehicle news feed being polluted with irrelevant nonsense when there are far more important news to be shared.
I don't care about the Cybertruck's oddities... because those oddities are common to other american EV trucks and therefore bring nothing new to the table.
That is an industry green wash to make you buy a new car.
There are multiple other technologies which will surpass EVs efficiency, and wont require scrapping 1.5 billion existing cars or disposing of huge battery packs after 10 years.
But I am also a realist, and as much I'd like buses and trains, we are going to have private cars anyways, and if private cars are inevitable, I'd rather they be electric.
Thats the issue. The car industry has brainwashed everyone into thinking that owning an EV is the best option for the planet. It isnt. EVs are way more pollutant in creation and disposal. Emissions out of the exhaust pipe are one tiny part of the climate impact of a vehicle.
Replacing Petrol/Diesel with Hydrogen/Synthetic fuel is a much greener option overall.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/driving-cleaner
The Cybertruck is a likely exception. It's manufacturing emissions are likely enormous and it's likely to be driven less than average since it's impractical.
On top of that they have massive chemical battery packs which are horrible to mine the resources for, are useless after 10 years, and cannot be recycled.
The report you quoted confirms all of this.
Simply putting synthetic fuel into our existing cars negates all of that and turns our existing cars tailpipe emissions into water.
Also batteries aren't useless after 10 years. They can be used for grid storage for years after being retired from EV service.
Synthetic fuel schemes are very expensive and haven't proven to be scalable.
= (Date("Jan-20-2025")-Now()).convertToWholeDays;
A more in-depth article might point to the CyberLandr, and until I went 4x4 camping, camped out of a truck, I didn’t realize how awesome a CyberLandr might be, or how nice it is that “Mother Nature’s pin striping” is a solved problem for a stainless steel skin. Or how nice it would be to do all that without all the engine noise (I get accused of “not being a car person” simply because I like peace and quiet - but EVs are cars so why can’t we love those too?).
I think the article intentionally mischaracterizes the reasons for wanting a CyberTruck, and prescribes that “you must be a shallow person who doesn’t care about practicality or reliability.”
Well thank you for telling me who I am!
Oh and why would anyone slander Tesla? It’s not like they are a publicly traded company where slander and praise affect the share or option prices. Surely they couldn’t have ulterior motives.