Hacker News Reader

It still doesn't sound right to me. Sure we can get adapted to the new meaning of the term as time goes on, but to me the term has strong implications to physically bring it back, and it is weird that people are claiming that it doesn't.

Surely this causes a lot of confusion at the very least people thinking those vehicles actually have to be brought back.

And the word "Email" has strong implications to actually putting a piece of paper in an envelope with stamp, and physically delivering it to their mailbox. But the world adapted and survived the change in the strong implications of the word "mail", somehow, and continues to turn on its axis.

How does e-mail have that implication when it specifically has e in front of it?

Because lots of words start with "e", like "envelope".

If I'd said "Electronic Mail" then maybe you would have a point, but I didn't.

But it isn’t a new meaning. Rather, those arguing that recall should now exclude OTA want to change a long established definition.

Google "definition of product recall"

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.

> Google "definition of product recall"

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.

It’s not dishonest to not want to call something that is not a recall a recall.

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).

Yeah, the argument is about the legal definition being misleading and confusing and what should be changed, because of the bias and meaning of the word "recall". The fact that most google results will imply physical return of the product is evidence of popular definition and legal definition diverging. In addition the word inherently implies bring it back because of the "re". It doesn't imply "there's a safety issue that needs to be addressed".

> 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.

> [...] 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.

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.

Not German. Okay, from other side of the view. Why not change it? It's clearly confusing a lot of people, and with such an important topic, where people would have to pay attention.

> 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?

In general, I think trying to replace a word gets increasingly hard the longer the replacement is than the original (in terms of letters for writing and syllables for speaking). I have a hard time imagining people being bothered enough by the current term to be willing to say something four times as long (or using five times as many characters-worth of space on the page in an era where online news is already struggling to keep people's attention).

> not being able to drive the car

I had plenty of recalls and it never happened even once that I could not drive the car before the recall.

Maybe better, shouldn’t drive the car because of safety issues

This is hyperbole. Most of the Tesla recalls that I can remember did not impact the safety of the vehicle.

Is there no difference between a software "recall" and a software update?

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.

Specifically speaking on software and tesla most/all recalls are for items that no longer comply with a government rule. No argument, the rules should be followed but I do believe there is a shade of gray as a number of them are imo tail events. They should be fixed but I would not classify them as the car cannot be used because safety is an 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.

Honestly, some of these read like “Three ton car can be driven into people if the steering wheel is applied in the wrong direction. Constitutes danger to public safety and cannot be used.”

That was my only point too. Tesla has lots of issues and the cyber truck is no stranger to it but most of the recalls people cite are not true safety issues.

Yeah, I think there's a significant difference between "Tesla decided to push a software update to their cars on their own" and "the government said the cars are unsafe, so Tesla was required to push a software update", and that's worth capturing in the language we use to describe those events.

You are aware that in this very thread are examples of Tesla recalls that impacted the safety of the vehicle?

You are aware I said most right? I am responding to the typical Tesla hyperbole. All issues that warrant a recall classification absolutely should be fixed but I would not go as far to say the vehicle should not be used due to safety. I think I can manage even though the font size in the instrument cluster is incorrect.

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.

My model y has had a number of recalls and I never knew about it. From things to the UI not meeting government requirements to other software issues. It was never unsafe to drive.

Just because you didn’t crash doesn’t mean it was safe to drive.

Have you even looked at the recall list or are you just spewing the usual Tesla hyperbole? Recalls should be fixed regardless but the vast majority of Tesla recalls are not base case safety fixes. Sure they comply with a government rule for some tail case but hardly the earth shattering situation where the car sits unable to drive because it’s unsafe. Font sizes, boom box drowning out the pedestrian noise…all kinds of things. Hence why I said every recall that I have gotten was not a true safety item. Unless you have experience or facts stop with the hyperbole.