Well that was wild. An industry wide recruiting blacklist sounds terrible.
Key takeaways here are probably "Vinfast doesn't have much in house engineering" and "don't buy one right now".
Key takeaways here are probably "Vinfast doesn't have much in house engineering" and "don't buy one right now".
Launch fast, ignore obvious things. I see it daily: „just ship products, we finish them when they come for repairs“. Scary new world, nobody is really responsible for this. The workers do not stay long. As well as managers.
It's still clearly an exaggeration, but one could argue that reality is gradually moving in that direction.
Lead paint on children's toys and asbestos in the walls suggest there has never been a culture of making sure it is safe before putting it in production even in the physical world.
But asbestos in the walls is great for the safety of those living there — the place doesn't burn down so easily. It's the safety of anyone who inhales the dust when the place gets broken down that's endangered by asbestos.
That meme goes back at least to the 90s: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/car-balk/
I do. Speaking only for myself, but Tesla has a long long way to go to repair its manufacturing reputation in my eyes.
Plenty of companies do care. These two don’t.
Consumers and victims care about safety. Regulation is the only reason safety exists.
That's probably about the number of people who take safety into consideration as a major factor when making purchasing decisions.
Crash tests from 2000 are way stricter today.
So they all force the manufactures to fight for 5 stars
But it absolutely does punish companies whose products are shown to be dangerous.
>Volvo is the only major car company that consistently manufactures cars that widely exceed legal safety requirements
Exceeding safety standards can easily be a negative. Their cars will be more expensive than similar ones.
Also, do the Chinese care at all? Or are you just talking about the past?
That's exactly my point.
Lucid has a sample size too small to evaluate.
What matters for safety is precisely one thing. Does the company culture, meaning the engineers on the ground, view it as a goal by itself or a list of checkboxes you need to tick.
The only other company that has done this, to my knowledge, is Volvo.
Obviously it can. Cars are engineered to satisfy specific test, which are well known in advance. You can always engineer cars to satisfy them.
Crash tests aren't everything though and I mention sample size because issues might only reveal themselves after a prolonged period in a few cars. E.g. a defect on a very important component, which only occurs after some years in a few circumstances is an obvious safety issue which Lucids could not have proven themselves against.
I say this not as particular slight against Lucid, but because safety is more than satisfying tests. Often safety is where you are doing things which aren't tested at all.
>The only other company that has done this, to my knowledge, is Volvo.
Looking at the Euro NCAP is the VW ID.7 Tourer is also getting pretty decent marks.
Subsidiaries can have a different culture from their parent organizations. Volvo still has engineers and designers in Sweden, and Tata owns Land Rover and Jaguar, which seem to be doing okay safety wise and don't appear to be obviously cutting corners like the Vinfast project. I have seen no evidence of a decline in Volvo's safety record, the "but surely Geely doesn't care." argument is a reverse appeal-to-authority, in the absence of evidence. It is entirely possible that Geely (and Tata) may have poor safety cultures, but their foreign subsidiaries do a much better job.
If Swedish engineers are just developing hats, their influence on crash safety is significantly reduced. Right now Volvo still uses an inhouse platform, where they do actually have control, but it is obviously inefficient to develop numerous similar platforms for different brands.
But from where I sit, Volvo advertising and safety PR has entirely disappeared. That does not bode well for that "safety focus". Anyone has current info?
I think what will or won't break the whole thing os whether their next generation of cars will still use a self developed platform. If they do, then I would consider it quite likely that management at Volvo has the independence needed to keep their own vision. If Geely forces a platform onto them, then I think it is a pretty clear statement that they see Volvo as nothing but brand recognition.
Not everyone is following the China model.
All companies care about safety, to varying degrees and for a mix of reasons ranging from PR to regulatory burden to the fact the CEO uses the product.
Many don’t care enough by my subjective standards, but it’s silly and childish to say no company cares even the tiniest bit about safety in any context.
> All companies care about safety
is naive at best.
yes, all companies care about safety...after profits
we've structured corporations that this is the main driver, full stop.
as an example, earlier in my career i worked in aviation test equipment. for commercial and govt't agencies. let's just say i avoid flying anywhere at all costs now if i can. why? because, as always, safety is secondary to profits (and most of the time, you hope it is secondary and not ternary or worse). and this was in a 'highly regulated' industry.
Except the relationship is not strong enough to compel companies to always do the right thing (or even to do so adequately often). Especially when they perceive that the market will let them get away with it. For example when negative impacts are scheduled to occur far into the future (or in the present but affecting non-customers, or the environment).
Or when they occur in the present, but (as with seatbelts before they were mandatory) the customers just don't perceive the risks.
If you prefer to think every person who works at any company is a moustache-twirling villain
The comment you initially chimed in on was definitely quite hyperbolic. But this take is also.
Of course not "every" person working at a company needs to be ethically challenged for bad things to happen. All that's need are a few bad apples (whom we know are in no short supply) at approrpriate levels of responsibility. The rest will simply go along, to keep their jobs.
You know that.
First it has to be profitable, then it has to be useful to the customer.
https://www.the-rheumatologist.org/article/revisionist-histo...
So, yeah, without the law there's no seatbelt on your car.
>This fundamental dualism between light and darkness, good and evil, is a central tenet of Manichaeism...
- Regulators. And caring about regulations means caring about safety.
- Consumers. Who value safety a great deal. Being able to credibly signal the safety of your product is a huge factor in selling a car
(May not be SFW depending on where you work)
https://magnitglobal.com/us/en/workforce-management-platform...
> AI-powered Talent Matching: Leverage AI to identify and match top talent across blue collar and white collar roles from a broad range of sources including contingent workers, freelancers, and project-based workers.
Oh wait, it doesn't, but because it's not a tech company it gets a free pass.
Choosing to remain ignorant of such important legislation is ridiculous.
Hi! In the spirit of improving communication and assuming that you'd like to know:
A tenant is someone who rents a property
A tenet is a principle or belief that is generally considered to be true
GDPR may have technically replaced the right to be forgotten with a more limited right of erasure, but unless you care about legal phrasing it's an easy thing to mix up.
Also, it does look like a GDPR issue to me — not that I'm a lawyer, so usual caveat applies, all I can do is look at the plain language of GDPR on the Commission website.
GDPR regulates "personal data" (information that relates to an identified or identifiable individual), and looking at the "lawful purposes" list in Article 6, people running such a thing would seem to me to need to make some kind of argument about "legitimate interests" or "performance of a contract".
It may be that a plain reading of this isn't giving me the correct answer, but I don't see how placing specifically whistleblowers (rather than, say, known embezzlers) on a blacklist would meet the standards: https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/r...