My impression is that most news now is just reported by a single source or a wire service, and 90+% of sites just write their own article based on that first news site's article.
What's the big deal? They could just fix a problem like that with software. Just patch in an emergency acceleration shutdown button in a sub-menu on the touchscreen (e.g. hit truck, "Controls", select a new "disable jammed accelerator", click confirm).
Oh man, as someone who has driven a tesla in the rain where the automatic wipers didn't work and I had to frantically dig through touch screen menus on the highway, this sounds all too real.
There's still a physical button for the wipers. On the Cybertruck it's on the steering wheel. When you press it to wipe (generally used for spray-washing the windshield), the entire menu pops up where you can choose the speed, frequency, etc.
Mine also has a physical button, but it only triggers a single wipe. My workflow is usually press physical button, then touch the manual setting on the touchscreen to continuously operate.
Wipers in on the stick or a dedicated button if a stickless version. Why not use that? It also brings up the selector on the screen if it the automation doesn't kick in after the manual trigger.
When my 6,500 pound cybertruck starts unexpectedly accelerating at a rate that can reach 100MPH in ~7 seconds, the very first thing I am going to be doing is scanning the dashboard for an abort button that has never been there before.
I've never driven an EV but I'm curious about this statement. When would continuing to accelerate ever be the desired behaviour when pressing both pedals at the same time?
There's some corner cases where using both can be beneficial (like heel-toe downshifts with manual gearboxes, or changing the way torque is steered on AWD), but they're generally pretty far removed from the way that driving is usually taught or performed.
Even the classic parking brake hill start in a manual car involves braking and applying engine torque at the same time, despite the fact that the brake pedal isn’t being pressed.
But starting on a hill in a conventional automatic with a torque converter also involves either rolling back a bit or pressing the accelerator a bit before releasing the brake.
>But starting on a hill in a conventional automatic with a torque converter also involves either rolling back a bit or pressing the accelerator a bit before releasing the brake.
Felt deeply in San Francisco. I think newer cars rollback less than older cars. Either way, it is unnerving when driving in Lombard street.
You can't pay me enough to drive in SFO in a stick shift.
Many modern stick shifts have "hill hold"[1] that keeps the car still until the clutch makes contact. Still, would need good throttle/clutch control not to stall after that.
I don't think it would be. I read parent post as "when pressed enough to trigger the switch, the brake pedal has priority and disables acceleration." There may be a tiny amount of pressure that you can put on the brake pedal before it detects the press.
It's handy to have brakes and acceleration when you want to spin the tires (2wd).
Sometimes necessary for tricky hill starts, I won't fully remove the brake until I feel the accelerator moving the car forward, but that should fit within the GP's 'little bit'. EVs should be easier on hill starts because there's potential for less latency between input and power delivery, but I dunno; I don't care for driving east across downtown Seattle regardless of if I'm in an all gas or a PHEV.
"Hill start" buttons have been standard on ICE cars for some time now.
Hell, my 1987 Toyota pickup had one. You could put it in 1st gear, let the clutch out and then turn the key to start, if you were on a very steep hill. Comes in handy offroad.
My 2017 Chrysler Pacifica doesn't have a hill start button (nor does it just do it, afaik, which I've had with some rentals), so I'm not so sure it's standard on ICE cars for some time.
My 2014 PHEV does have a button, but I don't use it, because when I'm in the situation that needs it, there's usually cars behind me, and that's not a good time to test and see how it works.
Starting on a hill is the common case, for me anyway.
I also imagine that two-foot drivers would prefer for the effect of pressing the brake to be smooth, and having the slightest touch instantly reduce motor torque to zero could be jarring.
It can be pretty useful in offroading to hold a medium-high amount of throttle and use the brakes to modulate as they're more responsive, but it's hard to picture a cybertruck doing that kind of offroading. Not to mention it's only necessary due to the throttle/drivetrain response curve - that might be entirely negated if the low speed throttle response in the EV is decent enough for crawling.
Because Lexus had to justify the F-Sport package which added zero performance improvements, so they bolted on some shiny metal.
The 2017 RX (and even the latest RX) is about a decade behind in technology compared to Tesla & the German manufacturers. When you invest very little into R&D, you can afford to add shiny metal bits.
While I didn't spell this out, luxury sports models are just about the one exception to the rule. Lexus is a luxury brand and that is a sports model.
Most vehicles are not luxury or sports models so my statement is still accurate.
---
EDIT: Looking up replacement parts, Toyota and Lexus uses a "stud" style pedal that's bolted into the accelerator at the floor. In this case a "cover" isn't really applicable.
In fact, I think you might have the only manufacturer that actually doesn't use a cover. Likely in response to their pedal scandal as older Toyota models use an arm with a cover.
One of the great tragedies of the power of modern logistics - and technology, frankly - is that it's ever-easier to disguise low-quality items behind a veneer of shiny chrome.
For the unfortunate times where I need to use a Lyft, and it also happens to be a Tesla, I am ALWAYS shocked at how cheap the whole vehicle feels. They're also some of the roughest feeling rides I've ever had, I can feel every bump on the road.
(Additionally I always have to play the fun "how do I open this door from the outside again?" game. But maybe my driver was right and it's "really obvious." ...)
The promise of the truck was as is typical more 'rugged' than 'high quality'. I never considered myself part of the target market, so my reaction was more 'bold choice, lets see if this pans out' unironically.
Really? Because as was recently brought to popular attention, the software requires the car doors to stay closed to update itself, which in my view is some real Windows 95-level engineering. Not impressed.
The only car I've had software that worked at all in, and I've owned a Tesla, was a Citroen. And that was because it had no software worth mentioning other than a BT receiver.
Cars in the US are highly scrutinized by reviewers and enthusiasts, and they're highly regulated.
It's been basically impossible to disguise poor quality in cars here for a long time, so the failure of shiny chrome is the least of the Cybertruck's problems.
Maybe in very recent cars but man the lack of government standards allows the absolute worst cars to be driven on the road because a lot of manufacturers (mainly American and Korean) have had on and off decades of pretty bad low quality cars. Cars that would fail inspection in Japan or Germany are perfectly fine here and as a result the overall fleet is on the crappier side.
Yeah this. Total shit. I had a Model S P100D and the doors didn't even shut or line up properly. If you can't get the basics right then there's going to be a lot of problems hiding away that you can't see and serious procedural and process problems.
On mine I had unintended braking randomly in the middle of the motorway. I think that's less fucked than unintended acceleration at least. Maybe not for the guy behind me.
I now don't own a car. It was the most money I've lost in one go and the worst vehicle I've ever driven.
Was this back when they had radar? Unintended braking is/was a common issue for all manufacturers - my Prius would randomly slam on the brakes whenever I went underneath a bridge.
If the pedal, one of the 4 primary ways of controlling the 3 ton vehicle, is this egregiously faulty, then where else has Telsa skimped on vital QA in the design?
The culture that leads to cheap glue holding on a piece that can jam the pedal down likely cut corners in 100 other places.
That's not at all what was said. It's fair to assume that this is one additioanal issue we've seen with the Cybertruck, and when you add all those things up, you realize the Cybertruck is doomed.
Why do you think this person meant that this single deficiency is the reason it's doomed? Have you thought that way in the past about things?
No it's doomed because it's a classic Elon Musk product: it was rushed into production, build quality is low and the aesthetics, which are unrefined and overwhelming, are used to mask an overall shoddy product that overpromised and underdelivered. The pedals are just one example of it. The body panel gaps and poor off-road performance are others.
On a US$ 60-100k product it's absolutely a slap on the face, no questions, there's absolutely no reason to cheap out on a fastener for the pedal trim.
Also puts in question what is actually happening on Tesla's engineering org, one just needs to have a moderate amount of reasoning power to think about the scenario "what happens in case this piece gets loose?" on a critical feature of a car, not even an engineering-related study nor a big brain, it's just a reasonable thought to have, so how could this piece pass all the engineering process review?
What's happening in their engineering org is obvious: pressure is being applied to trim every unnecessary cost, even tiny ones, to maximize profit margin. And this pressure is clearly coming from the top. We've seen evidence of this from a number of high-profile changes that can't have escaped the notice of executive management: (1) the elimination of the radome, (2) the removal of sonar for parking, (3) the removal of turn signal and shifter stalks. What's different in this case is that now these penny-ante cost savings have reached safety-critical components.
> (3) the removal of turn signal and shifter stalks.
I remember reading about the removal of the turn-signal stalk, (moving it to buttons on the steering wheel itself) and IMO it's just bonkers.
How the heck is someone already in some squiggly turns or a roundabout supposed to identify and touch the correct spot without taking their eyes off the twisting road or compromising their grip on the wheel that wants to return to the neutral position?
“.. should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.”
>(1) the elimination of the radome, (2) the removal of sonar for parking, (3) the removal of turn signal and shifter stalks
Alternative explanation of this is if they have a vision to move users to a self driving future, it makes sense to start slowly transitioning users by eliminating things that don't make sense in that paradigm. If you can save some cost then its a bonus. (Their cars supposedly get ~30% margins so idk if cost was even really a primary rather than a secondary consideration).
Having radar allows you to do neat tricks like bounce the signal off of the bottom of the car in front of you, meaning your car can detect slowdowns and collisions way ahead of what direct vision can do.
LiDAR similarly augments camera vision to beyond-human capacity.
Personally I think it should be, according to traditional (pre-y2k) values.
But in a society of the spectacle, people find their meaning in relation to the larger show. Just listen to the satisfaction in the voice of the video above: He feels good because he was able to rectify the situation. He was also able to relate to a larger audience because of it. The Tesla's failure gave him meaning.
Now other people will want to be like him and buy a cybertruck and find and fix issues and demonstrate them to a global audience...
"Among the many commentaries on Debord's demise, one scholar noted: "Guy Debord did not kill himself. He was murdered by the thoughtlessness and selfishness of so-called scholars (primarily trendy lit-criters) who colonized his brilliant ideas and transformed his radical politics into an academic status symbol not worth the pulp it's printed on…""
Presumably whoever thought that accelerator pedals shouldn't be very carefully designed to avoid jamming full throttle, because no car has ever had an unintended acceleration problem, is presumably now part of the 10%.
That is insane. especially in a car where you can't really just rip on the ebrake or throw the engine into neutral with a gear stick. It's terrifying to think these massive trucks are all around kids and families.
You don't need to do any of that. You just hit the brake, which overrides acceleration. For this particular problem, drive-by-wire is superior to those mechanical controls.
Assuming the controls are the same as the Model 3, you can use the lever on the steering column to shift into neutral. It's not a mechanical solution, but it is doable without using the touchscreen.
Edit: just out of curiosity I went to look at photos of the Cybertruck interior. No levers on the steering column. WTF. That alone would be a deal breaker for me.
holy shit I thought I was kidding but this thing doesn't have an off button, from pg 72 in the owners manual (note that shifting into park is also a touchscreen button that displays when stopped)[0]:
When you finish driving and shift into Park, simply exit the vehicle. When you leave Cybertruck with your phone key, it powers off automatically, turning off the touchscreen.
Cybertruck also powers off automatically after being in Park for 30 minutes, even if you are sitting in the driver's seat.
Although usually not needed, you can power off Cybertruck while sitting in the driver's seat, provided the vehicle is not moving. Touch Controls > Safety > Power Off. Cybertruck automatically powers back on after a short period if you press the brake pedal or touch the touchscreen.
I don't recall reading such, but I can tell you from experience that there was absolutely some sort of physical sensor, electrical, or software problem. I was sitting stopped at a red light with my foot square on the brake when the engine on our 2009 Corolla started revving hard. The brake held, and I was able to pop it into neutral and safely turn the car off and on again. Then it was fine.
It did it to me at least one more time in a similar situation. I am very glad not to have been driving in traffic when it happened.
The trouble went away after some of the recall work was done, but we never fully trusted that vehicle again. For what it's worth, we still drive a pair of Toyotas.
Yeah, I remember one day just after I got home in my manual VW rabbit, with the the engine still running, the gear in neutral, and my foot on the brake, suddenly the engine revved hard by itself.
I put off the engine, and it has never occurred again as far as I can tell, but no one can convince me that that was not a case of unexplained acceleration due to some internal bug.
Thankfully the break overrides the acceleration, and I imagine a driver's eventual instinct will be to hit the break - and once they notice the vehicle decelerating they can stop panicking.
The TikTok video[1] that originally showed off this issue noted that he was able to stop because the brake overrode the accelerator. He was then able to set the truck to "Park" using the touchscreen while he figured out what happened.
But you also spend a lot of cycles building and maintaining the ancillary features that make queues powerful. Early- to mid-stage companies especially need to focus on business logic and less on reinventing wheels
If your early to mid-stage company needs queues to depth then what is in them is vital to your business.
You better know what is going on with mission critical data at every step of its journey. Or the data isnt that important and you should write something lighter than this because it can be lossy...
Queues and workflow engines aren’t the right solution for everything, but they work well for a lot of stuff. Like a signup flow that integrates with multiple third-parties, or a drip campaign, or notifications.
Those are things many small, all developer teams need. They don’t want to hire an infra-minded person just for queues and workflows
Inngest is the reliability layer for modern applications. Inngest combines durable execution, events, and queues into a zero-infra platform with built-in observability. We're multi-cloud (host your code wherever you want!) and multi-language. Our product takes advanced-but-complicated reliability patterns and makes them simple to configure for any developer.
We're a team of 10 who recently raised a seed extension round. Come join us if you want to work in our fascinating problem space!
Hey, for the Senior Frontend role, I fit your ideal candidate profile quite well, plus your bonus points. Would love to chat. Is there an email you'd prefer or a way of tagging an application from HN?
You can apply on Ashby here - https://jobs.ashbyhq.com/inngest (we use that as an ATS). If you want a quick chat beforehand you can reach out to me - tony [at] inngest.com
1.1k isn't bad for a project with ~33 million weekly downloads[1], imo. Yes, I know that's not necessarily a good metric, but it's ~10 million more than React[2] which also has a similar number of open issues[3].
A code formatter has no business having 1100 open issues (5k closed). It is not rocket science.
In my experience, the number of open issues not only correlates with popularity, but how crappy the language is. Javascript projects, with its myriad of dependencies and attracting junior, inexperienced devs, tend to accumulate a great number of bugs.
For reference, curl has 24 open issues (4k closed), it is a couple orders of magnitude more complex AND more used than prettier.
I don't know enough about prettier. But in general linters (which have overlap with formatters but aren't the same) have a lot of issues that fall in the "this is not my preference. It must therefore be changed" category.
"Gofmt's style is no one's favorite, yet gofmt is everyone's favorite."
I guess.
That annoys the crap out of me. Closing stale issues doesn’t make the issues go away, it just means that edge cases aren’t addressed. If I have an issue and find myself in a stale-closed issue, I’m not even going to bother reporting it. I’m either going to look for a different library altogether, one that actually tries to solve edge cases; or I’m going to create my own library as a big middle-finger to the project. At work, I’ll just open a new issue, which will probably just be ignored.
Yeah, I stopped reporting issues to projects when I have seen tons of stale bot closed issues. Those were real bugs, still really in the codebase, just no one fixed it for arbitrary short time.
And arguably we’re where we are because people have this idea that issue counts are comparable between projects.
I see this way of thinking around CVEs too. I think it’s a mistake of making data-driven decisions based on noise rather than signals. It sounds good when you have a comparative number to go on.
I see open issues as a pretty good signal that people are using the software and people care about its development, but maybe the number of contributors is too small. In these cases, I might even open the PR myself. Issues without replies though is probably the worst signal you can send as a maintainer. Closing issues without replying and letting a stale bot passively aggressively close issues is probably tied, but it’s usually hidden away.
I don’t want to post a specific issue without doxxing myself but you can browse through the open issues on GitHub to find some.
Some are years old! I think the more popular languages tend to be better supported so you probably don’t know about it but prettier is a massive monolith with support for many languages and use cases. Sometimes there are bugs that mangle code
Go can be `tuple[User | None, Exception | None]` or `tuple[User, Exception | None]`, depending on whether you're returning a pointer. But yea, Go's approach has its warts. Like if you aren't returning a pointer then you need to return the zero value (e.g. `User{}`) even when returning an error
I've also seen APIs that allow returning both error and a value ("something went wrong, but here is a fallback or something") which are of course extremely confusing given the usual style.
That type won't help if you're unpacking like `user, err = get_user(user_id)`. Both values will be nullable and the type-checker won't understand that `user` is not None if `err` is None
Agreed. It's also objectively worse because you lose the stack trace in the final exception you will display to your user. Enjoy debugging that when a customer sends you an error.
It makes the happy path harder to read but the unhappy paths much clearer. I hated this aspect of Go when I first started with the language but I love it now
