|
Top-level
 @kentindell @nuthatch @danluu Dude. It's an updater. It should be *entirely* orthogonal to the actual function of the code being updated, unless you're daft enough to think the updater should be able to run when the vehicle is in motion. BTW mission critical updating is a problem that has been solved, the actual point here is that the manufacturer didn't implement that, which calls the operation of their actually mission critical competence into serious question. 7 comments
@kentindell @nuthatch @danluu Oh by all means do be specific. I've only got a few decades experience in telecom (which targets a MTBF of 400 years), so I'm interested in learning exactly what I've missed here.  @kentindell @nuthatch @danluu Or how about you dodge the details in an attempt to cover. 😂 @kentindell @nuthatch @danluu No, you're supposed to offer a vaguely cogent argument as to why a car manufacturer can't implement a robust update system while a vehicle isn't engaging in real time mechatronic functions (other than someone assessed that the probability of an update failing and the resulting compensation/PR grief was less than the cost of adding a second boot PROM to the board). Or in basic terms, you made a point; offer some minimal modicum of proof. @kentindell @nuthatch @danluu The Ad Hominem attack having failed spectacularly, the Very Important Automotive Electronics Engineer, PhD. slinks back into obscurity, confident in both his intellectual superiority and that mere mortals could never understand nor grasp the intrinsic elegance of his brilliant explanations should he descend to offer them. Third party interpretations vary. |
Gregory's Server
@alan @nuthatch @danluu Your confidence far exceeds your understanding of car electronics.