I only agree if that separation means the vehicle cannot be remotely disabled by the manufacturer; on purpose or by accident.
Comment on Jeep pushed software update that bricked all 2024 Wrangler 4xe models
cley_faye@lemmy.world 1 day agoAdmin right on the automotive parts seems like asking for trouble by default. While I’m very much in favor of owning and controlling all my devices, cars feels like weapons we put in the hand of the general public because they’re deemed safe under regulations, so… yeah.
However, an EV with a separate automotive computer that only do car stuff under strict control, connected to another one that do management, UI, entertainment, etc. that’s more open, I could see that. As long as the proprietary one have decent changelogs (that you’d have to trust, sadly) and can be updated at will with a decent UX instead of “your car’s dead this morning lol”. That sound like a viable compromise.
4am@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
michaelmrose@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Any bad thing the user wants to do with the car can already be done by the person with the keys. Allowing the user more control could prevent someone including a terrorist or enemy state from doing something bad to millions of people like virtually cutting everyone’s brakes at once.
cley_faye@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
You’d be surprised how many stupid thing users are prevented from doing by a basic software check. Making it easy to load a custom firmware downloaded from wherever do sounds like trouble brewing. Of course, I can’t foresee the future, but It’s already an issue with electric scooters, so I’m not in a hurry of seeing that coming to bigger vehicles.
tengkuizdihar@programming.dev 1 day ago
if i cant use sudo on my own device, then its not my device!
waspentalive@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I have long said in regard to Microsoft Windows, “If anyone else can shutdown your computer without your permission, it is not your computer, it is theirs” - same goes for cars.