Fine, it won’t accelerate in the turn, you’re still set higher coming out of it. Now you accelerate in the straight instead of the corner. There’s no case in which that’s a good or desirable outcome, and it can be easily mitigated by not having these controls so easy to accidentally press.
Physical buttons I’m fine with. It’s the capacitive/swipe buttons. They’re far too easy to accidentally activate, since they only require a touch, and they’re in the one spot of your car that you touch the most often.
Critical functions, so things that effect how the car cars, should never be on touch buttons. There is too much wiggle room with them consistently activating when you expect them to. If you want to put non-critical components on touch buttons, so things like radio, AC, locks… Fine. I don’t prefer it, but at least you’re not creating a hazard. Acceleration, deceleration, steering, braking, and safety should NEVER be on a capacitive sensor.
The point is, your car shouldn’t be state changing suddenly. It shouldn’t be accelerating when you’re expecting it to coast or cruise. Unless something is wrong. Which I guess there is, there are capacitive slide inputs on the steering wheel.
This issue is only a couple of levels of abstraction removed from Boeing’s mcas system. A poorly implemented feature no one asked for that isn’t explained properly. Trained pilots can’t react to their planes suddenly operating in a way that they don’t expect. You expect a layman in traffic to?
It’s easy to decry individual responsibility, and say only the most fit should be able to drive. What about the responsibility to the manufacturer? It’s clear enough that there’s a design flaw with this system. More drivers need to be aware, but why the hard-on for defending a clearly bad implementation of a feature? What’s at stake for you?
Can confirm, my car has the following cruise control buttons:
On/off - res/+
Cancel - set/-
The on/off button arms or disarms cruise control entirely. With it armed and no speed set, set/+ will set the current speed as the target speed. With no speed set, the only other button that does anything is the on/off button, which disarms the system.
With a speed set:
On/off will still complete disarm the system
Cancel will remove the set speed, but keep the system armed
Tapping the brake will pause the cruise control
Res/+ will increment the speed by one mph, or resume cruise at the previous set speed if cruise has been paused
Set/- will decrement the mph by 1, or if held pause the cruise control until it’s released.
One of set or resume will set the current travel speed as the new cruise speed, if travel speed is higher than cruise. I think it’s res.
For the most part this works fine. I don’t use the resume function, like you said it can be a bit harrowing if you’re not certain exactly what speed is set, and my car is over a decade old - it doesn’t have that feature. But, critically, it’s not a fucking CAPACITIVE BUTTON, and I’ve never accidentally hit it once.
Sure, I totally can’t see someone swiping on their steering wheel, say, shuffling across it to… I dunno, turn it? And either jetting forward because they just bumped it from 55 to 75 over the course of a turn, or suddenly slowing, probably without brake lights. Swipe on a steering wheel has got to be the worst car idea I’ve heard in a while, and I’ve heard some bad ideas.
Again, unless I’m misunderstanding the controls, which I am open to the possibility of. Please, if this is the case, let me know.
Wait a minute. There are SWIPE CONTROLS on the steering wheel that adjust the cruise control speed by 5 mph increments? And we don’t think that’s problematic? I’m either misunderstanding the controls or not sure how that seems like a good idea at all
I do IT for some stores. My team lead briefly suggested having store managers try to do this fix. I HARD vetoed that. That’s only going to do more damage.
That was the dumbest thing to learn this morning.
I think vulnerabilities found count as “something broken” and chap you replied to simply did not think that far ahead hahah
Mate the closest thing you’ve done to making a counter argument is say “nuh uh!” Lol. And again, you’re making baseless assumptions about me.
Why would I defend it when it hasn’t been attacked?
You make a lot of assumptions about me based on nothing. Not a good look.
You sound angry.
Because you choose not to look. That’s the whole point. You refuse to engage with anything.
You clearly don’t care to listen to any of the heaps of evidence that points to the contrary. If you’re not arguing with the intention of actually hearing anything your opposition is saying, why argue? Just like wasting time?
Pretty sure definitionally speaking, you’re wrong, as evidenced above.
And weapons are tools. We’ve come full circle. Appeal to emotions all you want. That’s all your argument boils down to. It’s fuckin hilarious to me that you seem to think this argument is about whether or not guns are a good thing. That’s NEVER been the argument here. Guns aren’t good or bad, they’re simply tools. Treat them with respect and seek actual understanding, and maybe we can actually effectively regulate them.
Well, three of them are construction workers, and one is a kid misusing a tool, is what you want me to say. If you want an example of what I’m talking about, though - three are white, and one is black. Three are facing left, and one is facing right. Three have their arms up, and one had their arms down. All of those are valid answers to your question. This is why definitions, agreeing on them, and sticking to them, are important.
There, you got my response, now go engage with my argument, instead of deflecting.
So do you not consider hunting for food productive? What about sporting purposes?
There’s a very real reason I’m digging in on this. You can’t just arbitrarily say a certain thing isn’t what it clearly is, because it suits your purposes. A gun is still a tool, even if it’s quite regularly misused. You lose nothing by classifying it as a tool, and by seeking to reclassify it as something else, you open the door to a host of legal fuckery.
Further, we regulate tools all the time, so it’s not like saying it’s a tool means we can’t, or shouldn’t, regulate firearms. Just look at cars. Definitely tools, and regulated to high hell. It’s important to be specific, though, if we’re proposing to regulate things. If you’re not specific, you end up with dumb things like certain kinds of nail guns being regulated as firearms.
I’m not some crazy gun nut. I think there should absolutely be some more regulations on guns. I think they should make sense, though, and to do that you have to define your terms rigidly.
I think it has real staying power, if they can make the rest of the game as content rich as the first dozen or so hours. It’s only a flash in the pan because there’s not more fuel. As is the case for a lot of early access.