• bigmclargehuge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        In a car with numerous driver aids, a 15 inch touchscreen, 40 cameras and a laser guided cruise missile, yes I agree, you want an OS.

        I personally want a car where the “smartest” aspect is the fuel delivery system. Power steering, brakes, etc can all be done mechanically. I’m not a fan of advanced assists as I’ve seen far, FAR too many people become reliant on them and turn into lazy, dangerous drivers. I strongly believe that all base models should still be sold with zero assists, mainly to encourage people to actually act like they’re licensed to operate a piece of heavy equipment in a public space.

    • ironsoap
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      While I agree with the sentiment, I have accepted that the simple way to make “things” work now is to leverage the cheap computing that is ubiquitous. That headunit is likely now built on a SoC or some embedded OS and is easier and cheaper because of it.

      Functionally we need regulations and safeguards in place that maintain the accountability for making the choice to use and build an OS as a life safety device that also serves Bluetooth audio. If the cost of supporting it, or failing to properly develop it, then perhaps the choice to make it dumb will become more adopted. Other economic forces are more likely to play out, but it’s a possibility that we can reinforce by what we buy and signal.

      • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        The safety-critical features tend to be on systems separate from the infotainment ones, in part because it’s a lot easier to safety-certify something simpler and more dedicated to automotive tasks. You won’t die if your AC and Taylor Swift stop working.