this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
318 points (95.4% liked)

Technology

59594 readers
3118 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ominouslemon@lemm.ee 129 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Friendly reminder: Mozilla studied 25 car brands and NONE of them passed the privacy test. Mozilla even said that cars are "privacy nightmares".

[–] ArtificialLink@lemmy.ca 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I mean this is gotta be on the newest Internet connected cars right? Cause like aint no way my 2017 ford focus has that many "privacy issues" it doesn't even have android auto lol.

[–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago (11 children)

Has what's called a Telematics Control Unit. And that thing phones home. It's basically a wifi modem.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] NotSoCoolWhip@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Nope, still a privacy nightmare

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 15 points 1 year ago

Notable was (I believe) Nissan, who included a clause about tracking your sexual activity.

[–] stopthatgirl7@kbin.social 55 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Car companies really seem to be going all-in on technofeudalism. It’s definitely not the industry I would have expected.

[–] andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 16 points 1 year ago

Here's the reason: it's not the industry that's the problem. It's the system surrounding the industry.

[–] reksas@sopuli.xyz 43 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] FaeDrifter@midwest.social 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Collective ownership of communism gonna start looking a lot less scary to everyone when they own nothing anyway.

[–] reksas@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Communism would be nice economic model to try, but i wonder if its possible to setup in such a way it wont become mockery of itself like how russians did it. At least if hypothetically there was some kind of revolution after people get enough of current exploitation, most likely horrible people would worm into positions of power using the chaos and it would turn out like soviet union eventually. Peaceful and well though plan would be more resilient to corruption, but in current world even serious talk of such things gets shot down immediately.

[–] cybersandwich@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

people would worm into positions of power

Literally the reason models like that will never work. They don't account for human nature. Humans love finding ways to put themselves ahead of others. You put a system in place to make people "even" -- we'll find a way to be more 'even' than Frank. That guys not nearly as 'even' as me. At the end of the day we are apes with hierarchical social structures. Any economic or political model that has a snowballs chance of succeeding needs to account for that.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I think the first thing has to be making the government more representative. Congress should be something like 10,000 people based on the original ratio. We don't have to go that far but a country of 325 million people needs a very large people's house. Then we need to make it to where people vote, not land. Get rid of districts, first past the post, and the Senate.

Without those changes anything we do is doomed to just be another way to make rich people richer.

[–] miak@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's really refreshing to see someone else point out the issue of how the small size of the House results in shitty representation. I have never seen anyone else bring this up before, thank you!

[–] Repelle@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago (3 children)

One of several reasons I really want to do an electric conversion of an old car rather than buying a new electric car.

[–] Mr_Blott@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Renault Twingo, the original one with the eyes

Would sell like hot cakes in Paris

[–] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

I'm not sure how feasible that is. Batteries are heavy, and take up space, and there's only so much room under the hood for battery modules. If you cram it to the max, can the frame take that load all the time? It might work for a short-ranged car - maybe 100km range, to avoid going much heavier than the normal curb-weight.

[–] Repelle@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

You’re not wrong about those things being issues, but also people do electric conversions all the time, there are shops that specialize in it and premade kits you can buy for it. Low range is certainly a very common outcome, but I don’t have big range requirements for most of my driving. Plus, I love taking on projects that are way over my had and muddling through them somehow. It’s how I learn best.

[–] CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 5 points 1 year ago

This is actually a not uncommon swap and some companies have even started selling kits to do it on certain vehicles.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I have my shopping list together to convert an old Kia Rio to electric for 100 km range, it's about 400lbs of lifepo batteries and a 200lb motor. So slightly more than the cratered ICE motor I'd be taking out.

But yah, if you want to drive across the country, convert an SUV or light pickup for the room to keep the batteries, and remove everything weight wise that you can to compensate.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've thought about this also but that's insanely expensive and older cars are very unsafe by comparison.

[–] Repelle@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I no longer have a family and don’t prioritize personal safety, but there are a lot of cars that aren’t too old which are still quite safe and lack all the connectivity crap.

[–] Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm pretty happy with my 2007 pickup truck. Not sure I'd be interested in a new one even if I could afford it. I consider even the automatic windshield wipers to be too fancy for my taste and would rather have the traditional ones. Connecting my car to the internet is out of the question.

[–] dorkage@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago

I'll die before I give up my automatic wipers! Thankfully my 2004 and 2013 VWs have it and don't lock me out of features like new cars.

[–] Beelzebob@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'll just stick with my 94.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm a modern man, I have a 98. Well, and a 77, though carburetors are black magic still.

[–] Beelzebob@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I've said the same about carbs, all I see is screws and black magic.

[–] nutsack@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

carburetors are fine if you're not a pussy

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] phx@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago

This seems more about repair notifications target than the repairs themselves. Personally, so long as the technicians in the shop aren't locked out by proprietary controls from diagnostics on-site, I couldn't give a damn if the dealership is getting the wireless "notifications" or not.

My dealership tells us about lots of things we "need done". I take the vehicle to a trusted mechanic who either does the work or tells me when they're full of shit

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 8 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Nathan White, CitySide’s general manager, said his staff warns car shoppers that features like those requiring wireless transmission don’t work on new Subaru models sold in the state.

Subaru crippled its technology over a state law intended to let people share their car’s wireless repair information with any service shop — not only the authorized dealer.

The Massachusetts law, and a similar one that Maine voters approved in a landslide this week, show our desire to influence what happens to the reams of data our cars collect.

The Massachusetts and Maine laws could let a car owner send an in-dash warning about worn brake pads to a service shop of her choice to schedule repairs.

Joshua Siegel, a Michigan State University engineering professor, said this isn’t a simple task and that car manufacturers are doing a reasonable job in trying to comply with the spirit of a first-of-its-kind law in Massachusetts.

At CitySide Subaru, White hopes that automakers find a way to let car owners provide remote vehicle maintenance data to any service shop.


The original article contains 907 words, the summary contains 174 words. Saved 81%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] nutsack@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

in the future there is only one company and it is not possible to own anything

[–] bingbong@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago

AmaMetAppleSoftGle™

[–] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Isn't mercedes doing subscription heated seats etc?

[–] ArtVandelay@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] phx@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And they gave up on it, at least for now, because not unexpectedly it was a terrible fucking idea

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 5 points 1 year ago

I'm sure they knew it was a terrible idea. They just boiled the frog too quickly. They'll try it again in 5 years.

[–] ultra@feddit.ro 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That was BMW. Mercedes was even worse: they locked full acceleration behind a subscription

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

BMW already dropped it, it was that popular.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›