China to ban hidden door handles on cars starting 2027
China to ban hidden door handles on cars starting 2027
China will ban hidden door handles on cars, commonly used on Tesla’s electric vehicles and many other EV models, starting next year.The Associated Press (NBC News)
like this
🇵🇸antifa_ceo
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ • • •MCGiorgi
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ • • •ShinkanTrain
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ • • •like this
LPS likes this.
Valarie
in reply to ShinkanTrain • • •Either that or ban obfuscated hardware 9r software in vehicles and require the infotainment section to be modular so that people can change out pieces and upgrade hardware as they want
And do the same thing for all electronics
Ferk
in reply to Valarie • • •Most people already carry infotainment devices in their pockets that can be attached to holders and charging ports in the car. Even better if you connect a hub with some SSD storage to keep movies/music.
I feel infotainment systems bundled in cars are mostly redundant and explicitly made to be non-modular so that they can get you into their walled garden.
Valarie
in reply to Ferk • • •Ferk
in reply to Valarie • • •Running it through the same computer is a bad practice, imho. Remember the Jeep Hack where researchers were able to dig into the integrated infotainment system and control the brakes?
I wouldn't want to have critical car functions (or emissions control, regulatory software, ADAS, telematics, etc) depend on the same device that someone might be using to connect to the internet and/or run Android Auto apps. Regardless of whether it's integrated or not.
I guess it might be ok to share energy and some non-critical capabilities with the infotainment system.. but you can do that through a USB-C connection without requiring it be integrated directly in the vehicle. Imho they should be isolated, and what best way of isolating it than being completely different computers?
Valarie
in reply to Ferk • • •Ferk
in reply to Valarie • • •Open source software is not bug free. I'd argue there are more vulnerabilities caused by human error than there are caused by malicious actors. More often than not, malicious actors are just exploiting the errors/gaps left by completely legit designers.
Running those open source apps in a separate computer, isolating infotainment from the more critical software, would be an even stronger safety layer, imho.
Valarie
in reply to Ferk • • •Ferk
in reply to Valarie • • •I agree, which is why I think running those open source apps in a separate computer, isolating infotainment from the more critical software, would be a stronger safety layer.
Them being separated should, imho, be a precondition, so that it can minimize accidents and exploits in cars that might be running software that is not immediately up to date as a result from publicly and well known vulnerabilities being discovered as the code evolves.
SatansMaggotyCumFart
in reply to ShinkanTrain • • •Like gas pedals and brakes.
Those should be a button or a dimmer switch.
Pika
in reply to SatansMaggotyCumFart • • •IMO any type of touch control in a car shouldn't be a thing. Drivers rely on tactile feedback on controls, when you replace them with touch buttons it takes more concentration and therefore decreases the drivers awareness of their surroundings.
Granted the argument is you shouldn't be adjusting it while driving but, my response is why have it in the first place.
Ferk
in reply to Pika • • •Exactly. If you shouldn't be adjusting it, then why is the touchscreen even accepting adjustments in the first place? ... it should be rejecting all touches whenever the engine is running to prevent people from even trying, which completely defeats the point of having a touchscreen in the first place anyway...
It makes no sense to have an input that explicitly requires you to take your eyes away from the road in order to operate it.
Avid Amoeba
in reply to SatansMaggotyCumFart • • •pineapple
in reply to ShinkanTrain • • •HiddenLayer555
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ • • •