this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2023
130 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37724 readers
438 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So I'm assuming that means that they're admitting that they put a safety hazard in all those prior cars and are assuming liability for every accident where infotainment systems may have been involved, right?
I don't think that's how it works, and is a pretty toxic and non-constructive way to look at this.
If they're going to lie to pretend they can't include it because it's unsafe when every single person on the planet knows with 100% certainty that it's because they want their own cash/data hungry alternative instead, then putting said "unsafe" thing in their vehicles should absolutely expose them to liability.
There absolutely is not a theoretical possibility that "safety" was a genuine consideration in any way in this decision.