News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Tesla: Recalled touchscreens were meant to only last 5-6 ... by rektide on Saturday February 06, 2021 @09:02PM (#26051958)
1.4 drive writes per day is a shit ton of a lot of writes to hit a drive with daily. this is a computational not an automotive concern, & a pretty frelling heinous oversight at that.
Re:Tesla: Recalled touchscreens were meant to only last 5-6 ... by o-__-o on Saturday February 06, 2021 @09:13PM (#26052017)
To be expected when not-a-car company makes cars :)

(For instance GM has a strict list of test scenarios for their onstar integration)

Re:Tesla: Recalled touchscreens were meant to only last 5-6 ... by maxerickson on Saturday February 06, 2021 @10:25PM (#26052369)
They still screw up. I like this example because it's their infotainment screen failing prematurely:

https://cadillacsociety.com/2019/10/28/second-lawsuit-filed-...

Re:Tesla: Recalled touchscreens were meant to only last 5-6 ... by o-__-o on Sunday February 07, 2021 @09:36AM (#26055284)
Sure but that’s not a software issue, that’s poor material selection
Re:Tesla: Recalled touchscreens were meant to only last 5-6 ... by amluto on Saturday February 06, 2021 @10:21PM (#26052347)
I wonder if a “cycle” is actually a full drive write. If it is, then they have ~11GB/day, which is nuts, at least in the pre-dashcam models. But I can easily imagine that a cheap eMMC part has poor wear leveling and eats a “cycle” after much less than 8GB.
Re:Tesla: Recalled touchscreens were meant to only last 5-6 ... by NathanielK on Sunday February 07, 2021 @03:10AM (#26053480)
It's not, the issue was there is no wear leveling, so it's 1.4 writes per day. This is approximately 2 trips a day, 5 days a week. Reading between the lines I believe the car "eats into" the 3000-5000 cycles everytime it is cycled on.