Building and then maintaining that software, year after year, without slowing to a crawl because of all the tech debt that's piled on (especially so since you have subpar engineers or you're contracting out to cheap workers abroad), is even harder.

And if you want to provide a user experience comparable to what the top software companies in the world are capable of, that's just not gonna happen at these car companies.

Tesla was born from the software industry, that's why they're the only ones that can compete.

The real problem is dumbass “features” (my MDX likes to show an animation of the keyboard typing out all the words a half second a letter, whenever you click autocomplete… for some reason) The real issue is that the infotainment systems are underpowered, because they’re considered an afterthought.

Also, cars sell in the millions. Car manufacturers will redesign a circuit board if it will save them cents on each board.

So it is always a struggle to put a more powerful CPU in there.

You don't need a fast chip to eliminate lag. It's just incompetence.

We don't want slow and laggy UIs because the software is bloated.

But I responded to this part:

> The real issue is that the infotainment systems are underpowered

And my point was that it is far harder than it seems to put more powerful CPUs in cars.

You definitely don't want these systems intertwined. It has the side benefit of allowing you to do pretty aggressive things like using more modern hardware, software, etc. E.G. last time I checked, Tesla uses Godot for a decent amount of their UI.

you'd hope that there'd be some kind of filtering to prevent the infotainment system from sending (arbitrary) CAN messages, but I recall some crazy demos of researchers pwning a car's accelerator after rooting the center console.

(And it’s lower ID messages which have priority over higher, which is more trivia than argument against your premise.)

https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-hig... is one such example (might be the one GP is referring to).

1) The general public has private physical access by design.

2) The chain of custody is unclear and hard to prove. This undermines trust in the system.

When I vote where I live now in Massachusetts, I fill out a paper form in private and then I manually feed the forms into a voting machine where I have only supervised physical access.

I think it's entirely possible to have machine-counted ballots without giving unfettered and unsupervised access to the counting machines and I prefer the MA system (for the reasons you describe), but I also recognize the Constitution is clear in its reserving the power to each state for how to conduct the election (at least for President) in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2.

Here in Washington we vote on paper but the results are counted by machine. The counting process is overseen by representatives of both parties. In a recount the paper votes could be manually counted to reconcile with the machine. I’m not worried about any of that.

What is scary about voting machines is that the output isn’t guaranteed to match the input. This is for any number of reasons. The best defense against this is to print the choices in a human-readable format… on a piece of paper. Which means you don’t really need the machine at all. If it’s on the network you can’t trust anything.