I definitely get it, but I just think it's being overly pedantic to try and make the point. The meanings of words change with the culture and I don't think this is an exception. English if rife with examples of colloquial uses that depart from their original meanings.

The word "awful" derives from "inspiring awe."

"Fathom" used to mean "to encircle with one's arms."

"Myriad" used to mean, very specifically, 10,000 instances of an item.

"Hussy" used to mean housewife.

Etc. etc.

In this era, I think most people assume "recall" to mean "a required fix" not necessarily "a trip to the car dealership."

I think this entire topic proves your point wrong. The very top comment is exclaiming how insignificant this is compared to the headline.

All the conversation here is a debate of this very issue in one way or another. We wouldn't even be talking about this at all if the word "recall" wasn't used. If it was just a called "a required over-the-air fix" it wouldn't have made it on to HN.

How do you know that interpretation isn't biased by the HN audience? I would be careful overgeneralizing from the opinions on this forum.

I read that initial comment as "Meh, the fix isn't a big deal," which is different than "the recall is a non-issue." Just because it's an easy fix doesn't negate the need for the fix.

It a half-a-point font-size difference is a big issue to you then we have very different ideas of what a big issue is. I'm not arguing that it isn't incorrect or that it doesn't require a fix but I would argue that the moment either one of us decided to comment it already has taken far more of our consideration and attention than it should. And it's all because of the word "Recall".

> How do you know that interpretation isn't biased by the HN audience?

It is objectively a small issue and the fact that the HN audience is likely better able to sniff that out due to their technical background only strengthens my argument.

If you’ve ever worked in human factors engineering, seemingly small things can make a big difference. But your comment is missing the forest for the trees IMO. The “big issue” is that Tesla missed well-established and regulated standards. It brings into question what other standardized issues fall through process gaps.

Major car manufacturers have dozens to hundreds of recalls a year. Some serious and some as minor is a missing some pages in the manual. Tesla is by-far not the highest on the list of recalls.

Sometimes minor mistakes happen because they're minor. The assumption that this minor issue points to major issues is just not supported by the evidence.

Now that I've looked into the hundreds of recalls other manufacturers have ever yeary it makes me wonder even more why this particularly minor one is such a big issue that we are discussing it here.

Again, this misses the point. A better statement would speak to how many of those recalls pertain to well-established regulations that were not implemented by the manufacturer. I drew that distinction earlier when I wrote of recalls that relate to non-standardized issues. This was a recall about a highly standardized requirement that was not implemented. So the question is why wasn’t it implemented? Lack of competence/ignorance of the requirements? Lack of quality control? A designer unilaterally deciding the requirements didn’t matter?

The vast majority of safety-related recalls across all automobiles involve seat belts, brakes, electrical components or wiring, tires, door latches, fuel pumps, and ignition switches.

The fact that you think the font-size of an indicator somehow is indicative of a larger problem makes no sense to me. We can look at actual data -- this minor thing being a "test" that they failed is just something you want be significant but isn't supported by anything.

I honestly don't know how many automobiles recalls are related to non-standardized issues in other car manufactures so what are you comparing this to? How do you know that Tesla is better or worse than other manufacturers in this way?

I’ve made no claim that Tesla is any better or worse than other manufacturers. Rather, I’ve simply used this data point as a potential red flag. I have worked in auto manufacturing so I at least have some experience here. I’ve been equally critical of other manufacturers when there is evidence of process gaps that miss requirements. But Tesla has a not-so-great record when it comes to quality, so there’s more than this single data point. I haven’t t framed this as “Tesla vs. E’rybody” but it’s telling that how you think of it.

I haven't framed it that way either but if you're going to be biased based on this single data point, it would make sense to compare it other similar data points across all auto manufacturers. My personal feeling is that the existence of this article itself is bias as there are literally hundreds of auto recalls every year and we are spending on awful lot of time on this particularly minor one.

What makes you think I'm biased? In case you missed it, I said I'm also critical of other manufacturers. Pointing out a potential problem does not make someone biased. It seems like you interpret any criticism of Tesla as inherently biased which, ironically, is it's own biased worldview.

I think where we differ is that I don't think everything hinges on the word "recall." The article could be titled "2MM Teslas to be fixed OTA to correct non-conformance to legal design standards" It's still true, carries the same connotations, and is completely void of the loaded term you're hung up on.

I'm pointing out that this particular article's existence and discussion is biased. The headline is obvious click bait. The issue is so minor as to not require our interest at all.

"All Teslas everywhere to get marginally larger indicator icons to match standards" is not an interesting article. And this article isn't interesting. It's only interesting in contrast to it's headline and that's why we are discussing it.

We can agree that the article is sensationalist and not particularly interesting. I personally don't get hung up on that because it's what I expect. Just like I'm not shocked when a used car dealer describes a vehicle in unscrupulous terms. It's what I expect because it aligns with their incentive structure.

But note that you did your own editorializing by using the word "marginally." You've staked a claim that the recall is insignificant. But that view is in direct conflict with the regulators, and it's their opinion that matters.

It is marginally; they indicators are very tiny bit too small. Regulators operate in a binary -- either something is compliant or not. Those ideas are not in conflict.

The size can be marginally different, while the impact may not be. Just like when material specs are only “marginally” lower and cause a part failure. While measurements are always continuous, failures often are not.

That's true in general. But in this specific case the impact is also continuous because it's a visual indicator.

Right, which is why there has to be a definite threshold in the standard. Otherwise, you can just keep making it "marginally" smaller, on down until it's a single pixel, and still claim it's okay. That would mean there's no standard, and every/any UI design is equally valid. Standards exist, in part, to avoid such rules-lawyering by having a consensus on what determines a valid design.

Of course no one is talking about making it continuously smaller. It was just one-time marginally smaller. Literally a tiny mistake. If it had been mistakenly rendered as a single pixel, someone probably would have noticed the issue internally.

That misses the point (again). The point is you need some threshold if you’re going to have a standard, or else it’s all subjective and there is no standard. So the standard is 1/8”, and you claim 15/128” is only “marginally” different so it should be allowed. There’s nothing to stop someone from claiming 7/64”, or 15/128” are also only “marginally” non-compliant. You either is or you ain’t compliant, there’s no “kinda pregnant”.

So if you think they should be safety standards, there has to be hard thresholds for compliance. And (again) the bigger issue isn’t this particular incident, it’s that it brings into question how they are managing all hard safety requirements if some apparently slip through the cracks.

I never said it should be allowed. Please quote me where I said anything like that. I just said it's so minor, the fix so easy, that it doesn't demand any attention from us. The regulators told Tesla to fix it. Tesla fixed it. Most people wouldn't even notice. End of non-story.

> it’s that it brings into question how they are managing all hard safety requirements if some apparently slip through the cracks.

Again there is no evidence for that. The fact that all automakers have dozens to hundreds of recalls every year means that this one instance from Tesla is entirely meaningless.