Does this mean that you think a company should not be held liable for defects caused in a product they ship, if the defect is caused by an open source component?
I wake up without my cpap mask after a few hours every night. In total I might get 6 hours with it after putting it on multiple times.
Doctors think I’m doing fine due to total amount of hours used, and my resmed cpap claims I’m at below 1 event/hour. I’m not doing fine and I think the numbers are lying to me.
I snore a million, my mouth gets dry, and my nose tightens up, so my nasal mask isn’t always that nice to use. Other masks also annoy me.
What do? I haven’t sleep a solid 8 hours for 3-4 years :(
I'm sorry but "extensive documentation, scalable, high test coverage, perfect code style" seems to me to be the opposite of throwaway.
It sounds like the kind of thing people will think surely must be very important and in use, because why go through all those hoops instead of doing a quick hack?
But I guess we can just throw AI at the maintenance burden anyways..
Almost 3000 lines of code for automating draining nodes and rebooting it. And it requires that another component has already queued up an update that requires a reboot.
Looking at the issues, people try to shoehorn a thousand unique behaviours into a general purpose tool, just to avoid a bit of old school sysadmin-ing. There's a guy wanting to change TZ of the running cluster, and want "Kured" to support that use case so it's only updated during night - in an ever changing TZ.
If you spin up Kubernetes for "a couple of containers to run your web app", I think you're doing something wrong in the first place, also coupled with your comment about adding SDN to Kubernetes.
People use Kubernetes for way too small things, and it sounds like you don't have the scale for actually running Kubernetes.
Teslas doesn't fail because of fluids or worn brakes. They failed due to causes that Tesla didn't even recognize, as I already told you, because they thought wobbly wheels were ok, and other structural issues.
You're ignoring the basic fact that Teslas doesn't fail because of the electric drive chain, but because of basic things like wheels, suspension and brakes. Sure, electric cars are heavier, but heavy cars (vans, trucks) have existed for ages.
Exactly. I don't understand the focus on VW here. That wasn't the point of my original post at all.
Tesla didn't even recognize the inspection failures in Denmark as real at first, so it's probably fair to assume that they're only now trying to sort out the problems on new cars, and that we'll see many more failing Tesla inspections the coming years, even on cars sold up to this day.
That's interesting with the pre-inspection. I haven't heard about a systematic pre-inspection here. I also don't think it really matters, the most important metric I'm quoting is 7% failure rate across _all_ electric cars, and no way that's caused by every non-Tesla owner going to a pre-inspection.
(inspection costs around 80 euros in Denmark, so there's no financial reason to go to a pre-inspection anyways, just do the inspection and have it redone if the car fails).
Tesla wouldn't even recognize the problem at first, and refused repair of customer cars. Of course there's issues with every brand of car. It's just that the numbers show that Teslas are much, much worse with regards to safety critical components.