Future Fords could repossess themselves and drive away if you miss payments(thedrive.com)
thedrive.com
Future Fords could repossess themselves and drive away if you miss payments
https://www.thedrive.com/news/future-fords-could-repossess-themselves-and-drive-away-if-you-miss-payments
567 comments
Tech literate people often complain about buying portable consumer devices and not "really" owning them.
This is a whole nother level of control loss. Not only do you not completely own the hardware but in the worst case scenario, the hardware can remotely be used to restrict freedom of movement or kill you and others.
I personally wouldn't recommend buying an electric vehicle unless it's extremely dumb or is capable of running an open-source and customizable operating system.
This is a whole nother level of control loss. Not only do you not completely own the hardware but in the worst case scenario, the hardware can remotely be used to restrict freedom of movement or kill you and others.
I personally wouldn't recommend buying an electric vehicle unless it's extremely dumb or is capable of running an open-source and customizable operating system.
I think a much better bet (though expensive) is to convert a somewhat old car into an electric one with fully custom firmware. I hope someone would be able to commercialize conversion kits for the most popular vehicles in operation today.
There are conversion kits and electric crate motors [0] that are available to enthusiasts.
The problem is that EVs and traditional ICE vehicles are built very differently. In order to fit enough batteries, the batteries are usually built under the vehicle in what's called a "skateboard". You can't do that easily when retrofitting an ICE vehicle, so you end up sacrificing trunk space. Modern EVs are also much more lightweight and aerodynamic than ICE vehicles, and they can do regen braking. Without all of the modern EV innovations, you just don't get nearly the same range.
So yeah. You should probably get a modern EV and just crack the firmware to jailbreak it instead, which is likely to happen in short order. A challenge there though is that when it comes to autonomous vehicles, you're likely going to need updates to the map data on a semi-regular basis. You could also become liable if someone gets hurt and it's found that you tinkered around with your autonomous car's software.
[0] https://www.thedrive.com/news/42974/fords-281-hp-electric-cr...
The problem is that EVs and traditional ICE vehicles are built very differently. In order to fit enough batteries, the batteries are usually built under the vehicle in what's called a "skateboard". You can't do that easily when retrofitting an ICE vehicle, so you end up sacrificing trunk space. Modern EVs are also much more lightweight and aerodynamic than ICE vehicles, and they can do regen braking. Without all of the modern EV innovations, you just don't get nearly the same range.
So yeah. You should probably get a modern EV and just crack the firmware to jailbreak it instead, which is likely to happen in short order. A challenge there though is that when it comes to autonomous vehicles, you're likely going to need updates to the map data on a semi-regular basis. You could also become liable if someone gets hurt and it's found that you tinkered around with your autonomous car's software.
[0] https://www.thedrive.com/news/42974/fords-281-hp-electric-cr...
> Modern EVs are also much more lightweight and aerodynamic than ICE vehicles
It's probably worth noting, just in case anyone is accidentally misled here, EVs are vastly heavier than ICE equivalents, but most of the delta is the battery, and the frame and supporting structures are often lighter.
It's probably worth noting, just in case anyone is accidentally misled here, EVs are vastly heavier than ICE equivalents, but most of the delta is the battery, and the frame and supporting structures are often lighter.
Brace yourself then, because the future of automotive is highly connected, and in many ways it already is. Every car since the early 2000s has computerized components that control everything from power steering to infotainment systems, and your car probably already communicates with some servers using a built in cellular sim.
Hackers have been able to compromise cars for at least a couple of decades, and while car manufacturers are getting better at securing their products, they are all pushing hard for further connectivity. This means apps and subscriptions for your car, new protocols that lets cars exchange information, and a huge reliance on cloud.
Source: first hand sources working in well known automotive corporations.
Hackers have been able to compromise cars for at least a couple of decades, and while car manufacturers are getting better at securing their products, they are all pushing hard for further connectivity. This means apps and subscriptions for your car, new protocols that lets cars exchange information, and a huge reliance on cloud.
Source: first hand sources working in well known automotive corporations.
Every new Ford on sale today in the US, from the cheapest Maverick to the most expensive F150 configuration, now has remote monitoring and access via 5G as standard - it's needed if nothing else to offer the apps to remote start and unlock the car that consumers just expect now.
Its generally the same industry wide.
> https://www.ford.com/support/category/fordpass/
Its generally the same industry wide.
> https://www.ford.com/support/category/fordpass/
My 2013 F150 periodically asks me if it should upload a “Vehicle health report”. I have always declined.
The idea of a vehicle repossessing itself does bother me. In the early 2000s I bought a vehicle from Mitsubishi, financed through them. At the time, setting up an automatic payment through them cost a monthly fee, so I set it up through my bank instead.
About 3 years later I got a call from them threatening repossession because I was three months behind on payments. I checked and every payment had been sent.
It turned out that Mitsubishi Motors East had transferred my loan to Mitsubishi Motors West, or something like that, and I had missed that. It was probably in one of the statements I never bothered opening.
The idea of a vehicle repossessing itself does bother me. In the early 2000s I bought a vehicle from Mitsubishi, financed through them. At the time, setting up an automatic payment through them cost a monthly fee, so I set it up through my bank instead.
About 3 years later I got a call from them threatening repossession because I was three months behind on payments. I checked and every payment had been sent.
It turned out that Mitsubishi Motors East had transferred my loan to Mitsubishi Motors West, or something like that, and I had missed that. It was probably in one of the statements I never bothered opening.
Yeah what happens when someone gets out to pump gas with their child and phone in the car and fords automated repo algorithm decides is the optimal time to drive away.
Everyone assumes the tech will be self driving, but it doesn’t need to be.
The repo man can just use the 5G connection to locate the car, drive to it, unlock the car start the ignition and drive it away.
This would work today just using the APIs all modern Fords already have.
There are rumours this already happens for some car models:
> https://tiremeetsroad.com/2021/03/18/tesla-allegedly-remotel...
The repo man can just use the 5G connection to locate the car, drive to it, unlock the car start the ignition and drive it away.
This would work today just using the APIs all modern Fords already have.
There are rumours this already happens for some car models:
> https://tiremeetsroad.com/2021/03/18/tesla-allegedly-remotel...
Is it always connected or do drivers need to pay a fee for connectivity?
Always connected, no fee. Although the car (at least my 21) also offers a cellular wifi hotspot that appears to use the ATT network[0]. No clue what the monthly pricing is, I've never signed up for that trial.
I have the lowest spec, cheapest car Ford had available and it still has the cellular antenna. I checked, and at leadt on an ecosport the cell antenna is very easy to remove and doesn't impact functionality of the car. That being said, I did reconnect the cellular antenna since app-enabled remote start is a genuinely useful feature. I can warm the car up from my desk without having to walk within range of the keyfob, so I am accepting that bit of privacy loss.
[0] https://www.ford.com/support/category/fordpass/fordpass-conn...
I have the lowest spec, cheapest car Ford had available and it still has the cellular antenna. I checked, and at leadt on an ecosport the cell antenna is very easy to remove and doesn't impact functionality of the car. That being said, I did reconnect the cellular antenna since app-enabled remote start is a genuinely useful feature. I can warm the car up from my desk without having to walk within range of the keyfob, so I am accepting that bit of privacy loss.
[0] https://www.ford.com/support/category/fordpass/fordpass-conn...
Thanks for the info. I wonder if anyone's repurposed these radios/SIM/whatever for free 5G/LTE traffic.
How would that work?
Take out the SIM from the car's network interface module and put it in a phone/modem. If they're restricting by IMEI you may need to spoof that.
You're assuming that the traffic sent is free to be whatever. I could easily see telcos restricting this "5G for IoT" stuff to be just traffic to designated servers, with the more permissive hotspot use a separate extra service -- at which point, you're paying for it regardless of this hack.
Do we think ford even bother with SIM cards? Lots of modern 5G devices have e-sims etc, much easier for the factory floor if SIM card can be loaded via software too. None of my families cellphones have physical sims anymore either.
In this case, take the modem chip itself. Most off-the-shelf USB/Mini-PCIe/etc modem cards use the same underlying chips, so you can just move the chip over which would contain both the eSIM as well as the original IMEI.
> you can just move the chip over
I can't help but chuckle at the use of the word "just" here. Sure, if we are now into reverse engineering hardware module interfaces and potentially desolder jobs on a (at a minimum) ~$20k vehicle, of which many features will stop working once you remove the module as well as triggering how many warning and service lights...
I can't help but chuckle at the use of the word "just" here. Sure, if we are now into reverse engineering hardware module interfaces and potentially desolder jobs on a (at a minimum) ~$20k vehicle, of which many features will stop working once you remove the module as well as triggering how many warning and service lights...
Car connects free for itself, and loads navigation, traffic, location on app etc. If you want a wifi hotspot, thats $300 a year from ATT network 2ith 22GB fast speed per month.
Source: my car.
Source: my car.
[deleted]
Cool, thanks. What happens if it doesn't have a connection with the cell network? Do those features still work?
No, GPS Shows a red circle & Line if car is far in basements or in downtown. No Traffic Data if no mobile coverage (although no symbols to show how much mobile coverage it has). App shows only last known location (& gas level, odometer, tyre pressure etc) from last point in time connected. Remote start & doors lock/unlock will not work if car is not connected.
I recently was working on highly connected autonomous public transportation. Can confirm that connectivity is only increasing, and that cloud connectivity is going to be a hard requirement in the future.
As for security, while the automotive manufacturers are aware of dangers, and standards like ISO21434 https://www.iso.org/standard/70918.html are driving them towards better security engineering practices, there is a huge gulf between process/compliance/governance, and truly secure engineering practices as a core part of engineering culture.
Many/most of the people working on the on-board systems come from an embedded development background that doesn't include pervasive connectivity. That's a problem. They might check the boxes to appear secure, but they aren't necessarily invested in the process.
My prediction; there _is_ going to be a severe and widespread automotive security event which cannot be ignored, before that culture shifts.
As for security, while the automotive manufacturers are aware of dangers, and standards like ISO21434 https://www.iso.org/standard/70918.html are driving them towards better security engineering practices, there is a huge gulf between process/compliance/governance, and truly secure engineering practices as a core part of engineering culture.
Many/most of the people working on the on-board systems come from an embedded development background that doesn't include pervasive connectivity. That's a problem. They might check the boxes to appear secure, but they aren't necessarily invested in the process.
My prediction; there _is_ going to be a severe and widespread automotive security event which cannot be ignored, before that culture shifts.
My prediction; there _is_ going to be a severe and widespread automotive security event which cannot be ignored, before that culture shifts.
Yeah that's a big Definitely.
I wish developers and consumers alike exercised a higher standard for software quality and weren't becoming increasingly tolerant of crap.
Yeah that's a big Definitely.
I wish developers and consumers alike exercised a higher standard for software quality and weren't becoming increasingly tolerant of crap.
Sadly, it seems the Titanic must sink to get maritime safety laws.
Eventually some hacker will decide crashing cars is fun, and I don't expect real security to happen before that. The same goes for medical equipment.
Eventually some hacker will decide crashing cars is fun, and I don't expect real security to happen before that. The same goes for medical equipment.
> some hacker will decide crashing cars is fun
$5 says the hacker will be a nation state, and the "fun" will be an assassination that's hard to prove wasn't a glitch.
$5 says the hacker will be a nation state, and the "fun" will be an assassination that's hard to prove wasn't a glitch.
Perhaps it already happened: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hastings_(journalist...
This is why I only buy old cars. If that becomes impossible in the future, that would be enough to get me to finally give up owning a car entirely.
Hell, some old cars are well supported by completely open-source ECUs. Sadly, the number one best supported car is always the damn Miata.
Likely because they are inexpensive and are beloved track cars. I was hoping the GT88/BRZ would oust the miata from this position- I much prefer a hard top over a convertible, but I think the existing after market and price point make it hard to compete.
I think there are bolt-on hardtops for NA and NB Miatas. Looks kinda funky.
Also yeah, the Toyota 86 family is still too expensive to be a project car for most.
Also yeah, the Toyota 86 family is still too expensive to be a project car for most.
Same, at least in part. I wish there was a database or wiki of some sort that collected when every model stopped being un-connected and adopted the rest of these user hostile features.
It will become illegal to own such cars and any cars without smart devices will also be mandated by insurers.
This is the world we're going to see soon.
This is the world we're going to see soon.
Me too. Just need to make sure I live where I can walk and bike as I get old.
True, all the smarter people end up becoming Will Smith in iRobot.
I feel much the same.
> Brace yourself then, because the future of automotive is highly connected
Thats not the problem - the problem is you are / will not be the owner, you can never become the owner because the firmware is not for sale.
You are just a peasant that pays for the hardware and tne repair bill and is allowed to drive it unless you break one of the clauses in 900 page EULA
Thats not the problem - the problem is you are / will not be the owner, you can never become the owner because the firmware is not for sale.
You are just a peasant that pays for the hardware and tne repair bill and is allowed to drive it unless you break one of the clauses in 900 page EULA
but, you work in certain markets. You likely don't know yourself, that most of the population of the world does not have these things.
"clerical error" reminds me, recently rewatched Gilliam's Brazil (1985). From the Wikipedia article's section on Plot:
> One day, shortly before Christmas, an insect becomes jammed in a teleprinter, which misprints a copy of an arrest warrant it was receiving. This leads to the arrest and death during interrogation of cobbler Archibald Buttle instead of renegade heating engineer and suspected terrorist Archibald Tuttle.
A literal bug!
> One day, shortly before Christmas, an insect becomes jammed in a teleprinter, which misprints a copy of an arrest warrant it was receiving. This leads to the arrest and death during interrogation of cobbler Archibald Buttle instead of renegade heating engineer and suspected terrorist Archibald Tuttle.
A literal bug!
"Mistake? Haha. We don't make mistakes."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzFmPFLIH5s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzFmPFLIH5s
> (Although maybe it would be interesting as an opt-in system with a hardware kill switch that saves you boatloads of money if you don't drive like an a-hole...)
This exists and just serves to charge customers more money while blowing smoke up their asses, people want to believe they're better drivers than the rest.
This exists and just serves to charge customers more money while blowing smoke up their asses, people want to believe they're better drivers than the rest.
Yeah, it'll go from "you save money if you opt-in" to "you pay much more if you don't opt-in" as soon as possible.
> I'm pretty happy with the old, non-Internet-connected car that I drive.
I'm so happy with it that I will never own one that is internet connected, unless I can disable the internet connection in some way.
I'm so happy with it that I will never own one that is internet connected, unless I can disable the internet connection in some way.
Curious whats your plan if new cars become increasingly internet connected, kinda how smart TVs went? Will you keep driving early 2000s cars until they become "vintage"?
Presumably you could always just break the 5G module - the carmaker can’t assume internet connectivity, so it should work fine without.
Yep, I tested with my 21 Ford and removing the TCU (telematics control unit, that acronym should be general to most of the industry) disabled cell communication but didn't impact operation of the vehicle.
I did end up hooking it back up to re-enable remote start since I'm in a cold climate, but I couldn't help myself but test this. Something mobile like a car can't assume connectivity, although I have heard reports of people stranded when using rental services that rely on cell connection.
Forum confirmation here: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/disabling-fordpass...
I did end up hooking it back up to re-enable remote start since I'm in a cold climate, but I couldn't help myself but test this. Something mobile like a car can't assume connectivity, although I have heard reports of people stranded when using rental services that rely on cell connection.
Forum confirmation here: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/disabling-fordpass...
Of course they can, the car will check in at least once every few months, so you can go without internet connectivity for 30 days or so without problems.
Almost everyone will get within range of internet at least once every two months, so few Wil notice or care that the car requires constant contact with the mother ship.
Almost everyone will get within range of internet at least once every two months, so few Wil notice or care that the car requires constant contact with the mother ship.
Aftermarket parts are available to repair old cars. I for one plan to keep repairing mine, even if that means rebuilding/replacing the engine, transmission, etc.. I will never accept the tyranny of an internet connected automobile.
The hardware must still obey the laws of physics. New cars will have a hard time connecting wirelessly without a functioning antenna.
Spend the money maintaining an older car
Our government want to phase out fuel cars entirely by 2030 which makes no sense but, at that point it would probably be illegal to use an older fuel car.
If you want to know why this sort of thing might be bad, ask Michael Hastings.
There’s a video of a Jeep getting remote controlled in the middle of a highway, all because the audio and entertainment system was connected to the brain. Iirc wired had an article on this.
Im pretty happy with my 88 ford as well but have the opposite problem - am more worried about getting it to start at all
I think all parents will agree that having a connected car is a dream come true. Ideally, I would be able to drive my children remotely using my phone so that I can ensure they are not driving recklessly.
Parent here, strong disagree. If I can spy on them and control their vehicle, who else can?
At some point you have to trust your kids to not be stupid. If you can't do that, you done messed up in raising them.
At some point you have to trust your kids to not be stupid. If you can't do that, you done messed up in raising them.
In college, a roommate of mine was double-parked, or parked in a fire zone, or something, in our 8-house cul-de-sac. He ran upstairs to get something from his room, and a tow truck appeared (this all happened in well under 5 minutes).
When he came out, he argued with the tow truck guys a bunch, but they kept hooking up his car and arguing back and couldn't be reasoned with, etc etc. My friend sat on the hood to keep them from towing it. The tow truck operators threatened to call the cops, so my friend called the cops instead.
Before the police showed up, an SUV showed up with some tow truck heavies with, no doubt, plenty of illegal weapons on them, just to spectate and make sure things went the way they wanted.
Once the police showed up, the story changed a bit, and all of a sudden he could get his car unhooked for a "drop fee" that was 2x the minimum tow cost, I believe (memory hazy here). It was the law in Santa Clara County, but of course, the tow truck operators weren't going to volunteer this information.
Lesson learned. If someone's about hooking up your car, get in your car and drive away, unless it's in the air already. Don't even talk to the thugs.
When he came out, he argued with the tow truck guys a bunch, but they kept hooking up his car and arguing back and couldn't be reasoned with, etc etc. My friend sat on the hood to keep them from towing it. The tow truck operators threatened to call the cops, so my friend called the cops instead.
Before the police showed up, an SUV showed up with some tow truck heavies with, no doubt, plenty of illegal weapons on them, just to spectate and make sure things went the way they wanted.
Once the police showed up, the story changed a bit, and all of a sudden he could get his car unhooked for a "drop fee" that was 2x the minimum tow cost, I believe (memory hazy here). It was the law in Santa Clara County, but of course, the tow truck operators weren't going to volunteer this information.
Lesson learned. If someone's about hooking up your car, get in your car and drive away, unless it's in the air already. Don't even talk to the thugs.
In many places where illegal parking is common, tow truck drivers stage close by or hire spotters so they can hook up cars quickly. They can make a lot of money hauling away cars from drivers who only plan to stop for 2 minutes.
https://nyti.ms/3xW9OQX
https://nyti.ms/3xW9OQX
This seems like stuff that should never be privatized or under non-police control.
Police hires company to tow stuff away sure, but not "some random bumblefuck have right to do the police's job of "law enforcement"
Police hires company to tow stuff away sure, but not "some random bumblefuck have right to do the police's job of "law enforcement"
You've heard of civil asset forfeiture, right?
> Owners need not ever be arrested or convicted of a crime for their cash, cars, or even real estate to be taken away permanently by the government. The government does not have to charge the property owner with any specific crime in order to seize the property, and must prove only by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is legally forfeitable. After property has been seized, the burden of proof shifts to the owner, who must prove that the property was not involved in nor obtained as a result of illegal activity [1]
The cops are far worse than some corrupt tow truck drivers. You have a fighting chance against a private company, but you'll rarely win fighting city hall.
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_forfeiture
> Owners need not ever be arrested or convicted of a crime for their cash, cars, or even real estate to be taken away permanently by the government. The government does not have to charge the property owner with any specific crime in order to seize the property, and must prove only by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is legally forfeitable. After property has been seized, the burden of proof shifts to the owner, who must prove that the property was not involved in nor obtained as a result of illegal activity [1]
The cops are far worse than some corrupt tow truck drivers. You have a fighting chance against a private company, but you'll rarely win fighting city hall.
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_forfeiture
> This seems like stuff that should never be privatized or under non-police control.
I lived in a city that had it's own towing department. One evening, I parked in a spot that turned into a tow zone the following data at 7am. The next morning, I got to my care at 6:58am, and a tow truck was parked right in front of me with the driver enjoying a coffee. I quickly hopped into my car, put the key in the ignition, turned it, and....nothing. My battery was dead.
I got out, walked up to the tow truck driver and explained the situation. He backed up his truck, got out the cables, gave me a jump start, and I was on my way. I always wondered if a private service with possibly different incentives would have done the same.
I lived in a city that had it's own towing department. One evening, I parked in a spot that turned into a tow zone the following data at 7am. The next morning, I got to my care at 6:58am, and a tow truck was parked right in front of me with the driver enjoying a coffee. I quickly hopped into my car, put the key in the ignition, turned it, and....nothing. My battery was dead.
I got out, walked up to the tow truck driver and explained the situation. He backed up his truck, got out the cables, gave me a jump start, and I was on my way. I always wondered if a private service with possibly different incentives would have done the same.
With police already understaffed as they are, how would they enforce a bunch of students parking illegally next to campus and blocking traffic?
> With police already understaffed
So lets delegate law-enforcement to a random person who will abuse it for personal profit?
This has corruption written all over
So lets delegate law-enforcement to a random person who will abuse it for personal profit?
This has corruption written all over
Assuming police are charging to get your car back then it would probably be quite the profit center for them to enforce in that situation. I would be more concerned about them over enforcing parking infractions as a matter of dept policy, than I would be of parking infractions being ignored.
Do you understand what you are writing?
"We don't have staff so let's pay some other company to lend us staff to do it, for more money that would cost to hire the staff (because their boss needs to earn the living too)"
"We don't have staff so let's pay some other company to lend us staff to do it, for more money that would cost to hire the staff (because their boss needs to earn the living too)"
In what way are the police understaffed? If anything, they have too many employees.
It's legalized car theft IMO.
I live in a neighborhood with impacted parking that’s poorly served by the local government. People keep parking in front of my driveway and blocking me in. If I call the cops they ignore me. If I call the tow company they come and tow away the offending car. Is this bad?
Suppose someone decided my front yard is a good place to store their belongings and dropped a shed there. Should I be able to hire movers to dispose of the shed? Or the police should be my only recourse?
I share the feeling that towing companies can be abusive and that’s not right. I think a better response is to regulate the towing companies and provide remedies. For example, make abusive towing practices illegal with heavy penalties (eg. if they tow illegally, they owe you $1000 per day you lose access to your vehicle). If it’s unfair to tow a vehicle after two minutes, make that illegal.
Suppose someone decided my front yard is a good place to store their belongings and dropped a shed there. Should I be able to hire movers to dispose of the shed? Or the police should be my only recourse?
I share the feeling that towing companies can be abusive and that’s not right. I think a better response is to regulate the towing companies and provide remedies. For example, make abusive towing practices illegal with heavy penalties (eg. if they tow illegally, they owe you $1000 per day you lose access to your vehicle). If it’s unfair to tow a vehicle after two minutes, make that illegal.
I’ve had my fair share of getting towed and it sucks but I lean towards your opinion with this one.
> If I call the cops they ignore me. If I call the tow company they come and tow away the offending car. Is this bad?
Yes. Here in Poland they'd get ticketed at the very least. It's easy money for them, pads their stats, and actually helps people. If it is somewhere where it blocks traffic (whether to house, pedestrians or otherwise) it would most likely also be towed. The company is contracted by city but they just do the towing, not law enforcement.
Yes. Here in Poland they'd get ticketed at the very least. It's easy money for them, pads their stats, and actually helps people. If it is somewhere where it blocks traffic (whether to house, pedestrians or otherwise) it would most likely also be towed. The company is contracted by city but they just do the towing, not law enforcement.
They even park/hide the picked car closeby to come & pick another one. Parking the car out of their own place is illegal, but it goes like other things.
Maybe a better lesson than “confront / physically endanger the tow truck driver who is doing his job” is “don’t block traffic in an 8 house cul de sac because you wanted to get something from your room but didn’t want to actually bother finding parking.”
This all reads like entitled driver behavior to me. Or dumb college antics that are best left behind.
-former car owner
This all reads like entitled driver behavior to me. Or dumb college antics that are best left behind.
-former car owner
>This all reads like entitled driver behavior to me.
You sure? GP:
>Before the police showed up, an SUV showed up with some tow truck heavies with, no doubt, plenty of illegal weapons on them, just to spectate and make sure things went the way they wanted.
Sounds more like thugs engaging in predatory behavior to me.
You sure? GP:
>Before the police showed up, an SUV showed up with some tow truck heavies with, no doubt, plenty of illegal weapons on them, just to spectate and make sure things went the way they wanted.
Sounds more like thugs engaging in predatory behavior to me.
I think in this case, both parties were wrong. Sometimes that happens - nobody is right.
If the tow truck operators did not have thugs, the commenter’s friend still would have committed a violation.
> don’t block traffic in an 8 house cul de sac
Isn't the whole point of a cul de sac that there isn't much traffic through it? Doesn't the cul de sac itself block traffic?
Isn't the whole point of a cul de sac that there isn't much traffic through it? Doesn't the cul de sac itself block traffic?
The amount of mental gymnastics I hear from people who illegally park or obstruct society for their own selfish reasons is beyond me. There are places to park, there are places to not park, they don't have an overlap.
I don't agree with this. I'm from the US and have now lived in Japan for 6+ years. We have zero on street parking around the city, yet we joke that the hazard lights button is the "park anywhere" button, and you see it all the time.
Because nobody strongly abuses this, it generally works fine and people go on with their lives around them. Even with the small neighborhood streets around Tokyo, you rarely see it being treated as an issue. At worst, if a truck is trying to pass, a quick honk will cause whoever is driving to rush out and move the car.
I do get disillusioned sometimes though, living in a society where people have a general level of respect for each other.
Because nobody strongly abuses this, it generally works fine and people go on with their lives around them. Even with the small neighborhood streets around Tokyo, you rarely see it being treated as an issue. At worst, if a truck is trying to pass, a quick honk will cause whoever is driving to rush out and move the car.
I do get disillusioned sometimes though, living in a society where people have a general level of respect for each other.
> Because nobody strongly abuses this
There’s your likely reason for why the rule is strictly enforced in the US.
Really, it makes no sense to me that people demand and expect law enforcement to work equally for everyone while also wanting to make an exception of themselves.
There’s your likely reason for why the rule is strictly enforced in the US.
Really, it makes no sense to me that people demand and expect law enforcement to work equally for everyone while also wanting to make an exception of themselves.
Fascinating that you arrived at such a similar phrase for this. In my group we call them ‘park anywhere lights’ I spend 3+ months a year between Fukuoka and Tokyo, but outside my group of friends this concept has never really been discussed.
I also agree on the baseline level of respect and order, going back to Sydney is sometimes jarring where some things don’t ‘just work’ as they do here.
I also agree on the baseline level of respect and order, going back to Sydney is sometimes jarring where some things don’t ‘just work’ as they do here.
> the hazard lights button is the "park anywhere" button
I first saw this behavior when I went to school in Rochester, NY and wondered what the hell everybody was doing. Never encountered it growing up outside of Boston.
I first saw this behavior when I went to school in Rochester, NY and wondered what the hell everybody was doing. Never encountered it growing up outside of Boston.
> I do get disillusioned sometimes though, living in a society where people have a general level of respect for each other.
This might have something to do with it.
This might have something to do with it.
Same in Spain, and I guess most of Europe, when you are parking temporarily ( < 5 minutes normally ) somewhere you shouldn't you put the hazard lights on.
But I'm not talking about blocking the road entirely, of course that's not the case, just parking in places that is not allowed to park statically.
But I'm not talking about blocking the road entirely, of course that's not the case, just parking in places that is not allowed to park statically.
This is very common behaviour (and known as the "park wherever the f you want" button among my friends) in Italy as well. But italians are not exactly the best example of drivers to imitate and learn from
former car owner
Couldn't help but get that in there could you.
Couldn't help but get that in there could you.
You had me until "former car owner"
Pointing out sanctimony or hypocrisy is not a valid argument against. It's is a kind of ad hominem.
A person can be both right and sanctimonious
A person can be both right and sanctimonious
Weird to me it’s being read as sanctimony. My intent was just to convey “I was a driver for 22 years I am allowed to say we are entitled behind the wheel.” Maybe people feel guilty about owning cars so it rubbed them wrong? Some people have to, I’m lucky enough to not. I don’t think I’m better, just emotionally liberated. It’s an amazing feeling to have the privilege of not having to drive or park, get psychotically enraged at being towed, etc
Ad hominem, when used, is commonly done as a pure convenience for the person wielding it.
I cannot say about this particular case.
I cannot say about this particular case.
For many of us, including myself, such a "luxury" is not practical:
1. I like the outdoors and they don't put bus lines 200 miles from the nearest gas station.
2. Work is often further than walking or biking distance.
3. I need to haul more than a few days worth of groceries. Or a larger item.
I think what people are getting upset at is you are conflating not driving with some higher form of intellect when in reality it's a privilege really only afforded to people who live in often high cost of living areas. This implies a socioeconomic status to yourself whether you like it or not and so people feel you are talking down to them. I interpreted it as you were talking down to me too. It's not about me being "done" with road rage, or whatever, it's about the fact that my town, my life, and the country in general won't let me be "done" with it. Nor will my hobbies. For many of us a car is not a privilege it's an absolutely basal level necessity. No amount of cheerleading for the anti-car crowd will change that. I suspect it won't change in my lifetime either.
1. I like the outdoors and they don't put bus lines 200 miles from the nearest gas station.
2. Work is often further than walking or biking distance.
3. I need to haul more than a few days worth of groceries. Or a larger item.
I think what people are getting upset at is you are conflating not driving with some higher form of intellect when in reality it's a privilege really only afforded to people who live in often high cost of living areas. This implies a socioeconomic status to yourself whether you like it or not and so people feel you are talking down to them. I interpreted it as you were talking down to me too. It's not about me being "done" with road rage, or whatever, it's about the fact that my town, my life, and the country in general won't let me be "done" with it. Nor will my hobbies. For many of us a car is not a privilege it's an absolutely basal level necessity. No amount of cheerleading for the anti-car crowd will change that. I suspect it won't change in my lifetime either.
>I think what people are getting upset at is you are conflating not driving with some higher form of intellect
But that’s them presuming, I neither meant nor actually said that and I explained my intent above. It’s a mistake on their part. That fine, that’s life, but says more about them than me.
>when in reality it's a privilege really only afforded to people who live in often high cost of living areas.
Totally, that’s why I called it a privilege myself in the comment you’re replying to. People seem to have layered a stereotype onto me because I said I was a former car owner. It’s like saying you don’t own a television-maybe it’s often said in arrogance but sometimes you actually have a good reason to mention it.
But that’s them presuming, I neither meant nor actually said that and I explained my intent above. It’s a mistake on their part. That fine, that’s life, but says more about them than me.
>when in reality it's a privilege really only afforded to people who live in often high cost of living areas.
Totally, that’s why I called it a privilege myself in the comment you’re replying to. People seem to have layered a stereotype onto me because I said I was a former car owner. It’s like saying you don’t own a television-maybe it’s often said in arrogance but sometimes you actually have a good reason to mention it.
This reminds me of my own college experience where I had accidentally parked in a beach lot late one night without seeing the no parking sign, and 15-20 mins after checking out the surf we got a phone call from our friend who had been passed out in the back of the car.
She was hysterical after waking up and discovering the car was on the bed of a tow truck barreling down the highway.
I can't recall exactly how the tow truck driver was alerted of the girl in the back seat, but they brought it back and released it.
So yeah, humans in/on vehicle getting towed prevents them from towing.
She was hysterical after waking up and discovering the car was on the bed of a tow truck barreling down the highway.
I can't recall exactly how the tow truck driver was alerted of the girl in the back seat, but they brought it back and released it.
So yeah, humans in/on vehicle getting towed prevents them from towing.
Interesting to see so many different perspectives on this one. Seems like I'm in the minority, but my perspective is you are absolutely not towing my car while I am present. I'll get in and drive away while it's hooked to the truck. Or whatever I have to do. You are not towing it. Period.
I'm not sure what country you live in, IANAL, in the US you're going to be liable for all damages and risk a license suspension for doing that. It's dangerous to the tow driver and there's no world where you can reasonably argue endangering them
I'll get in and drive away while it's hooked to the truck
Not likely, at least not without seriously damaging your car and/or the tow truck and you’ll have to pay for both. That tow truck hook is designed to pull your car down the road at highway speeds, you’re not going to just drive your car off it.
https://youtu.be/Wq3e0XwyDMM
Not likely, at least not without seriously damaging your car and/or the tow truck and you’ll have to pay for both. That tow truck hook is designed to pull your car down the road at highway speeds, you’re not going to just drive your car off it.
https://youtu.be/Wq3e0XwyDMM
> That tow truck hook is designed to pull your car down the road at highway speeds
It depends. Wheel lifts are designed to have ratchet straps run through anchors on the side and over the tires to keep the vehicle strapped down. Your vehicle has it's own suspension and it can "pop" off the lift easily.
In "high risk" towing or repossession, you might see an agent lift a vehicle then drive off with it; almost certainly, they're going about a mile or so away to where they can safely stop and then strap the vehicle down properly.
Even then:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTKSj-iN6KE
It depends. Wheel lifts are designed to have ratchet straps run through anchors on the side and over the tires to keep the vehicle strapped down. Your vehicle has it's own suspension and it can "pop" off the lift easily.
In "high risk" towing or repossession, you might see an agent lift a vehicle then drive off with it; almost certainly, they're going about a mile or so away to where they can safely stop and then strap the vehicle down properly.
Even then:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTKSj-iN6KE
Your vehicle has it's own suspension and it can "pop" off the lift easily.
I think that’s what the guy in the 4wd truck in the video I linked to thought, he did‘t get it off with causing some serious body damage to his truck, maybe some suspension damage and probably some damage to the tow truck, he lifted the tow truck off its front wheels several times.
I think that’s what the guy in the 4wd truck in the video I linked to thought, he did‘t get it off with causing some serious body damage to his truck, maybe some suspension damage and probably some damage to the tow truck, he lifted the tow truck off its front wheels several times.
Well if this is how the new cars are gonna be, I guess I'll just go ahead and teach myself to be a Car Guy so that the one I have now will run forever.
It's not that I'm afraid of missing a payment. At this point I would probably buy the car outright. But after the robo-signing debacle with BoA repossesssing houses that they were never party to, the mere capability renders the machine fundamentally untrustworthy.
It's not that I'm afraid of missing a payment. At this point I would probably buy the car outright. But after the robo-signing debacle with BoA repossesssing houses that they were never party to, the mere capability renders the machine fundamentally untrustworthy.
> the mere capability renders the machine fundamentally untrustworthy.
I've said this a couple of times before, but I find it fairly astonishing that we don't have legislation covering what manufacturers are allowed to do to a product with embedded devices after a user has purchased it.
I want to be very clear - after I have bought a product, ANY CHANGE WITHOUT MY CONSENT done by the embedded software at the behest of the manufacturer is essentially breaking and entering (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)). They have the ability to stick a "little green man" inside the car, that should not absolve them of the legal repercussions of using it without my permission.
I don't believe that sticking a term/clause into a user agreement that is not negotiable is an acceptable way to deal with this situation.
This is rapidly becoming one of my strongest political beliefs. I think the concept of ownership is at stake.
My wishlist is essentially:
1. Devices that contain digital locks MUST provide all keys to all locks to the buyer at time of purchase. The user can opt into allowing the manufacturer to keep a copy, but they must be allowed to opt out.
2. Devices that require remote services must explicitly list all services and features that depend on those services. The user must have the option to opt out of remote services.
3. Buyers of devices that choose to opt out of remote services are revoking consent for manufacturer access to the device. Any future access by the manufacturer (at all, from updating code to reporting usage to remotely starting a car) will be considered a violation of the CFAA.
4. Manufacturers must justify why a feature requires a remote service. "Profit" is not an acceptable answer.
I've said this a couple of times before, but I find it fairly astonishing that we don't have legislation covering what manufacturers are allowed to do to a product with embedded devices after a user has purchased it.
I want to be very clear - after I have bought a product, ANY CHANGE WITHOUT MY CONSENT done by the embedded software at the behest of the manufacturer is essentially breaking and entering (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)). They have the ability to stick a "little green man" inside the car, that should not absolve them of the legal repercussions of using it without my permission.
I don't believe that sticking a term/clause into a user agreement that is not negotiable is an acceptable way to deal with this situation.
This is rapidly becoming one of my strongest political beliefs. I think the concept of ownership is at stake.
My wishlist is essentially:
1. Devices that contain digital locks MUST provide all keys to all locks to the buyer at time of purchase. The user can opt into allowing the manufacturer to keep a copy, but they must be allowed to opt out.
2. Devices that require remote services must explicitly list all services and features that depend on those services. The user must have the option to opt out of remote services.
3. Buyers of devices that choose to opt out of remote services are revoking consent for manufacturer access to the device. Any future access by the manufacturer (at all, from updating code to reporting usage to remotely starting a car) will be considered a violation of the CFAA.
4. Manufacturers must justify why a feature requires a remote service. "Profit" is not an acceptable answer.
> I want to be very clear - after I have bought a product, ANY CHANGE WITHOUT MY CONSENT done by the embedded software at the behest of the manufacturer is essentially breaking and entering (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)).
Man, do I have bad news for you about everything.
Man, do I have bad news for you about everything.
Sure - although I'll point out that technically the CFAA already covers this, it's just never applied in this manner (caveat - the CFAA can cover basically anything given the vague wording... so the value of it is up for debate)
Basically - I want a simple contract that ensures that the device I've bought will continue working as expected (assuming no use of remote/internet connected features) and that the manufacturer is unable to enter my property and change how it functions after sale.
I don't find that particularly unusual. I think the unusual part is rather than manufacturers have this new ability at all. For the majority of our legal history it was either prohibitively expensive or downright impossible for a manufacturer to embed a device that only obeys the manufacturer into consumer products.
Now it's both possible and cheap, and I'd like to see some regulation regarding my rights to purchase a tool.
A small number of places are paying at least a little attention and beginning to ban the most egregious cases of this (ex: NJ considering banning car subscriptions with a specific call out to the behavior of BMW around seat heaters).
But this is going to become a tidal wave of consumer abuse in the very near future - I can fucking guarantee it.
Why would anyone ever sell you a product when they can rent it to you and let their "little green man" be the property manager for free? They won't - not unless they're forced to.
And while I think renting can be a useful way to acquire a product - I sure as hell think it shouldn't be the only one.
Basically - I want a simple contract that ensures that the device I've bought will continue working as expected (assuming no use of remote/internet connected features) and that the manufacturer is unable to enter my property and change how it functions after sale.
I don't find that particularly unusual. I think the unusual part is rather than manufacturers have this new ability at all. For the majority of our legal history it was either prohibitively expensive or downright impossible for a manufacturer to embed a device that only obeys the manufacturer into consumer products.
Now it's both possible and cheap, and I'd like to see some regulation regarding my rights to purchase a tool.
A small number of places are paying at least a little attention and beginning to ban the most egregious cases of this (ex: NJ considering banning car subscriptions with a specific call out to the behavior of BMW around seat heaters).
But this is going to become a tidal wave of consumer abuse in the very near future - I can fucking guarantee it.
Why would anyone ever sell you a product when they can rent it to you and let their "little green man" be the property manager for free? They won't - not unless they're forced to.
And while I think renting can be a useful way to acquire a product - I sure as hell think it shouldn't be the only one.
Including Firefox and forced live updates (noteworthy since it’s from such a “you own your machine” org):
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19825745
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19825745
Oh, maybe you also want your TV not phoning home with it's usage stats? Or even have a root privilege on your iPhone? /s
Can you go after them with a CFAA suit yourself if and when it happens?
You haven't bought a car till you pay for it. If you buy it with a loan the bank owns it, and can restrict your use of it as they see fit.
Not true, at least in my state. If you buy a car with a loan, you own the car and the financer has a lien on it. You unequivocally own the car, though.
The only restrictions that the financer can put on your use of the vehicle are ones that you agreed to in the loan agreement. They can't just restrict your use of it as they see fit -- unless, I suppose, you were foolish enough to sign an agreement allowing them to.
The only restrictions I've ever personally seen have been a requirement to carry comprehensive car insurance for some minimum amount. And, of course, there's a lien on the car so you can't sell it without having the lien removed (typically by repaying the loan).
The only restrictions that the financer can put on your use of the vehicle are ones that you agreed to in the loan agreement. They can't just restrict your use of it as they see fit -- unless, I suppose, you were foolish enough to sign an agreement allowing them to.
The only restrictions I've ever personally seen have been a requirement to carry comprehensive car insurance for some minimum amount. And, of course, there's a lien on the car so you can't sell it without having the lien removed (typically by repaying the loan).
"Foolish enough" to sign an agreement allowing them to do whatever they want? Even website EULAs are all made up of the exact same "we can do everything and you can do nothing" legal boilerplate. Seriously doubt bankers are foolish enough to give people any choice in the matter. What are people gonna do when all the bankers standardize on the same non-negotiable self-interest maximizing contracts?
> What are people gonna do
Don't take out a loan to buy a car.
Don't take out a loan to buy a car.
> Not true, at least in my state.
Huh, which state is that? Every car I've ever financed, the bank owns the title until the loan is paid off. Exactly the opposite of mortgaging a house, where I've owned the deed but the bank put a lien on it.
Huh, which state is that? Every car I've ever financed, the bank owns the title until the loan is paid off. Exactly the opposite of mortgaging a house, where I've owned the deed but the bank put a lien on it.
Interesting didn't know that, figured it worked like a home loan. Banks often have similar insurance requirements and/or PMI for home loans.
Recently minted Car Guy here. Start with Ford or Chevy anything pre-1975, expect to spend 5000-7000 for a running older vehicle in need of maintenance and body work. PArts are ubiquitous and you'll be blown away by how simple engines can be to understand and work on without all of the ECM/emissions-era add-ons under the hood to contend with. Learn to love calling the support line @ JEGS or Summit Racing before ordering parts to confirm your fitment before you pull the trigger. Don't even bother thinking about stepping foot in a modern parts store, they can't help you.
you'll be blown away by how simple engines can be to understand and work on without all of the ECM/emissions-era add-ons under the hood to contend with
But you’ve also gotta be selfish enough to think that your pollutants don’t matter and that 1970’s era smog wasn’t a big deal. And you have to hope that older cars are still grandfathered in to pollution regulations and they won’t be subject to mileage limits as cars continue to emit fewer (or no) pollutants.
But you’ve also gotta be selfish enough to think that your pollutants don’t matter and that 1970’s era smog wasn’t a big deal. And you have to hope that older cars are still grandfathered in to pollution regulations and they won’t be subject to mileage limits as cars continue to emit fewer (or no) pollutants.
Oh I bet you're a real treat at parties. You over there pretending the vanishingly small handful of classic cars that still exist and are capable of being driven aren't a rounding error in the context of air pollution in general and global warming specifically? Let me guess, you also think eliminating dairy and meat production would result in a meaningful reduction in global CO2 emissions...
I’m not talking about registered classic or antique cars which have mileage or usage restrictions in most states that would prevent it from being a daily driver. And neither was the person you’re replying to that wants to avoid modern cars and keep his on the road indefinitely. And I’m not even talking about CO2 pollution which doesn’t form smog.
Then you dropped the plot on my comment in your haste to virtue signal. How about you go re-read it and try again?
Any user interface will be misused, so "click to repo" will mostly be used accidentally in error. The vast majority of cars are not repo'd and as such the vast majority of clicks on the "repo" button will be in error. The customer service rep will be trying to click "x" to close some other website's popups or they thought they were clicking "reset" but that's right next to "repo". Or the new hire is told to click "repo" on every loan with no payment last month; I made no payment last month because I made my final payment two months ago but it hasn't closed out the process.
There will be a few high profile stories of cars driving off with newborn babies strapped in the car seat, then the tech will be banned.
Weirdly enough by patenting the business method, this makes every car mfgr OTHER than Ford much more appealing, so what we really is patent trolls as a service patenting really bad ideas to make sure nobody can implement them. I don't think Ford's new invention was intended to get me to buy a Toyota. Patenting bad ideas as a weapon is an interesting concept. Other than the obvious fraud issue, what's to stop me from filing a REALLY bad idea patent, then selling the stock short, then drumming up some PR, then closing out my short position at profit? At some point this is inevitable as "the internet" along with "the stock market" and everything else becomes more bot than human.
There will be a few high profile stories of cars driving off with newborn babies strapped in the car seat, then the tech will be banned.
Weirdly enough by patenting the business method, this makes every car mfgr OTHER than Ford much more appealing, so what we really is patent trolls as a service patenting really bad ideas to make sure nobody can implement them. I don't think Ford's new invention was intended to get me to buy a Toyota. Patenting bad ideas as a weapon is an interesting concept. Other than the obvious fraud issue, what's to stop me from filing a REALLY bad idea patent, then selling the stock short, then drumming up some PR, then closing out my short position at profit? At some point this is inevitable as "the internet" along with "the stock market" and everything else becomes more bot than human.
What if they make it take like 2 steps?
Having trouble thinking what user-facing technology cars have gained recently that I actually need. Backup cameras are nice, my last two cars had them but my current one does not. Life goes on. Heard anecdotally that new cars in US require then now, so I guess next car will probably have one again. Blindspot indicators on side mirrors are nice too, but physically turning and looking is too engrained in me to stop doing.
It seems like there has to be a market for something other than what we are getting. I'd like something that benefits from improvements in emissions/gas mileage but doesn't bolt on infotainment or phone integrations or networked everything. Zero interest in lane-assist technology. Preemptively saying no to any O.T.A. updates. I basically want what in 2023 would be considered a work-truck level of utilitarianism but in a form I can use to get my family from A to B, since throwing young kids up front on a bench seat in a work-truck is a no-go. It would be nice if it weren't actively ugly as well, but on this point I am negotiable.
It seems like there has to be a market for something other than what we are getting. I'd like something that benefits from improvements in emissions/gas mileage but doesn't bolt on infotainment or phone integrations or networked everything. Zero interest in lane-assist technology. Preemptively saying no to any O.T.A. updates. I basically want what in 2023 would be considered a work-truck level of utilitarianism but in a form I can use to get my family from A to B, since throwing young kids up front on a bench seat in a work-truck is a no-go. It would be nice if it weren't actively ugly as well, but on this point I am negotiable.
There's a lot that can be done by disintegrated systems, too.
I put cameras onto a box truck so I had reversing etc, but I used an 8-camera wired security system with video recorder and eSIM for that. The screen was optional but I found one that only had one button (to toggle views) rather than a "command console" type that by its nature gave full control over the security system. Driving around displaying the bumper-height rear camera on the screen was quite handy, normally it's a blind spot of trucks.
Likewise the GPS tracking system, I bought a stand-alone navigation system (you need a truck-specific one that you can at the very least type height and weight into so it doesn't direct you down roads you can't fit through), and obviously a separate anti-theft tracker (well, two, because the immobiliser also had one).
And of course there was a radio/CD player in the cab, no need to wire that into the one computer to rule them all that modern mobile infotainment systems have. I mean, "computers with wheels" or whatever the transport as a service companies call their devices these days.
I put cameras onto a box truck so I had reversing etc, but I used an 8-camera wired security system with video recorder and eSIM for that. The screen was optional but I found one that only had one button (to toggle views) rather than a "command console" type that by its nature gave full control over the security system. Driving around displaying the bumper-height rear camera on the screen was quite handy, normally it's a blind spot of trucks.
Likewise the GPS tracking system, I bought a stand-alone navigation system (you need a truck-specific one that you can at the very least type height and weight into so it doesn't direct you down roads you can't fit through), and obviously a separate anti-theft tracker (well, two, because the immobiliser also had one).
And of course there was a radio/CD player in the cab, no need to wire that into the one computer to rule them all that modern mobile infotainment systems have. I mean, "computers with wheels" or whatever the transport as a service companies call their devices these days.
Which anti theft tracker did you go with? Is it a standalone unit with big battery? Just asking because you mention it.
Everyone is reselling the more or less same cheap Chinese units at insane markups. Firmware seems to be mostly identical. The tracking portals never have HTTPS. I haven't been able to find anything decent so far.
Everyone is reselling the more or less same cheap Chinese units at insane markups. Firmware seems to be mostly identical. The tracking portals never have HTTPS. I haven't been able to find anything decent so far.
Sorry, I can't remember, this was several years ago and I've since sold the truck. But loosely my requirements were 24V input to match the truck, battery life of at least a week, external antenna and ability to work without user input. I just played on ebay until I found one that looked likely, searched for support forums and found a discussion on a European trucking forum where they liked it. It was under $US100.
Access to it was either via the manufacturer website or you could configure your own server IP and it would send JSON packets via HTTP post. No verification of the server, but it was also annoying enough to configure that I thought even a thief that found it would just smash it rather than fscking with it. AFAIK no-one ever did, it only stopped working when I stopped paying for the eSIM (the new owner never took over that tracker even though I told them all about it)
The immobiliser was a whole other ball of shit. It had a keyfob, but also remote monitoring via a physical SIM. I couldn't find a DIY-able one, so I was paying ~$US50/year to some Chinese company to monitor the system and allow me to track and immobilise it via their app. That worked, as did the geographic restrictions, but it was also easy enough to remove/bypass - the new owner hated the system and rang me to yell about it before removing it. I assume they just added a bypass wire and moved on.
Access to it was either via the manufacturer website or you could configure your own server IP and it would send JSON packets via HTTP post. No verification of the server, but it was also annoying enough to configure that I thought even a thief that found it would just smash it rather than fscking with it. AFAIK no-one ever did, it only stopped working when I stopped paying for the eSIM (the new owner never took over that tracker even though I told them all about it)
The immobiliser was a whole other ball of shit. It had a keyfob, but also remote monitoring via a physical SIM. I couldn't find a DIY-able one, so I was paying ~$US50/year to some Chinese company to monitor the system and allow me to track and immobilise it via their app. That worked, as did the geographic restrictions, but it was also easy enough to remove/bypass - the new owner hated the system and rang me to yell about it before removing it. I assume they just added a bypass wire and moved on.
Ha, no worries! Thanks for responding though. All this stuff is super frustrating to deal with. I see regular posts on forums about people having to deal with old shitty immobiliser installs that have turned bad.
My thinking is that GPS tracking at least gives a chance of finding the car again if it gets stolen.
Being able to configure a server is already great. Will do some more digging.
My thinking is that GPS tracking at least gives a chance of finding the car again if it gets stolen.
Being able to configure a server is already great. Will do some more digging.
I'm with you, I like the additional warnings, but I have no interest in a car that acts on its own based on what it thinks is best. I like backup cameras, but don't want OnStar connected or people being able to remotely disable my vehicle.
> It seems like there has to be a market for something other than what we are getting.
I might have a few small wishes, like I'd appreciate windshields and rear windows that quickly adapt to blinding headlights (or better regulations for highlights with actual enforcement), but cars have been mostly "good enough" for ages.
> It seems like there has to be a market for something other than what we are getting.
I might have a few small wishes, like I'd appreciate windshields and rear windows that quickly adapt to blinding headlights (or better regulations for highlights with actual enforcement), but cars have been mostly "good enough" for ages.
I think you probably want a 2017ish Subaru
Close. Funnily enough, the last car was a 2014 Subaru we bought in 2021. My spouse drives our kids more, so she staked out the claim on that one though.
Maybe the Bronco selling like crazy will convince carmakers to issue "remastered" versions of previous cars, and maybe the remastering won't be "stick a 17inch screen in the center console."
Maybe the Bronco selling like crazy will convince carmakers to issue "remastered" versions of previous cars, and maybe the remastering won't be "stick a 17inch screen in the center console."
Lane assist is actually really nice. I also had 0 interest but now I use it.
adaptive cruise control is another good one
Go one step further and become a Bicycle Guy. Consider what will still be operational 100 years from now once fossil fuels have dried up and we have fully transitioned into Life As A Service.
The problem with being a "Bicycle Guy" is that people like to run them over...
The only way to stop a bad guy with an SUV is a good guy with an SUV. Or maybe enforcing laws against homicide, but I guess that's too hard.
> Or maybe enforcing laws against homicide, but I guess that's too hard.
If only homicide was illegal, then no one would kill anyone else.
If only homicide was illegal, then no one would kill anyone else.
Also not practical for many people.
Here on Long Island, we shmush cyclists for sport.
https://www.bicycling.com/culture/a41119529/the-most-dangero...
https://www.bicycling.com/culture/a41119529/the-most-dangero...
That's true as long as you don't use one of those ungodly bluetooth shifters with built-in end-of-life cycle.
> bluetooth shifters
what in tarnation
what in tarnation
https://bike.shimano.com/en-US/information/news/new-shimano-...
It's not clear to me that the wireless shifters themselves communicate via Bluetooth, though the system does use that to talk to a smartphone app, if desired.
It's not clear to me that the wireless shifters themselves communicate via Bluetooth, though the system does use that to talk to a smartphone app, if desired.
Gadget bikes for the wealthy in it as a hobby really are a world of their own.
That's the fundamental problem with computers today: we don't own them anymore. They all run the corporation's code now and they're literally everywhere.
Funny how quickly an incredibly empowering technology became obscenely oppressive after they take the keys to the machine away from us. Sometimes I wish computers had never been invented.
Funny how quickly an incredibly empowering technology became obscenely oppressive after they take the keys to the machine away from us. Sometimes I wish computers had never been invented.
I'm glad they were (and I'd say it was inevitable) but I'm sad we haven't defended our rights or our democracy enough to avoid being exploited by corporations.
I worry more about some hacker type deciding to ddos all the McDonalds by telling the cars that’s where they need to be.
Kind of surprised it hasn’t happened yet honestly.
Kind of surprised it hasn’t happened yet honestly.
> Kind of surprised it hasn’t happened yet honestly.
https://interestingengineering.com/culture/hacker-attacked-y...
https://interestingengineering.com/culture/hacker-attacked-y...
I'm not particularly worried about the well-being of the McDonald's corporation. I'd be more worried, if anything, about some bad actor deciding they want every car on a major interstate to wreck all at once.
Yeah, “give us a million dollars or we’ll wreck every car on the highway”.
How about a million dollar cruse missile? Deal?
How about a million dollar cruse missile? Deal?
> some bad actor deciding they want every car on a major interstate to wreck all at once.
like an insurance company?
like an insurance company?
They could also be used to harm pedestrians
Good luck buying it outright - and even if you do, new cars are all delivered with a bunch of tech that takes away your control and it gets worse every year.
Any guide I can follow as to how to become a "car guy"? I've long wanted to become one, for precisely the same reason as you, but unfortunately Google is filled by SEO garbage now that I'm struggling to find any general direction.
They'll just outlaw "dumb" cars. Can't have too much freedom on your hands.
True story: my neighbor's lease payment was under, by a dollar or two, no more. An error in his banking practices, I guess.
They came and repossessed it in the middle of the night. He offered to pay, and they wouldn't take a credit card, PayPal, Venmo, Zelle, wire transfer, or any other modern form of payment. No, he had to go to Western Union. Someone who's more up on this sort of stuff can explain that.
A week later I drove him to the parking lot where they take repossessed cars. I waited until he signaled that all was OK.
They came and repossessed it in the middle of the night. He offered to pay, and they wouldn't take a credit card, PayPal, Venmo, Zelle, wire transfer, or any other modern form of payment. No, he had to go to Western Union. Someone who's more up on this sort of stuff can explain that.
A week later I drove him to the parking lot where they take repossessed cars. I waited until he signaled that all was OK.
I saw someone's RV getting repossessed over $50 in 2019. They were clearly living in it. I walked over and handed the repo guy $60. He wouldn't take it. This was in a cul de sac. I parked my truck across the way so that it would not be possible to enter or leave the cul de sac. Someone called the cops. The cops showed up after a few minutes, good response time. The lady living in the RV was told that she could not park there anymore. The repo guy said he was taking the RV. I repeated my offer to pay in front of the cop. The repo guy took the $60. I was told to move my truck afterwards. The lady living in the RV never paid me back. I am overall OK with that. These things happen. This was in northern California. Random acts of angry kindness should not be relied upon.
Aren't repo guys usually just contracted out to do the job and pull the vehicle by the lender? They don't usually have the authority or facilities to take a payment on site.
Possibly pocketed the money and reported that the RV wasn't found or something.
Some do have some methods approved from banks. Like either pick the car, or get this much money in these payments forms only (& give a receipt).
There was a piece of paper involved that the woman living in the RV had to sign. Much to my annoyance at the time, it took a police officer showing up for that to happen.
I don't know. This one in particular was demanding money. Very loudly. That's why I got involved at all.
[deleted]
mr_00ff00(1)
Why did you feel the need to give the working class guy a hard time for doing his job? He probably makes an hourly wage or a commission on the vehicles he returns to rightful owners and now he’s facing not making any money for the day or possibly being fired.
He was operating lawfully and you decided it was your job to enforce your justice. I don’t know, just seems wrong. I think it would have been more noble to take her in for the night or take her to a shelter where they can help.
But leave regular guys just trying to put food on their tables alone.
He was operating lawfully and you decided it was your job to enforce your justice. I don’t know, just seems wrong. I think it would have been more noble to take her in for the night or take her to a shelter where they can help.
But leave regular guys just trying to put food on their tables alone.
A couple of thoughts to consider:
Zeroth, there really is no substitute for losing your home. Not being taken in for the night, not a shelter.
First, morality and legality are not identical.
Second, not doing something is a choice. Not acting and acting both have moral implications.
Third, systems are at times very good at pitting individuals against other. An employee can say "they are just doing their job"; meanwhile it is the organization structure that might strictly limit what authority the employee has. This can put the customer in the unfortunate position of having to raise issues with multiple layers of people, which takes away from their normal duties, before getting an issue resolved. A considerate customer might feel bad for "taking up" the first tier employee's time. This is by design. Think of car dealerships. I feel terrible for the dynamic of almost everyone involved there.
I haven't really laid out the specific connection, but I think you can see what I'm getting at. The car companies that hire repo companies probably don't empower the repo companies to exercise discretion. The people that build these corporate structures tend to understand human psychology and use it to their advantage.
Zeroth, there really is no substitute for losing your home. Not being taken in for the night, not a shelter.
First, morality and legality are not identical.
Second, not doing something is a choice. Not acting and acting both have moral implications.
Third, systems are at times very good at pitting individuals against other. An employee can say "they are just doing their job"; meanwhile it is the organization structure that might strictly limit what authority the employee has. This can put the customer in the unfortunate position of having to raise issues with multiple layers of people, which takes away from their normal duties, before getting an issue resolved. A considerate customer might feel bad for "taking up" the first tier employee's time. This is by design. Think of car dealerships. I feel terrible for the dynamic of almost everyone involved there.
I haven't really laid out the specific connection, but I think you can see what I'm getting at. The car companies that hire repo companies probably don't empower the repo companies to exercise discretion. The people that build these corporate structures tend to understand human psychology and use it to their advantage.
I think the moral thing is to let the guy do his job that he is lawfully doing. Buying him off night buy the person a night but doesn’t solve any problems and only lets someone feel good for doing the minimum - bribing.
If you really want to help then take the person in or get them a hotel or take them to a shelter. Help them get their vehicle back by paying fines and the payment. It’s a lot more work but solves the problem better than hassling a guy, involving police, and then bribing the guy to go away for a night.
The only person to benefit from this is the guy who gets to feel morally superior while bragging about it on the internet.
If you really want to help then take the person in or get them a hotel or take them to a shelter. Help them get their vehicle back by paying fines and the payment. It’s a lot more work but solves the problem better than hassling a guy, involving police, and then bribing the guy to go away for a night.
The only person to benefit from this is the guy who gets to feel morally superior while bragging about it on the internet.
Not particularly out to brag. Annoyed at the lack of a systemic solution. Random lady in a RV should not have to depend on random angry italian immigrant having cash in wallet, being more angry than tired that day, and having been made aware of a situation by loud shouting.
>I don’t know, just seems wrong.
Yeah, better they haul off the person's home over $50 and subject them to a minimum of hundreds in retrieval/storage fees. /s
Although somewhat rare, there are in fact tow operators who aren't pieces of shit and wouldn't do something like this in the first place.
Yeah, better they haul off the person's home over $50 and subject them to a minimum of hundreds in retrieval/storage fees. /s
Although somewhat rare, there are in fact tow operators who aren't pieces of shit and wouldn't do something like this in the first place.
Maybe you just dont know this. But a TON of repo operations are 100% not on the level. And not legal.
I may be a fat bastard these days but I grew up with "If someone big is harassing someone little, let the small person hide behind you". Probably old fashioned these days. Got me in trouble a couple of times in my life but at least I sleep well at night.
> why give the working class guy a hard time for doing his job?
Have you ever stood up for something? Anything? Have you ever told someone what they are doing is wrong / unacceptable?
Was that person doing his job or doing terrible things was a hobby?
Have you ever stood up for something? Anything? Have you ever told someone what they are doing is wrong / unacceptable?
Was that person doing his job or doing terrible things was a hobby?
> He offered to pay, and they wouldn't take a credit card, PayPal, Venmo, Zelle, wire transfer, or any other modern form of payment. No, he had to go to Western Union.
I'm guessing they told him to get a Western Union money order, as those can't be reversed after they're cashed (AFAIK). Most modern forms of payment offer some level of consumer protection, as in they can be canceled or reversed. TBH a repo business might not even be able to get a merchant account for CC processing due to being a high risk business. Merchants that have high chargeback rates have to pay higher processing fees and can even lose their merchant account if their chargeback rate is too high for too long.
I'm guessing they told him to get a Western Union money order, as those can't be reversed after they're cashed (AFAIK). Most modern forms of payment offer some level of consumer protection, as in they can be canceled or reversed. TBH a repo business might not even be able to get a merchant account for CC processing due to being a high risk business. Merchants that have high chargeback rates have to pay higher processing fees and can even lose their merchant account if their chargeback rate is too high for too long.
> I'm guessing they told him to get a Western Union money order, as those can't be reversed
Ha, out of nowhere a use case for Bitcoin appears.
Ha, out of nowhere a use case for Bitcoin appears.
Til that BTC you paid with drops in value to nothing because it's not pegged to anything.
Historically, a common usecase of bitcoin is as an intermediary between two people. If I recall, if you "buy a pizza with bitcoin", the seller instantly switches it over to cash, so there's basically no loss.
How am I the first commenter to mention cash?!
Cash is so messy. You need a physical place to pay it, and a daily Brink's truck to take it to a bank.
(although, yeah, you'd think GM Finance would have all that in most metropolitan areas.)
(although, yeah, you'd think GM Finance would have all that in most metropolitan areas.)
A repo also probably has a very financially unreliable customer base.
Isn't a cashier's check from your bank also not cancelable?
Cashier's checks from people you don't know or banks you don't know should always be considered forgeries until proven otherwise. They are easy to fake and the penalties for faking them are virtually nil; hence forgeries are rampant.
The days of cashier's checks being default trustworthy are long gone.
The days of cashier's checks being default trustworthy are long gone.
Look up craigslist scams. "My agent will come and pick up your goods, and give you a cashier's check."
After 5 days, the check is discovered to be fake, and you have to pay the money. They're taking advantage of the payment lag.
After 5 days, the check is discovered to be fake, and you have to pay the money. They're taking advantage of the payment lag.
This happened to me. A guy mailed me a cashier's check and said his "friend" would pick up the item. I called the bank the check was drawn on; they confirmed it was fake.
I pretended I never got the money and the "friend" never showed up. Lesson learned. Now I only exchange Craigslist items in person, in the parking lot of a police station, for cash. And I test the cash with a counterfeit detector pen.
I pretended I never got the money and the "friend" never showed up. Lesson learned. Now I only exchange Craigslist items in person, in the parking lot of a police station, for cash. And I test the cash with a counterfeit detector pen.
> And I test the cash with a counterfeit detector pen.
FYI, having owned a liquor store for a while and processing a ton of cash, the only counterfeit bills the pens could detect were the crappy amateur ones that were already pretty obvious without using the pen. Plenty of counterfeit bills passed the pen test just fine and didn't get revealed until the bank rejected them from a deposit.
FYI, having owned a liquor store for a while and processing a ton of cash, the only counterfeit bills the pens could detect were the crappy amateur ones that were already pretty obvious without using the pen. Plenty of counterfeit bills passed the pen test just fine and didn't get revealed until the bank rejected them from a deposit.
If the named payee has physical possession of the check, they can cash it and it can't be undone(without a valid court order, i.e. fraud, etc). All other situations, it can be undone, with work.
If you're at bank you can just withdraw cash tho
Update, after hearing back from him:
"Yes, Western Union was legit and used by GM Finance to collect."
So, not a scam. Just ultra-conservative business practices.
"Yes, Western Union was legit and used by GM Finance to collect."
So, not a scam. Just ultra-conservative business practices.
Who was he offering to pay to? The repo guys? Western Union just makes it sound like a scam.
I guess the company that held his car loan.
It was not a scam, I know that.
It was not a scam, I know that.
Do you know how he was paying? By check perhaps? I've been late on payments of various types a few times over the years but I don't think I've underpaid even once, because with how most things are set up that's not easily possible.
Follow-up: I saw him today. He had paid the dollars but left off the cents on his monthly payment, which was $0.42. When that reached $10, GMAC turned it over to Western Union, who went after him.
Neighbor got scammed.
I don't think so. Aside from the shadiness of it: he called the car loan company and they owned up to repo'ing it. He did in fact pay too little on his monthly payment. So how would a scam work?
(I don't know if he called the police or not, or what they would do in a case like this. Probably say, "Yep, sounds legit" and that would be the end of it.)
see above comment. Not a scam.
(I don't know if he called the police or not, or what they would do in a case like this. Probably say, "Yep, sounds legit" and that would be the end of it.)
see above comment. Not a scam.
How much was the underpayment (I know you said a dollar or two, but I presume this had gone on for a while?). It's odd to me that they repo'ed rather than contacting him to say 'hey, there's a problem with your account.'
I find the story wholly believable, a lot of people who work in payments seem to be stupid and/or stubborn, and it might be the industry selects for those traits.
I find the story wholly believable, a lot of people who work in payments seem to be stupid and/or stubborn, and it might be the industry selects for those traits.
> It's odd to me that they repo'ed rather than contacting him to say 'hey, there's a problem with your account.'
I imagine there's a lot more money to be made making someone pay for the fees and costs of a repo, than a phone call asking them to pay a few dollars. Although his friend could also be lying about the few dollars part.
I imagine there's a lot more money to be made making someone pay for the fees and costs of a repo, than a phone call asking them to pay a few dollars. Although his friend could also be lying about the few dollars part.
That would be an insane practice. The internal overhead is a pain. Repo is a last effort to protect the asset rather than a way to cure an account. Even with repo fees there's no guarantees you're getting that money back and the asset won't be worth as much if the customer doesn't true up.
General industry practice people are put in delinquency buckets, and generally not by amount but in the 'are they past due or not?' I'm speculating but there could be other behavioral scoring as well and if they just automated the process of dispatching well... that's on them and good luck with that overhead.
General industry practice people are put in delinquency buckets, and generally not by amount but in the 'are they past due or not?' I'm speculating but there could be other behavioral scoring as well and if they just automated the process of dispatching well... that's on them and good luck with that overhead.
I’m fairly convinced a lot of places give loans with horrific interest rates hoping person defaults. They repo the car. Resell it. The person usually has only mostly paid interest and still owes most of the original price of the car plus fees.
This guy is as straight an arrow as they come (although I'm not going to provide any PII on him). Betting on him to default would be a very bad bet.
I know he had to pay much more than the under-amount: fees & whatnot. So I'd assume that GM Finance cleared a profit on this deal.
Yeah, on the repo man accepting payment: I'd almost believe that happened, and he just pocketed the money & reported the car missing.
I know he had to pay much more than the under-amount: fees & whatnot. So I'd assume that GM Finance cleared a profit on this deal.
Yeah, on the repo man accepting payment: I'd almost believe that happened, and he just pocketed the money & reported the car missing.
Unfortunately, I'm not the person who was repo'ed and I already texted him once today.
"Stay away from GM Finance" is the lesson here.
"Stay away from GM Finance" is the lesson here.
That’s generally good advice. Buy cars you can afford, and pay cash. If you must, finance with a local credit union.
[deleted]
> It's odd to me that they repo'ed rather than contacting him to say 'hey, there's a problem with your account.'
That might be a good assumption if human beings were involved in the decision loop to repossess the vehicle, but I wouldn't be surprised if the entire process is automated.
That might be a good assumption if human beings were involved in the decision loop to repossess the vehicle, but I wouldn't be surprised if the entire process is automated.
> but I wouldn't be surprised if the entire process is automated.
Yup, I accidentally underpaid my mortgage one month by $0.20 (I fat fingered the online payment). I didn't get my house repossessed, but it did send the automated billing system at the bank into a huge tizzy that took six months and multiple phone conversations with different departments to sort out. I was flabbergasted that it caused so much commotion, as it can't be that unusual an error to occur.
Yup, I accidentally underpaid my mortgage one month by $0.20 (I fat fingered the online payment). I didn't get my house repossessed, but it did send the automated billing system at the bank into a huge tizzy that took six months and multiple phone conversations with different departments to sort out. I was flabbergasted that it caused so much commotion, as it can't be that unusual an error to occur.
Uhm, it seems like the auto industry is still letting its imagination run away with self driving cars.
I don't see how a patent like this can be granted if we still generally don't have working self-driving cars. Even Tesla is getting forced to admit that "Full Self Driving" isn't really full self driving.
I don't see how a patent like this can be granted if we still generally don't have working self-driving cars. Even Tesla is getting forced to admit that "Full Self Driving" isn't really full self driving.
Patents don't need to be safe. You can patent a transportation device that works by firing a human out of a cannon, or a self driving car that simply runs over pedestrians, or even just a method of killing someone.
> You can patent a transportation device that works by firing a human out of a cannon, or a self driving car that simply runs over pedestrians, or even just a method of killing someone.
Can I patent a self driving car that runs over pedestrians so that I can sue any company whose self driving car does it that hasn't paid me a license fee?
Can I patent a self driving car that runs over pedestrians so that I can sue any company whose self driving car does it that hasn't paid me a license fee?
No, Tesla is prior art
"Systems and methods for autonomous motor vehicle operation":
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EzmEZ9oXEAQOiY1?format=jpg&name=...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EzmEZ9oXEAQOiY1?format=jpg&name=...
I am pretty sure that no one at the patent office cares if your invention works or not.
That's not really true. It has to at least be plausible. Usually.
One exception that comes to mind is a couple of patents some physicist working for the US Navy created that probably aren't real technology. Anti-gravity devices and the like. Why they admitted those? No idea, but possibly this was done as part of some sort of hearkening back to the cold-war-era strategy of 'waste the enemies resources on a goose chase' kind of thing.
One exception that comes to mind is a couple of patents some physicist working for the US Navy created that probably aren't real technology. Anti-gravity devices and the like. Why they admitted those? No idea, but possibly this was done as part of some sort of hearkening back to the cold-war-era strategy of 'waste the enemies resources on a goose chase' kind of thing.
Very interesting, TIL!
Not quite true. They will stop you from patenting a perpetual motion machine (typically by saying that you have not provided enough detail for someone to replicate your work).
Except they can only do that if a patent clerk (who is usually not a physicist or engineer) can TELL it's a perpetual motion machine. After millions and millions of patents, there are bound to be a bunch that should not have been granted, even if those patent clerks are 99.9% good at their job
Patent examiners (the modern term for patent clerks) have at least a bachelors degree in a technical field relevant to the subject they review. That might be physics, engineer, chemistry, or something else. Examiners are assigned to specific art unit (e.g. an examiner with a degree in chemistry might be assigned to art unit 1710 and spend their entire career examining patents for chemicals involved in "Coating, Etching, Cleaning, and Single Crystal Growth").
I'm sure some things do get through on occasion, but examiners are most certainly subject matter experts.
I'm sure some things do get through on occasion, but examiners are most certainly subject matter experts.
Patent examiners are being moved to a system where they are "automatically" assigned applications to review that may or may not have anything more than superficial in common. I've got a parent that's a patent examiner and they have been complaining loudly about the move because they often don't know much about what they're reviewing anymore.
That's too bad, I had not heard about this.
This is news to me! I'm very glad to hear this. Renews a bit of faith in the patent process.
They do care -- but there is no requirement that you prove it works (such as by providing a working example), so there's lots of room for error and fraud there.
Maybe this is a good thing. A lot of stupid patents will all expire by the time they could actually be used.
I rode halfway across San Francisco in a self-driving car last week. Seemed to work pretty well.
The videos of self driving Tesla are available on Youtube. Those can be quite convincing.
Nikola also had videos of their electric trucks "driving" on YouTube. These were convincing enough for people to invest millions. Not a high standard.
Quite convincing after they edited out all the dangerous mistakes.
I work in security and anti-fraud is the use case of last resort for terrible ideas.
When you finance a car, the vehicle becomes collateral for a loan, but it belongs to you. A technology like this means that the vehicle still belongs to Ford, which means if something goes wrong with it, or if you get sciatica from their shitty seats, you can class action sue them into oblivion.
The reason we have laws is so that people have recourse to principle, whereas when you implement something like this in hardware (a car), it's dystopian vigilantism. I realize the largest future growth market for cars is in countries without reliable legal systems, and whose evolving governments will not hamper themselves the way the US did by guaranteeing individual freedoms, but this is why discourse about tech is important, as for every innovation, there's 100 scumbags like this inventor looking to leverage it to exploit people.
When you finance a car, the vehicle becomes collateral for a loan, but it belongs to you. A technology like this means that the vehicle still belongs to Ford, which means if something goes wrong with it, or if you get sciatica from their shitty seats, you can class action sue them into oblivion.
The reason we have laws is so that people have recourse to principle, whereas when you implement something like this in hardware (a car), it's dystopian vigilantism. I realize the largest future growth market for cars is in countries without reliable legal systems, and whose evolving governments will not hamper themselves the way the US did by guaranteeing individual freedoms, but this is why discourse about tech is important, as for every innovation, there's 100 scumbags like this inventor looking to leverage it to exploit people.
> When you finance a car, the vehicle becomes collateral for a loan, but it belongs to you.
The title stays with the lender until all the payments are made per the loan agreement. I would not say the vehicle legally belongs to a borrower until they have possession of the title.
> The reason we have laws is so that people have recourse to principle, whereas when you implement something like this in hardware (a car), it's dystopian vigilantism.
The legal system is costly to use. Reducing the costs to repossess collateral would reduce borrowing costs, and ultimately help borrowers with lower borrowing costs because there is less expense towards repossession.
The title stays with the lender until all the payments are made per the loan agreement. I would not say the vehicle legally belongs to a borrower until they have possession of the title.
> The reason we have laws is so that people have recourse to principle, whereas when you implement something like this in hardware (a car), it's dystopian vigilantism.
The legal system is costly to use. Reducing the costs to repossess collateral would reduce borrowing costs, and ultimately help borrowers with lower borrowing costs because there is less expense towards repossession.
> The title stays with the lender until all the payments are made per the loan agreement.
This varies a lot by state. A lot (most?) states the title absolutely goes to the purchaser but it has a lien attached that gives the lender rights of repossession.
This varies a lot by state. A lot (most?) states the title absolutely goes to the purchaser but it has a lien attached that gives the lender rights of repossession.
This is how it works in my state, yes. The lender doesn't keep the title. You do, and it's in your name, but the lender is also listed on it as the lien-holder.
Interesting, I thought it was only sent to you after the final loan payment.
They send you a lien release, but the title is goes to you from the beginning. The title has a note that there is a lien on it, so if you buy a car with such a title you need to ensure you get the lien release with it. You cannot transfer a title with a lien notice on it without the lien release (I assume there is a way to assume the loan as well, but I've never heard of it happening. Most loans wouldn't allow that, so it is probably a technicality that the government wouldn't know how to handle if you actually did attempt that)
In my state, they just send you a new copy of the title that omits the lien-holder rather than a lien release.
It's a pain in the ass, because you just hold a title that you can't do anything with. You have to physically get the lien signed off the physical title before you can sell it. That's why many states have switched to either electronic titling, or having the bank hold the title until they sign it off.
Depends on the state, in many states the lienholder retains the physical copy of the title to prevent a fraudulent sign-off on the lien being used to sell the vehicle. In a lot of these states they actually don't hold the physical copy because the DMV allows major lienholders to use electronic retention. In this case, when you pay off the loan the DMV actually produces a physical title for the first time so that the lienholder can mail it to you. The lienholder isn't interested in having filing cabinets full of title certificates to keep track of.
That said, physical possession of the paper doesn't really matter to ownership---as electronic retention demonstrates. The owner listed on the title is the owner regardless of who has the paper, and the DMV's electronic records are far more important than the paper certificate (you can just get the DMV to print a new certificate from their records, but of course they'll charge a hefty fee and policy usually prevents doing so when there's a lien).
The physical possession issue is just around the ability to fake a lien release signature and sell the vehicle. For the same reason some buyers won't accept a title with a signed-off lien and want a new "clean" title printed by the DMV first, but others will just verify the sign-off. Dealers usually have direct access to query DMV records and can check whether or not a lien sign-off is genuine that way (relase of lien is reported to the DMV by the lienholder), but private party purchasers don't have such an easy way to do this and are more vulnerable to this kind of fraud. Multi-sale title certificates that have sales logged on the back are also regarded as suspicious by a lot of buyers, and they'll want a new clean one.
That said, I think the GP here is making a big assumption about how courts would interpret the situation. A lienholder has the right to repossess the vehicle as is, by sending a tow truck. Whether or not a court would interpret "remote repossession" as somehow changing the fundamental nature of ownership is an open question and I'm pretty skeptical. It's already not that uncommon for lienholders to install GPS tracking devices with fuel pump cutoff, in which case they have a more limited degree of remote control of the vehicle, and I've never heard of anyone thinking this changes the fundamental owner-lienholder relationship. I just don't think this idea about transfer of liability really holds any water.
That said, physical possession of the paper doesn't really matter to ownership---as electronic retention demonstrates. The owner listed on the title is the owner regardless of who has the paper, and the DMV's electronic records are far more important than the paper certificate (you can just get the DMV to print a new certificate from their records, but of course they'll charge a hefty fee and policy usually prevents doing so when there's a lien).
The physical possession issue is just around the ability to fake a lien release signature and sell the vehicle. For the same reason some buyers won't accept a title with a signed-off lien and want a new "clean" title printed by the DMV first, but others will just verify the sign-off. Dealers usually have direct access to query DMV records and can check whether or not a lien sign-off is genuine that way (relase of lien is reported to the DMV by the lienholder), but private party purchasers don't have such an easy way to do this and are more vulnerable to this kind of fraud. Multi-sale title certificates that have sales logged on the back are also regarded as suspicious by a lot of buyers, and they'll want a new clean one.
That said, I think the GP here is making a big assumption about how courts would interpret the situation. A lienholder has the right to repossess the vehicle as is, by sending a tow truck. Whether or not a court would interpret "remote repossession" as somehow changing the fundamental nature of ownership is an open question and I'm pretty skeptical. It's already not that uncommon for lienholders to install GPS tracking devices with fuel pump cutoff, in which case they have a more limited degree of remote control of the vehicle, and I've never heard of anyone thinking this changes the fundamental owner-lienholder relationship. I just don't think this idea about transfer of liability really holds any water.
In NY, if you lease the car, you never get the title (unless you buy it out, like I did).
If you purchase it, you get a title with a lien, and you need to have it reissued, after the car is paid.
If you purchase it, you get a title with a lien, and you need to have it reissued, after the car is paid.
Just because they hold the title for security doesn't mean it's not in your name.
> > When you finance a car, the vehicle becomes collateral for a loan, but it belongs to you.
> The title stays with the lender until all the payments are made per the loan agreement. I would not say the vehicle legally belongs to a borrower until they have possession of the title.
Maybe the confusion comes from the meaning of "owning". There are essentially three parts to ownership: the right to sell, to rent, and to use. A full owner has all three, but there are situation where they are distinct and the "owner" may be different depending on which aspect you consider. So when usage is considered, the borrower is the owner, the lender can't get into the car and drive, but when sales are considered, the lender can sell the car and get money from it, the borrower can't (at least not before the loan is fully paid).
> The title stays with the lender until all the payments are made per the loan agreement. I would not say the vehicle legally belongs to a borrower until they have possession of the title.
Maybe the confusion comes from the meaning of "owning". There are essentially three parts to ownership: the right to sell, to rent, and to use. A full owner has all three, but there are situation where they are distinct and the "owner" may be different depending on which aspect you consider. So when usage is considered, the borrower is the owner, the lender can't get into the car and drive, but when sales are considered, the lender can sell the car and get money from it, the borrower can't (at least not before the loan is fully paid).
Two of my vehicles are Chrysler's. Both send me a monthly email telling how the car is doing: tire psi, oil change status, etc. Both are paid off, but I'll bet anything they can still disable them. So do I really own them?
You own them. Sure Chrysler can disable your car, but whether they do that by sending it a radio signal or by sending a guy round with a wrench is neither here nor there.
If the cost of repossession is low it also means that riskier buyers are more likely to get financed.
This is a pretty naive take if you're trying to paint it as enabling an even better outcome for "riskier buyers"
This article is something like 5-10 years behind reality: Right now subprime auto loans are mostly enforced with GPS trackers that buyers are usually not made properly aware of, or even worse, tricked into paying for as an add-on pitched as being for their own benefit.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/business/dealbook/gps-dev...
-
There are entire businesses built on selling poor people cars at truly insane interest rates, on payments they clearly can't afford, repossessing the cars on the cheap with GPS trackers, then selling then to the next poor person with bad credit.
This grift isn't new, but cheap GPS trackers and license scanners reduced the cost per repossession in a way that enabled these places to be signficantly more brazen about it.
Unfortunately the two prevailing takes I see on this are "they're subprime for a reason" as if they deserve it, and "well at least someone is still giving them a chance, you need a car in this country" (and of course some well meaning but ill informed people think you can just take public transport in every part of the country)
The reality is this is worse than nothing in many cases. Buy here, pay here have people pay more frequently so that they can repo a car within days not months of someone buying them. The process isn't free either, it's disruptive, and they'll continue to leech off the owner in collections.
-
Overall it feels like a classic case of short sightedness from society. Saying we should directly subsidized subprime people's access to affordable loans and cars would be a non-starter: It sounds like some bleeding heart charity case making the responsible pay for the irresponsible.
But then we'll all indirectly fund a much worse version of that when subprime auto loans start to implode (like they're probably already starting to with the interest rate hikes...) and we're all paying to pick up the pieces in multiple ways. If the bottom falls out the car market, well right now even middle class families are taking loans with insane terms that leave them underwater in a good market. The pain will trickle up and out from just subprime lenders and cars specifically.
This article is something like 5-10 years behind reality: Right now subprime auto loans are mostly enforced with GPS trackers that buyers are usually not made properly aware of, or even worse, tricked into paying for as an add-on pitched as being for their own benefit.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/business/dealbook/gps-dev...
-
There are entire businesses built on selling poor people cars at truly insane interest rates, on payments they clearly can't afford, repossessing the cars on the cheap with GPS trackers, then selling then to the next poor person with bad credit.
This grift isn't new, but cheap GPS trackers and license scanners reduced the cost per repossession in a way that enabled these places to be signficantly more brazen about it.
Unfortunately the two prevailing takes I see on this are "they're subprime for a reason" as if they deserve it, and "well at least someone is still giving them a chance, you need a car in this country" (and of course some well meaning but ill informed people think you can just take public transport in every part of the country)
The reality is this is worse than nothing in many cases. Buy here, pay here have people pay more frequently so that they can repo a car within days not months of someone buying them. The process isn't free either, it's disruptive, and they'll continue to leech off the owner in collections.
-
Overall it feels like a classic case of short sightedness from society. Saying we should directly subsidized subprime people's access to affordable loans and cars would be a non-starter: It sounds like some bleeding heart charity case making the responsible pay for the irresponsible.
But then we'll all indirectly fund a much worse version of that when subprime auto loans start to implode (like they're probably already starting to with the interest rate hikes...) and we're all paying to pick up the pieces in multiple ways. If the bottom falls out the car market, well right now even middle class families are taking loans with insane terms that leave them underwater in a good market. The pain will trickle up and out from just subprime lenders and cars specifically.
People who give out car loans want you to pay back the loan. They don't want to repossess the vehicle. There is a real cost associated with it and you can't just take the car and make a profit. You'd be able to recoup what was owed and some costs may not be coupable. Again, they're not in the business to lend out money to people they know that can't afford it. There may be fraud at the individual level but the system doesn't work like that.
The recovery rates for subprime auto deals are historically around 50%
https://www.fitchratings.com/research/structured-finance/soa...
The recovery rates for subprime auto deals are historically around 50%
https://www.fitchratings.com/research/structured-finance/soa...
Not the scummy low end of the auto loan business. They want you to pay for a couple months and then reposes the car. They are selling older cars, so just a couple months of payment is more $ than the depreciation of the car, and when it comes back they can sell it again. While they maybe have to pay you back for the value of your owned part of the car, they can charge repossession and detail for sale fees first.
They do need a few people who pay off the whole car. These are the case studies they use to shout how great they are for taking a chance on someone who turned their life around.
They do need a few people who pay off the whole car. These are the case studies they use to shout how great they are for taking a chance on someone who turned their life around.
You understand that if i lend you $100 to buy a car, you pay off 50%, i can sell the car for $70, i would have to give you $20 (you only owe me $50). There are strict rules what you can do state by state, but generally you can't repossess something worth more than the outstanding balance and keep the rest as a profit
For example here's NY state
If you've already paid more than 60 percent of the amount you owe when the car is repossessed, the creditor must auction it within 90 days. During this time, you can still get your car back, says the New York City Bar Legal Referral Service. You have up until the car is actually sold or leased to settle with the lender. You might have to pay the past due amounts, but often you'll be asked to pay the entire loan balance.
After the auction, the creditor can apply the proceeds toward fees and expenses relating to the repossession and the unpaid balance on the loan. The lender must give you a completed an Affirmation of Repossession and Bill of Sale. After all expenses are paid, you're entitled to the balance of the proceeds.
https://www.sapling.com/6669128/new-state-car-repossession-l...
For example here's NY state
If you've already paid more than 60 percent of the amount you owe when the car is repossessed, the creditor must auction it within 90 days. During this time, you can still get your car back, says the New York City Bar Legal Referral Service. You have up until the car is actually sold or leased to settle with the lender. You might have to pay the past due amounts, but often you'll be asked to pay the entire loan balance.
After the auction, the creditor can apply the proceeds toward fees and expenses relating to the repossession and the unpaid balance on the loan. The lender must give you a completed an Affirmation of Repossession and Bill of Sale. After all expenses are paid, you're entitled to the balance of the proceeds.
https://www.sapling.com/6669128/new-state-car-repossession-l...
An 84 month loan at New York’s maximum 16% interest means that the 60% threshold isn’t reached for 5 years, far after the expected loan lifetime.
And the car isn’t the only thing being sold, there might be a bundled reconditioning fee, a GPS installation fee, a documentation fee, a service fee, origination fee, nitrogen fee, etc. So when they sell the car again for the same $2000 plus fees that you bought it for, they’ll happily deduct that $2000 from the $3000 you still owe.
Since you mentioned subprime loans, to clarify: this is about the level below that, for people that can’t qualify for a loan from any real bank, even Santander.
And the car isn’t the only thing being sold, there might be a bundled reconditioning fee, a GPS installation fee, a documentation fee, a service fee, origination fee, nitrogen fee, etc. So when they sell the car again for the same $2000 plus fees that you bought it for, they’ll happily deduct that $2000 from the $3000 you still owe.
Since you mentioned subprime loans, to clarify: this is about the level below that, for people that can’t qualify for a loan from any real bank, even Santander.
>...if i lend you $100 to buy a car, you pay off 50%, i can sell the car for $70, i would have to give you $20 (you only owe me $50)
The trick is to lend me $100 on a $40 dollar car that I cannot sell for $70. Nevermind the fact that in most states I can't sell the car for any amount as the dealership owns the lien.
> There are strict rules what you can do state by state, but generally you can't repossess something worth more than the outstanding balance and keep the rest as a profit
A lot of articles have been written about scammy "Buy Here, Pay Here" autosales that exist despite the strict rules. Since the dealership is financing the car, they can tweak the initial balance and monthly payments to their liking, while following the letter of the law but hitting the repo quota on the same '97 Honda Civic.
The trick is to lend me $100 on a $40 dollar car that I cannot sell for $70. Nevermind the fact that in most states I can't sell the car for any amount as the dealership owns the lien.
> There are strict rules what you can do state by state, but generally you can't repossess something worth more than the outstanding balance and keep the rest as a profit
A lot of articles have been written about scammy "Buy Here, Pay Here" autosales that exist despite the strict rules. Since the dealership is financing the car, they can tweak the initial balance and monthly payments to their liking, while following the letter of the law but hitting the repo quota on the same '97 Honda Civic.
Loans at e.g. luxury-brand dealers are sold with the expectation of payment. There are other business models, however. There are some auto "dealers" who are really just rental places with another name. When they repo a vehicle, they perform the minimum of service and repair and then it goes back on the lot. A 7yo used car doesn't really lose any value from adding 5000 miles to the odometer, so the exorbitant finance fees go mostly to profit.
Vehicles that get absolutely trashed are a loss, but that's why the lenders want every repo to be a surprise to the creditor.
Vehicles that get absolutely trashed are a loss, but that's why the lenders want every repo to be a surprise to the creditor.
[deleted]
Not sure why you picked July 2021 on a monthly index... easily the most misleading month in the last decade:
https://www.fitchratings.com/structured-finance/abs/auto-ind...
As soon as the government assistance I'm advocating dried back up we skyrocketed back to historical highs of subprime delinquency.
And notice how when graphed together, right on the timeframe I describe of 5-10, you see a massive divergence between subprime and prime trends even in your own article. Recovery rates tell you percentages, not absolute scale. (graph is a stunning representation of our current K-shaped recovery btw)
With cheaper repossessions the scale was what increased, and that's what Fitch is referring to with record performance.
We gave more people than ever who couldn't afford loans loans, and so while the relative rate of recovery didn't change, delinquency went insane, and is gearing up to get even more insane with the interest rate hikes.
> People who give out car loans want you to pay back the loan.
I can't tell if this is just a naive or at least uninformed take. At a high enough level the financial system wants people to pay back loans... but that's not what's being discussed here.
-
There are dealers who want buyers to fail to pay. They're additionally enabled by both GPS trackers and license scanners to be even more efficient in their grift.
Additionally, you accidentally exposed an amazing example of what I described in terms of "we will subsidize it either way"
We don't provide a direct form of assistance specific to cars... but we did pay individuals to keep them afloat during the pandemic. They then had to take that money and pay subprime lenders to keep cars with exorbitant interest fees for longer, driving record profitability for the subprime market.
Now interest rates are spiking, those people are losing their cars. They're in a more desperate situation than ever, with less assistance then when interest rates were better. Used car prices fell, but not enough to cover all the ground they gained during the heat of the pandemic.
It's like this country just lets looming crisis walk up face to face without every trying to change course lest we seem like communists. To me this shouldn't even be a partisan issue, we can enable a smaller need for government intervention in the next economic slump by just not donating money to these lenders
https://www.fitchratings.com/structured-finance/abs/auto-ind...
As soon as the government assistance I'm advocating dried back up we skyrocketed back to historical highs of subprime delinquency.
And notice how when graphed together, right on the timeframe I describe of 5-10, you see a massive divergence between subprime and prime trends even in your own article. Recovery rates tell you percentages, not absolute scale. (graph is a stunning representation of our current K-shaped recovery btw)
With cheaper repossessions the scale was what increased, and that's what Fitch is referring to with record performance.
We gave more people than ever who couldn't afford loans loans, and so while the relative rate of recovery didn't change, delinquency went insane, and is gearing up to get even more insane with the interest rate hikes.
> People who give out car loans want you to pay back the loan.
I can't tell if this is just a naive or at least uninformed take. At a high enough level the financial system wants people to pay back loans... but that's not what's being discussed here.
-
There are dealers who want buyers to fail to pay. They're additionally enabled by both GPS trackers and license scanners to be even more efficient in their grift.
Additionally, you accidentally exposed an amazing example of what I described in terms of "we will subsidize it either way"
We don't provide a direct form of assistance specific to cars... but we did pay individuals to keep them afloat during the pandemic. They then had to take that money and pay subprime lenders to keep cars with exorbitant interest fees for longer, driving record profitability for the subprime market.
Now interest rates are spiking, those people are losing their cars. They're in a more desperate situation than ever, with less assistance then when interest rates were better. Used car prices fell, but not enough to cover all the ground they gained during the heat of the pandemic.
It's like this country just lets looming crisis walk up face to face without every trying to change course lest we seem like communists. To me this shouldn't even be a partisan issue, we can enable a smaller need for government intervention in the next economic slump by just not donating money to these lenders
So you're saying car repossessions can yield a profit? I've never seen recovery even approaching 100% and every state I've seen restricts what you can do with repossessed cars (eg new York makes it go to auction if 60% has been paid off and give proceeds back to borrower). I picked the first site i found that has something about subprime auto severities. This is pretty common sense to anyone in the industry.
No offense but i don't think you know what you're talking about. Where are you getting this information? Talk to someone in the industry
No offense but i don't think you know what you're talking about. Where are you getting this information? Talk to someone in the industry
That "site" is Fitch Ratings, and you seem to not know much about what they do: subprime auto loans are an ABS (asset-backed security) so there are multiple monthly indicators you can get from Fitch or any of the big three.
> So you're saying car repossessions can yield a profit?
Yes! You don't understand how Buy-Here Pay-Here works if you're going on about auctions.
Here in CA it's been legally defined specifically to try and help protect a vulnerable population, but the MO is the same wherever you go:
- 90% of all their loans are kept in-house for 90 days
- The dealer does not primarily deal with new cars
That means if they repo the car within 90 days, they're out of pocket exactly the cost of the recovery and the depreciation... so they just lean heavily on cars that are at the end of their useful lives, then ask for just enough down to cover the repo and a sliver of profit.
They let the fish go, and hope the inevitable* happens within 90 days, so they take the car back and sell the account to collections for a few extra pennies. And obviously it's the junkiest of junk debt so it's not worth much, but there are bottom feeding collection agencies that will use barely legal tactics to try and squeeze just a tiny bit of extra blood from the stone.
* To understand how far these places are willing to go: CA needed to pass a law to prevent them from requiring in person payments and force them to disclose the trackers (most states don't require this).
That's because they'd require all payments to be made on-site, then have recovery waiting for the end of business to take cars. Can't get there because of work? Repo'd. Can't get there because of a court date? Repo'd. Can't get there because the POS they sold you isn't working? Repo'd and patched up just enough to hobble along enough for the next desperate buyer.
And to be clear, CA is in the minority in preventing that, this is still happening across the nation at a scale that's never been seen before.
-
To be even more efficient, they're starting to take on more of the collections processes themselves, often with disastrous results: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-takes...
https://www.autoremarketing.com/bhph/three-ways-improve-coll...
> After five years, Fransen transitioned from a third-party collection environment to a buy-here, pay-here finance company and specialized in developing a successful in-house recovery department.
-
I mean seriously, what do you think the loss in value on a 150k mile 2005 Sentra with a mean belt squeal and an extra 1000 miles on it since the last repo is? They're dealing with desperate customers at the bottom of their list of choices so it's not even factored in into the price.
The only "wrench" in this is if someone manages to keep the car long enough that they can't keep the loan in-house... but by the time that happens they've already made their money: They didn't sell the car at a good price to a desperate buyer, the loan has matured so it's a little more, and it's not their problem if it needs to be repo'd.
Overall this is a discussion about the intersection of multiple massive industries that each do enough revenue to form their own countries. No offense, but you definitely don't know what you're talking about if you think you can reduce it to just needing to be "in the industry".
> So you're saying car repossessions can yield a profit?
Yes! You don't understand how Buy-Here Pay-Here works if you're going on about auctions.
Here in CA it's been legally defined specifically to try and help protect a vulnerable population, but the MO is the same wherever you go:
- 90% of all their loans are kept in-house for 90 days
- The dealer does not primarily deal with new cars
That means if they repo the car within 90 days, they're out of pocket exactly the cost of the recovery and the depreciation... so they just lean heavily on cars that are at the end of their useful lives, then ask for just enough down to cover the repo and a sliver of profit.
They let the fish go, and hope the inevitable* happens within 90 days, so they take the car back and sell the account to collections for a few extra pennies. And obviously it's the junkiest of junk debt so it's not worth much, but there are bottom feeding collection agencies that will use barely legal tactics to try and squeeze just a tiny bit of extra blood from the stone.
* To understand how far these places are willing to go: CA needed to pass a law to prevent them from requiring in person payments and force them to disclose the trackers (most states don't require this).
That's because they'd require all payments to be made on-site, then have recovery waiting for the end of business to take cars. Can't get there because of work? Repo'd. Can't get there because of a court date? Repo'd. Can't get there because the POS they sold you isn't working? Repo'd and patched up just enough to hobble along enough for the next desperate buyer.
And to be clear, CA is in the minority in preventing that, this is still happening across the nation at a scale that's never been seen before.
-
To be even more efficient, they're starting to take on more of the collections processes themselves, often with disastrous results: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-takes...
https://www.autoremarketing.com/bhph/three-ways-improve-coll...
> After five years, Fransen transitioned from a third-party collection environment to a buy-here, pay-here finance company and specialized in developing a successful in-house recovery department.
-
I mean seriously, what do you think the loss in value on a 150k mile 2005 Sentra with a mean belt squeal and an extra 1000 miles on it since the last repo is? They're dealing with desperate customers at the bottom of their list of choices so it's not even factored in into the price.
The only "wrench" in this is if someone manages to keep the car long enough that they can't keep the loan in-house... but by the time that happens they've already made their money: They didn't sell the car at a good price to a desperate buyer, the loan has matured so it's a little more, and it's not their problem if it needs to be repo'd.
Overall this is a discussion about the intersection of multiple massive industries that each do enough revenue to form their own countries. No offense, but you definitely don't know what you're talking about if you think you can reduce it to just needing to be "in the industry".
You're implying poor people don't understand a car payment. It's a pretty simple you owe x per month. I'm sure there are some who are so financially illiterate they don't understand, but I imagine the vast majority of poor people understand how much they're going to have to pay, and would prefer a company take a chance on them because it lets them get to their jobs.
Please refrain from commenting if you can't do it without putting words in my mouth.
These people are forced into owning cars by a reality of our country that's not changing soon: we're pretty damn car-centric. But they're being taken advantage by a system that uses unethical and even illegal tactics to squeeze them between a rock and a hard place.
The government can either do something upfront and probably save a ton of money while helping lift a lot of people out of a predatory cycle... or it can pick up the pieces after the house of cards comes crashing down.
-
The difference is that if it does something upfront people will claim it's evil socialist government charity to lure irresponsible people into voting. Never mind we did give these people checks to float which were often promptly turned in to these scum... leading to the lowest delinquency rate in the history of subprime ABS ratings (and record subprime loan performance!)
Instead the government will do nothing until the house of card falls, leaving a massive wake of destruction. And then the government will throw around cash to help out the various players across the wide wide range of markets that will be hit by the splash damage.
Their lobbyists will be out in full force assuring us this is what's best for the American people. The American people will be instructed that it was an necessary intervention to save the market.
Infusing overleveraged corporations with cash will benefit some very wealthy people (but don't worry it'll trickle down). And then we'll repeat this in 10-20 years.
These people are forced into owning cars by a reality of our country that's not changing soon: we're pretty damn car-centric. But they're being taken advantage by a system that uses unethical and even illegal tactics to squeeze them between a rock and a hard place.
The government can either do something upfront and probably save a ton of money while helping lift a lot of people out of a predatory cycle... or it can pick up the pieces after the house of cards comes crashing down.
-
The difference is that if it does something upfront people will claim it's evil socialist government charity to lure irresponsible people into voting. Never mind we did give these people checks to float which were often promptly turned in to these scum... leading to the lowest delinquency rate in the history of subprime ABS ratings (and record subprime loan performance!)
Instead the government will do nothing until the house of card falls, leaving a massive wake of destruction. And then the government will throw around cash to help out the various players across the wide wide range of markets that will be hit by the splash damage.
Their lobbyists will be out in full force assuring us this is what's best for the American people. The American people will be instructed that it was an necessary intervention to save the market.
Infusing overleveraged corporations with cash will benefit some very wealthy people (but don't worry it'll trickle down). And then we'll repeat this in 10-20 years.
Sure maybe society puts them between a rock and a hard place because it requires a car. But how is the dealership forcing them to need a car, or tricking them into getting a car?
They're just selling it to them, the individual is looking at the payments, they knows it's gonna be a stretch and they are rolling the dice hoping they can afford it.
The relationship between the individual and the dealership doesn't sound very exploitative to me.
They're just selling it to them, the individual is looking at the payments, they knows it's gonna be a stretch and they are rolling the dice hoping they can afford it.
The relationship between the individual and the dealership doesn't sound very exploitative to me.
Again you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say dealerships forced them into needing a car, or tricked them into getting a car.
I asked you not do a simple thing: reply to what was said, not some non-sensical aberration of it, and you've failed twice. Why is such a simple task so difficult for you?
-
At the end of the day the dealerships are selling cars that are lemons.
The dealerships are requiring in-person on site payments.
The dealerships are selling cars well above FMV so that they can hold the loans in-house in a preferable structure that enables the rapid fire cycling of these cars.
Many dealerships are failing to disclose GPS trackers.
Some have gone as far as harassing buyers and their social circle after repos to try and get more money back.
I can't tell if you're being facetious at this point if you seriously think Buy-Here Pay-Here is not an exploitative grift. You don't get to double the profit margin of the people servicing prime customers with fair tactics: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0951-1000/sb...
I asked you not do a simple thing: reply to what was said, not some non-sensical aberration of it, and you've failed twice. Why is such a simple task so difficult for you?
-
At the end of the day the dealerships are selling cars that are lemons.
The dealerships are requiring in-person on site payments.
The dealerships are selling cars well above FMV so that they can hold the loans in-house in a preferable structure that enables the rapid fire cycling of these cars.
Many dealerships are failing to disclose GPS trackers.
Some have gone as far as harassing buyers and their social circle after repos to try and get more money back.
I can't tell if you're being facetious at this point if you seriously think Buy-Here Pay-Here is not an exploitative grift. You don't get to double the profit margin of the people servicing prime customers with fair tactics: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0951-1000/sb...
Good point!
Not to mention the (current) alternative is an often shady/creative/aggressive repossession agent who in many cases[0] has the legal authority to go on your property to hook and tow the vehicle (often in the middle of the night). Even when they "don't" they often do anyway.
In a country with very high firearm ownership it's actually dangerous[0]. From a quick Google search violence breaks out pretty often[2][3] in these circumstances.
[0] - https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/car-repossession-law...
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti0NHC6oVnk
[2] - https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/crime/2011/03/02/rep...
[3] - https://www.fox4news.com/news/repo-man-shot-while-trying-to-...
In a country with very high firearm ownership it's actually dangerous[0]. From a quick Google search violence breaks out pretty often[2][3] in these circumstances.
[0] - https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/car-repossession-law...
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti0NHC6oVnk
[2] - https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/crime/2011/03/02/rep...
[3] - https://www.fox4news.com/news/repo-man-shot-while-trying-to-...
Perhaps this is true in America where apparently you still have a paper title to indicate ownership?? But under commonwealth law "title" is a legal concept, not a physical document, and can't belong to anyone except the rightful owner. An asset can be used as security collateral without the ownership changing hands.
I believe in most states (I know in mine), there is no longer any paper that you can hold that makes you the owner. The title is just a document showing that you are the owner registered with the motor vehicle department. It doesn't grant you ownership.
> Reducing the costs to repossess collateral would reduce borrowing costs, and ultimately help LENDERS WITH HIGHER PROFITS.
FTFY.
FTFY.
> Reducing the costs to repossess collateral would reduce borrowing costs, and ultimately help borrowers with lower borrowing costs because there is less expense towards repossession.
Costs to borrowers could be reduced, which sounds like a nice silver lining to what most people would consider an anti-feature, but there's nothing that says the savings will necessarily be passed on to borrowers versus retained by the lenders instead.
Costs to borrowers could be reduced, which sounds like a nice silver lining to what most people would consider an anti-feature, but there's nothing that says the savings will necessarily be passed on to borrowers versus retained by the lenders instead.
You're on the title at purchase, but the lender has a lien on the title.
Surely they would do this for leases instead of sales? Why would Ford want to do this for sales anyway, in the case of a sale, the financing company pays ford in full. The only exception would be if ford financed the car with its own financing arm. Incentives could be aligned to make leasing the preferred option for most people who are likely to miss payments then.
Also I’m not sure you’re correct about the ownership and the lawsuits. Sure you can sue anyone for anything but why would this be any different from me leasing a car from ford and the same thing happening? That doesn’t seem to have been an issue for automakers so far…
For the record, this sounds like a dystopian nightmare to me. I’m not in favor of the concept.
Also I’m not sure you’re correct about the ownership and the lawsuits. Sure you can sue anyone for anything but why would this be any different from me leasing a car from ford and the same thing happening? That doesn’t seem to have been an issue for automakers so far…
For the record, this sounds like a dystopian nightmare to me. I’m not in favor of the concept.
> Why would Ford want to do this for sales anyway, in the case of a sale, the financing company pays ford in full. The only exception would be if ford financed the car with its own financing arm.
Ford has a huge financing arm. And it will probably get bigger as interest rates rise, because they have more room to offer lower than market interest rates as a hidden discount without dropping the purchase price.
Ford has a huge financing arm. And it will probably get bigger as interest rates rise, because they have more room to offer lower than market interest rates as a hidden discount without dropping the purchase price.
Their financing makes money on the differential between the rate they pay on demand notes and the rate they lend to car buyers. Anyone (well, US Persons at least) can buy the demand notes [1], which are currently paying 4.75%. So as long as they are lending at an average rate above 4.75% after defaults and other problems I guess they are in a good position. But they can also move money around internally, I suppose, to make lower rates possible.
[1] https://www.ford.com/finance/investor-center/ford-interest-a...
[1] https://www.ford.com/finance/investor-center/ford-interest-a...
I've heard people opine that motor companies: Ford, GM, Harley Davidson, etc. aren't really motor companies anymore, they are finance companies and just use the vehicle as a means to get the financing paper. They are obviously both, but it would explain why the quality of US vehicles keeps deteriorating since around 2007 or so.
It seems like that's literally true for Ally bank, which started its life as the finance arm of GMAC, and still technically is despite being a full-fledged bank in its own right. I don't think they're owned by General Motors anymore, though.
> it would explain why the quality of US vehicles keeps deteriorating since around 2007 or so
I hear this meme a lot but is it actually true? By most benchmarks cars from the last 10 years are more reliable than those from two decades ago.
I hear this meme a lot but is it actually true? By most benchmarks cars from the last 10 years are more reliable than those from two decades ago.
It is in my experience. I used to only buy US cars until I had a brand new 2017 GM vehicle have transmission issues within 6 months of purchase. This was to replace a 2013 GM vehicle that I was having trouble with. I took the 2017 to the dealer and they fixed it for another 6 months, then the issue came back. I took it to my personal mechanic and he said I should get rid of it, so I did. GM trucks have transmission issues. Look up the "Chevy shake," for another example.
I don't know about Ford, so they might still be ok, or at least better than GM. I don't want to pay $40K+ to find out though.
I expect to be able to drive vehicles without major issues for about 10 years. I've done this in the past with GM vehicles, but after 2007, the two I owned had significant issues all the ones I purchased prior did not. I put significantly less than 10k miles a year on my vehicles.
I don't know about Ford, so they might still be ok, or at least better than GM. I don't want to pay $40K+ to find out though.
I expect to be able to drive vehicles without major issues for about 10 years. I've done this in the past with GM vehicles, but after 2007, the two I owned had significant issues all the ones I purchased prior did not. I put significantly less than 10k miles a year on my vehicles.
This has been true since well before 2007. GMAC (now Ally Bank) was almost single-handedly keeping General Motors afloat in the decade prior to the financial crisis. It certainly wasn't the quality of their vehicles.
The rationale I'm using for Ford owning it is there is a compelling argument that ownership as the effect of two factors, custody and control, as it applies to data today could apply to the car, where if Ford can disable the vehicle, it has control of it, and the custody the driver has is secondary. Leasing companies are different because they license the vehicle to you for a term, whereas loan financing means it's yours.
I'm not a lawyer at all, however much of my work on privacy and security has been about reconciling technology architecture and implementations with privacy and other laws and regulations, and security architecture is about allocating risk between counterparties in a technology solution, so from that view, this could be reasonably interpreted as a predatory technology.
I'm not a lawyer at all, however much of my work on privacy and security has been about reconciling technology architecture and implementations with privacy and other laws and regulations, and security architecture is about allocating risk between counterparties in a technology solution, so from that view, this could be reasonably interpreted as a predatory technology.
N.B. that "leases" today, at least in the consumer auto world, ARE sales. They're just sales with a balloon payment due at the end.
They are, in all other respects, the same as a traditional loan-based purchase.
They are, in all other respects, the same as a traditional loan-based purchase.
In the US, a vehicle doesn't belong to someone free-and-clear if there are any liens against it. Mechanics and car loans are the primary users of this process. With leased vehicles, there's no conveyed ownership per-se because it's a glorified rental.
Might need Steve Lehto to weigh-in on how much "ownership" there is in America.
Might need Steve Lehto to weigh-in on how much "ownership" there is in America.
> A technology like this means that the vehicle still belongs to Ford, which means if something goes wrong with it, or if you get sciatica from their shitty seats, you can class action sue them into oblivion.
Nothing prevents that from happening now, though. I'm also uncertain how reclaiming the collateral for the loan is any different in this scenario.
Granted, I think this is extraordinarily gross and consumer-hostile. Aren't there myriad of options on the table for reclaiming the vehicle? How often does someone "get away" with keeping a car, anyway? That's what the repossession industry exists for.
Nothing prevents that from happening now, though. I'm also uncertain how reclaiming the collateral for the loan is any different in this scenario.
Granted, I think this is extraordinarily gross and consumer-hostile. Aren't there myriad of options on the table for reclaiming the vehicle? How often does someone "get away" with keeping a car, anyway? That's what the repossession industry exists for.
Doing an actual repo is much more costly and sometimes involves doing PI stuff like trying to track down the location of the vehicle. The cost of one repo easily wipes out profits on many months' worth of interest payments.
Repos are extremely costly. My friend let his car get repossessed because he did not need it anymore thinking that was easier than selling it and there wouldn't be any negatives other than on his credit. He was surprised to get sued for the cost of the repo, which was thousands plus they managed to sell the car for much less than it was worth.
I wonder how costly it would be if one of these self-driving cars killed a bystander while repo-ing itself.
They'll bill it to the person they repossessed it from. Someone will introduce a bill to make them liable for murder, on the grounds that they were engaged in defrauding the car company and are therefore a felon.
Probably similar in cost to the people killed by human tow truck drivers.
That sounds more costly for the tow truck driver than for Ford.
> Granted, I think this is extraordinarily gross and consumer-hostile.
It seems like a good idea for stolen autos (at least until the car can be modded to remove the ability, so recently stolen autos). As long as there are enough checks to ensure that only the owner (or law enforcement with a warrant) can repossess the car. There just has to also be a requirement that the lease holder can't lawfully repossess without a court judgement.
It seems like a good idea for stolen autos (at least until the car can be modded to remove the ability, so recently stolen autos). As long as there are enough checks to ensure that only the owner (or law enforcement with a warrant) can repossess the car. There just has to also be a requirement that the lease holder can't lawfully repossess without a court judgement.
I don't think that's legally correct. Including automated repossession technology in the vehicle wouldn't cause ownership to stay with the manufacturer or dealer. Even if the manufacturer retained legal ownership it wouldn't change anything from a product liability standpoint. Many drivers lease their vehicles today instead of buying and so the vehicle still belongs to the lessor. If a person is injured by a faulty vehicle then they can potentially sue the original manufacturer anyway regardless of who happens to own the vehicle.
One of the bad "inventions" of software distribution: you don't own a copy, you are only licensed to use it.
No surprise the dark tactic is spreading.
No surprise the dark tactic is spreading.
That is more akin to a lease.
I would find a lease more like software subscriptions.
Regular licenses for software you do "buy" can be retracted but that rarely happens in practice.
Regular licenses for software you do "buy" can be retracted but that rarely happens in practice.
I sympathize, but I'm not so sure about the laws. When it comes to companies as big as Ford, they could probably get the laws rewritten if needed - or even if they didn't, whether they got sued would depend more on who they were friends with than with the jot and tittle of legal text.
>When you finance a car, the vehicle becomes collateral for a loan, but it belongs to you.
This is not true - In my state you don't get mailed the title to the car until after the loan is paid.
This is not true - In my state you don't get mailed the title to the car until after the loan is paid.
You don’t get mailed the title, but it’s your name on the title that the state holds (whether on title or electronically). So you don’t have the ability to sell it directly, you still own and are responsible for it.
Many banks will hold the title for you, but the title is technically in your name. For most people there safe is a better place to keep the title, most people don't really have a good safe to store documents like this. You only need a title when you sell or move states. Either way you will need the bank involved.
Sorry, but IOT is the only way to try and make hire purchase work in a lot of poor countries (speaking as a resident of a poor country). This model has already been explored succesfully by companies such as M-Kopa Solar. If the car companies don't do it themselves, there's definitely going to be an aftermarket for this type of thing with lenders in poorer countries.
> When you finance a car, the vehicle becomes collateral for a loan, but it belongs to you
Is it not correct that the lending entity you use to purchase a vehicle is the party that legally owns it? The borrower has possession and right to use the vehicle, but the lender holds the title. That's why you get the title transferred over to your name once the balance of the load is repaid.
Is it not correct that the lending entity you use to purchase a vehicle is the party that legally owns it? The borrower has possession and right to use the vehicle, but the lender holds the title. That's why you get the title transferred over to your name once the balance of the load is repaid.
No. When you finance a car the lender gets a lien on the title. The title is still in your name. Usually one of the stipulations the lender places in their contract is that they hold the title for you in what is effectively "escrow" until the loan is paid off. Then they release the lien and send you your title.
The reason they do that is because a lien gives them the ability to, within a particular legal framework, get ownership of the car if you don't pay your loan, prevent the title from being transferred to someone they don't trust, etc. It's basically just risk mitigation.
The reason they do that is because a lien gives them the ability to, within a particular legal framework, get ownership of the car if you don't pay your loan, prevent the title from being transferred to someone they don't trust, etc. It's basically just risk mitigation.
That's what I thought too. I got pulled over once and the cop asked me "Is this your car?". I replied "Well, no... the bank owns it, but they let me drive it". He was not amused, but I was not being snarky -- I took the question to mean: "Do you own this car?", and the honest answer was no - at least, as I understood it, because the owner name on the title was the bank, not mine.
As others have noted, states typically have you on the title and the bank just has a lien, so I’m not sure that would even be technically accurate. And even if accurate, your tone is too lackadaisical and overclever for this kind of interaction. You could have said, “in the lay sense, yes, though the bank is the owner of record.”
I assume the majority of people would understand the cop’s question as “Are you the person responsible and have the legal right to control this vehicle right now in this very moment”.
The problem with your line of thinking is thinking that people truly have recourse. With a large enough player, you basically get to make the rules (see: Robosigning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_foreclosure...)
I'm not sure I really get the difference between this and having some people rock up with a truck and take my car.
If they don't have the right to do that, it's theft, either way around.
If they don't have the right to do that, it's theft, either way around.
> The patent also outlines a potential to lock the vehicle out on weekends only so that the driver can still access a job and might be able to come through on those delinquent payments
What if you usually work weekends which is common for a lot of the jobs people who are missing payments might be working? In that case you would be out of luck.
You would also be out of luck if you are trying to get a side-gig or pick up a part time job on weekends to make ends meet.
This is what happens when people who have no money troubles make decisions in a board room. Completely out of touch.
What if you usually work weekends which is common for a lot of the jobs people who are missing payments might be working? In that case you would be out of luck.
You would also be out of luck if you are trying to get a side-gig or pick up a part time job on weekends to make ends meet.
This is what happens when people who have no money troubles make decisions in a board room. Completely out of touch.
>You would also be out of luck if you are trying to get a side-gig or pick up a part time job on weekends to make ends meet.
"Buy a bus pass like the good poors, cash side work is evil"
-the people peddling these things, but using nicer words"
"Buy a bus pass like the good poors, cash side work is evil"
-the people peddling these things, but using nicer words"
I think this misses the forest for the trees.
This technology in any car should be a violation of our rights. A corporation dictates when to access the vehicle remotely?
It’ll start with justifiable use cases. In a not too distant future, imagine something like:
* can’t access car during peak CO2 emission times because you got the cheaper monthly rate that uses a green subsidy to pay for the cheaper rate
* your incorrectly a suspect of a petty crime, your car is now inaccessible because Ford doesn’t want liability if you do something bad with their car (despite you cooperating with law enforcement)
* you’ve been categorized as spreading hate speech/misinformation/disinformation and that breaks our terms of service
I could go on, but you get the point.
This technology in any car should be a violation of our rights. A corporation dictates when to access the vehicle remotely?
It’ll start with justifiable use cases. In a not too distant future, imagine something like:
* can’t access car during peak CO2 emission times because you got the cheaper monthly rate that uses a green subsidy to pay for the cheaper rate
* your incorrectly a suspect of a petty crime, your car is now inaccessible because Ford doesn’t want liability if you do something bad with their car (despite you cooperating with law enforcement)
* you’ve been categorized as spreading hate speech/misinformation/disinformation and that breaks our terms of service
I could go on, but you get the point.
>> * can’t access car during peak CO2 emission times because you got the cheaper monthly rate that uses a green subsidy to pay for the cheaper rate
This sounds like a feature that opens up a new avenue of potential financial engineering. If your car could enforce that it was in 'green mode' or didn't drive at certain times and you could get a subsidy or tax break for it, that might potentially be a good incentive to encourage more environmental friendly lifestyles and practices. That doesn't seem like a bad thing to me, I might not want to buy that feature but it allows for some interesting possibilities. The buyer would have to agree to some stuff at the time of purchase (or lease as it sounds like it would be) to enable this.
We should be mindful of potential unintended consequences of these things. There are some good frameworks in place though, despite what you're second point suggests, Ford has relatively limited liability in the case that their car is driven by a bad actor (cooperating the the police or not) the second that car starts driving on its own, for whatever reason, Ford has some liability.
I remember my grandfather being relatively upset at the idea of GM knowing his GPS coordinates when his Cadillac had onstar. Now there have been hundreds or even thousands of cases when OnStar has had a positive outcome on peoples lives after a crash or something, including times they've reported it before anyone else. His tune changed dramatically one time they remotely unlocked his car and remotely started it so he could get home when his fishing boat turned over and his car keys were at the bottom of a lake though.
This sounds like a feature that opens up a new avenue of potential financial engineering. If your car could enforce that it was in 'green mode' or didn't drive at certain times and you could get a subsidy or tax break for it, that might potentially be a good incentive to encourage more environmental friendly lifestyles and practices. That doesn't seem like a bad thing to me, I might not want to buy that feature but it allows for some interesting possibilities. The buyer would have to agree to some stuff at the time of purchase (or lease as it sounds like it would be) to enable this.
We should be mindful of potential unintended consequences of these things. There are some good frameworks in place though, despite what you're second point suggests, Ford has relatively limited liability in the case that their car is driven by a bad actor (cooperating the the police or not) the second that car starts driving on its own, for whatever reason, Ford has some liability.
I remember my grandfather being relatively upset at the idea of GM knowing his GPS coordinates when his Cadillac had onstar. Now there have been hundreds or even thousands of cases when OnStar has had a positive outcome on peoples lives after a crash or something, including times they've reported it before anyone else. His tune changed dramatically one time they remotely unlocked his car and remotely started it so he could get home when his fishing boat turned over and his car keys were at the bottom of a lake though.
...And anyways, we had to flee from the wildfire on foot because the car decided the ambient CO2 level was too high...
Humans are bad at predicting edge cases. That cuts both directions. Machines should give guidance, not provide enforcement.
Humans are bad at predicting edge cases. That cuts both directions. Machines should give guidance, not provide enforcement.
potentially be a good incentive to encourage more environmental friendly lifestyles and practices
Hell no. It starts that way, and it ends with "you are not allowed to live".
Hell no. It starts that way, and it ends with "you are not allowed to live".
> I might not want to buy that feature but it allows for some interesting possibilities.
In practice, not everyone might have the choice to just not buy that feature.
In practice, not everyone might have the choice to just not buy that feature.
I do get your point, and I agree.
My thought process was that the inherent evils were already being discussed, so I figured I would point out something that I saw in the article which I thought was interesting but not already being discussed.
My thought process was that the inherent evils were already being discussed, so I figured I would point out something that I saw in the article which I thought was interesting but not already being discussed.
Ah I see your point, I agree
This is like automatic speed enforcement: the current laws and limits are set up with the understanding that people break them, and that it's not really a big deal. If you want to change that so that they become unbreakable, all the benefit can't accrue to one side. There needs to be a rational compromise. In the case of speed limits, it means having adult ones like in europe. In this case it would mean making the car cheaper (which is obviously way more nebulous). I don't really see a first order problem, I'd pay more to have a car that doesnt allow third party control. The problem is when industry crowds out alternatives so we're all stuck with this, as we already are with all the over computerized crap that goes into cars
I possibly could see a free market compromise existing. Perhaps one where automakers charge a higher base price for vehicles without the ability to repossess themselves. Or where one's insurance premium goes up if you opt-out of this feature, since it's likely you'd also miss an insurance payment as well. I could see people going with the default save money, but for those who are worried about their car driving off, paying extra to have the feature turned off might be worthwhile.
I feel like in order to patent a thing, you should need have to have a credible implementation of the thing being patented. An implementation of this clearly requires at least level 4 autonomy[0], which AFAIK, nobody has demonstrated.
This is only slightly closer to a real-world implementation than a patent for asteroid mining, never mind commercial viability.
Mind you, I don't consider that a bad thing; this is pretty dystopian, but still.
[0] https://www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-update
This is only slightly closer to a real-world implementation than a patent for asteroid mining, never mind commercial viability.
Mind you, I don't consider that a bad thing; this is pretty dystopian, but still.
[0] https://www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-update
Isn't this perfect then? Once someone can actually implement it, the patent will have expired.
Which means that everybody and their dog will implement it, instead of just the patent holder.
Which they could also do if there was no patent to begin with. If you want different outcomes for different patents, then the point from the original comment will not help. If you think some patent blocks everyone from implementing a good idea, then you would prefer the patent being filled early without a working implementation so that it is closer to expiring when you can actually implement it. For a patent that you consider a bad idea and that no one should be able to implement on the other hand you would prefer that there has to be a working implementation so that it blocks everyone else as long as possible from also implementing it.
> I feel like in order to patent a thing, you should need have to have a credible implementation of the thing being patented.
Reduction to practice is absolutely a requirement of patent law in the US.
Reduction to practice is absolutely a requirement of patent law in the US.
That seems at odds with TFA itself, which claims "Ford itself recently announced that it was giving up on its goal of developing full self-driving technology, at a cost of $2.7 billion."
Perhaps the standard for "reduction to practice [0]" is a little looser than I'm imagining. I can't even see how this would be covered by sufficiency of disclosure[1] since the apparent non-existence of level 4 or 5 autonomy suggests that no person skilled in the art[2] yet exists.
If it isn't obvious at this juncture: IANAL.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_to_practice
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufficiency_of_disclosure
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_having_ordinary_skill_i...
Perhaps the standard for "reduction to practice [0]" is a little looser than I'm imagining. I can't even see how this would be covered by sufficiency of disclosure[1] since the apparent non-existence of level 4 or 5 autonomy suggests that no person skilled in the art[2] yet exists.
If it isn't obvious at this juncture: IANAL.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_to_practice
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufficiency_of_disclosure
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_having_ordinary_skill_i...
Yes, but it doesn't mean you have to actually have built anything or even be able to build anything. The filing of the patent application is considered a constructive reduction to practice:
> Reduction to practice may be an actual reduction or a constructive reduction to practice which occurs when a patent application on the claimed invention is filed. The filing of a patent application serves as conception and constructive reduction to practice of the subject matter described in the application. Thus the inventor need not provide evidence of either conception or actual reduction to practice when relying on the content of the patent application.
https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/e8r9#/e8r9/d0e207753.html
> Reduction to practice may be an actual reduction or a constructive reduction to practice which occurs when a patent application on the claimed invention is filed. The filing of a patent application serves as conception and constructive reduction to practice of the subject matter described in the application. Thus the inventor need not provide evidence of either conception or actual reduction to practice when relying on the content of the patent application.
https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/e8r9#/e8r9/d0e207753.html
> This is only slightly closer to a real-world implementation than a patent for asteroid mining
I think we actually have a better idea of how to mine an asteroid.
I think we actually have a better idea of how to mine an asteroid.
Can I reapply for a patent every week until I can prove that someone else demonstrated the tech, then claim their developments? We already have patent trolls, I don't think this would necessarily help.
I think the better solution would be to say "you registered the patent, you get credit for the idea, but whoever makes it first gets the legal rights to sell it" - then people get credit for idea creation and also for making it a reality. I'd ideally add that they have to publicly disclose the info as well but idk how that would affect R&D
I think the better solution would be to say "you registered the patent, you get credit for the idea, but whoever makes it first gets the legal rights to sell it" - then people get credit for idea creation and also for making it a reality. I'd ideally add that they have to publicly disclose the info as well but idk how that would affect R&D
For the sake of parenting I think the level of autonomy displayed today is sufficient; as a matter of fact it is likely quite possible even today, in a controlled model city for example.
Isn't a large problem with FSD to do it at speed? If you never go above 5mph, a lot of things suddenly get much simpler because the amount of time you need to stop the car is very close to zero, and you probably don't care how long it takes for your possessed car to make it back to your show room.
"Why is there so much traffic today?" "A few cars got repossessed and everyone got stuck behind them"
> and you probably don't care how long it takes for your possessed car to make it back to your show room.
But you probably do care that your self-repossessed car is now impounded for driving dangerously slowly on public roads.
But you probably do care that your self-repossessed car is now impounded for driving dangerously slowly on public roads.
Might be cheaper to pay the fine and get your cars by the truck load while the local law enforcement takes care of transport and security.
But then again, I'm sure you can increase the speed to the average careful elderly driver.
But then again, I'm sure you can increase the speed to the average careful elderly driver.
An implementation of this clearly requires at least level 4 autonomy
Not if you want to have a quiet chat with the person who's been missing their payments..
Not if you want to have a quiet chat with the person who's been missing their payments..
People don't seem to fully grasp what not driving your car means. If you're not driving, you're not in control of where it goes. That sounds redundant yet people dont seem cognizant of the 2nd phrasing. You dont control the car, you make requests of it. It can say no.
Looking very far into the future, it's not hard to imagine that all cars are self driving by default with some highly-regulated exception, for purposes of safety, anti-terrorism, lobbying, etc. If that's the case central management seems like the next logical step. Citing reasons such as traffic flow, anti-terrorism, environmental management, disaster relief, anti-terrorism, etc.
Looking very far into the future, it's not hard to imagine that all cars are self driving by default with some highly-regulated exception, for purposes of safety, anti-terrorism, lobbying, etc. If that's the case central management seems like the next logical step. Citing reasons such as traffic flow, anti-terrorism, environmental management, disaster relief, anti-terrorism, etc.
Aren't you already not in control of where you go on foot? We have plenty of restricted areas for everything from anti-terrorism, govt buildings, and private property. There's even private roads for driving - this doesn't really change the laws it just makes enforcement easier. My hope is that we can automate enforcement of stuff like speeding tickets, and then people would get upset and we'd either raise the speed limit, lower the ticket price, or agree that it's not safe to drive that fast (or in that area)
If that’s “not in control of where you go” then it is an entirely different sense. By that reasoning our movement is out of our control because we are physically incapable of walking away into the sky. And because it’s neither physically possible nor allowed to drive everywhere.
The analog to what I’m saying would be something like disabling your legs and asking for permission to walk on a public sidewalk.
The analog to what I’m saying would be something like disabling your legs and asking for permission to walk on a public sidewalk.
A car isn't analogous to legs though, that would be the closest analogy with respect to the rights we have. You're always allowed to lose a license, nobody has any right to drive a car, so the concern is where you're allowed to go _given_ your mode of transportation - and any mode can be restricted based on current laws
You can lose your license and not be allowed to drive anywhere, but you can still walk around - that's the whole rights VS privilege thing
You can lose your license and not be allowed to drive anywhere, but you can still walk around - that's the whole rights VS privilege thing
This illustrates a problem with current penalties - they're too harsh if you have 100% exact enforcement.
Violating auto speed limits is a good example. Society can't enforce speed limits 100% of the time if it relies on the occasional state trooper with a radar gun. Therefore society sets the penalty very high so that the small risk of a citation isn't worth the benefit of speeding.
100% enforcement should have much lower penalties.
There are other problems with 100% strict enforcement, in that we don't even know what laws we have.
Violating auto speed limits is a good example. Society can't enforce speed limits 100% of the time if it relies on the occasional state trooper with a radar gun. Therefore society sets the penalty very high so that the small risk of a citation isn't worth the benefit of speeding.
100% enforcement should have much lower penalties.
There are other problems with 100% strict enforcement, in that we don't even know what laws we have.
Whether or not 100% enforcement is ever possible, I think speeding is penalized only because it's an easy thing to objectively measure, even if you can't get 100% of it. This is sort of the McNamara Fallacy in action.
But the really dangerous people on the highway aren't typical speeders who might go say 85-90mph when the speed limit is 55-65 mph. In traffic that isn't dense and clustered, high speeds in and of themselves are not a big problem.
The really dangerous people on the highway are those who aggressively change lanes in dense traffic, weaving in and out of traffic trying to find the narrowest possible gap to slip through where no safe passing gap exists. This is much harder to objectively track and measure unless a cop happens to sneak up on the dangerous driver and sees them firsthand.
Counterintuitively, I believe that the highways are made far less safe from speed limits because this tends to cluster up all traffic together so impatient people (who are going to exist no matter what) are compelled to dangerously weave in and out of dense clusters of cars which is the most likely thing to cause an accident.
If you made one or two lanes available with no speed limit so the aggressive drivers could be free to have their way and don't have to interact through slow drivers, I'd bet that most problems on the road would be solved. You want to create a situation where impatient people don't have to interact with the slower drivers.
But the really dangerous people on the highway aren't typical speeders who might go say 85-90mph when the speed limit is 55-65 mph. In traffic that isn't dense and clustered, high speeds in and of themselves are not a big problem.
The really dangerous people on the highway are those who aggressively change lanes in dense traffic, weaving in and out of traffic trying to find the narrowest possible gap to slip through where no safe passing gap exists. This is much harder to objectively track and measure unless a cop happens to sneak up on the dangerous driver and sees them firsthand.
Counterintuitively, I believe that the highways are made far less safe from speed limits because this tends to cluster up all traffic together so impatient people (who are going to exist no matter what) are compelled to dangerously weave in and out of dense clusters of cars which is the most likely thing to cause an accident.
If you made one or two lanes available with no speed limit so the aggressive drivers could be free to have their way and don't have to interact through slow drivers, I'd bet that most problems on the road would be solved. You want to create a situation where impatient people don't have to interact with the slower drivers.
My uncle got a job as a repo man and quit on the second day because somebody pointed a gun at him.
Its awful that your uncle had to experience that.
It's a dangerous job and I don't think they give the repo folks enough information. I recently had to run one of them off as the former property owners had renters that stopped making payments on their vehicle. The repo guy was highly aggressive and was yelling at my family members. I assumed he was just some nutjob and had no idea he was a repo guy aside from the fact he was driving a tow truck without any company logo. I assumed he was trying to steal my tractor since it's is an antique.
It's a dangerous job and I don't think they give the repo folks enough information. I recently had to run one of them off as the former property owners had renters that stopped making payments on their vehicle. The repo guy was highly aggressive and was yelling at my family members. I assumed he was just some nutjob and had no idea he was a repo guy aside from the fact he was driving a tow truck without any company logo. I assumed he was trying to steal my tractor since it's is an antique.
Virtually every serious speeder I know runs laser jammers, radar detectors, and cell phone based monitoring and religiously is alert to the warnings. Short of aircraft enforcement (oh they monitor that too) it's about impossible to nab the most dedicated speeders, so most the tickets are going people like the soccer mom who went 10 over, etc. I feel like speeding enforcement is one of the biggest example of how these enforcement are designed as tax and not designed as population level risk mitigation.
Speeding was just a convenient example. Shoplifting would work just as well. So would jaywalking, or loitering or disturbing the peace.
Penalties are set high because in the US they're enforced only irregularly. If the US moves to some kind of near universal enforcement, problems will occur because of that.
Penalties are set high because in the US they're enforced only irregularly. If the US moves to some kind of near universal enforcement, problems will occur because of that.
Thus making payment even less likely...
I used to be a big proponent of alcohol/drug test to prevent car starting, ideally I imagined the system would be with an absolute guarantee (mandated) the information stays local (just a hardware switch preventing ignition or startup). But I'm sad to say I don't believe in any more, so much abuse to mark people as 'tries to drive while under the influence' or making you pay higher insurance because you're often 0.5g instead of 0.3g.
I really want people to be prevented to drive killing vehicles under the influence (yes even my e-cargo). I know it would bring so many other problems, such as cost, tampering, bad sensitivity, etc. It doesn't make sense to me that we don't crack down more on this specific act.
I used to be a big proponent of alcohol/drug test to prevent car starting, ideally I imagined the system would be with an absolute guarantee (mandated) the information stays local (just a hardware switch preventing ignition or startup). But I'm sad to say I don't believe in any more, so much abuse to mark people as 'tries to drive while under the influence' or making you pay higher insurance because you're often 0.5g instead of 0.3g.
I really want people to be prevented to drive killing vehicles under the influence (yes even my e-cargo). I know it would bring so many other problems, such as cost, tampering, bad sensitivity, etc. It doesn't make sense to me that we don't crack down more on this specific act.
The biggest problem with an ignition interlock device today is that they're extremely unreliable. As implemented they are also very intrusive. Granted, they are currently implemented only as part of a punitive measure, so that behavior is partly intentional, but it would be unacceptable for universal adoption.
Probably be better to just make cars do realtime verification of license status before letting someone drive ... but that's only better by comparison; people who never drive drunk will bristle at the heavy regulation.
Probably be better to just make cars do realtime verification of license status before letting someone drive ... but that's only better by comparison; people who never drive drunk will bristle at the heavy regulation.
> Probably be better to just make cars do realtime verification of license status before letting someone drive
A couple in Florida was killed yesterday in the hurricane, though they tried to evacuate, the storm meant that license verification servers were down and their Ford would not start.
A couple in Florida was killed yesterday in the hurricane, though they tried to evacuate, the storm meant that license verification servers were down and their Ford would not start.
Have you got a source on that?
Edit: Just occurred to me this is probably a theoretic future state
Edit: Just occurred to me this is probably a theoretic future state
>The biggest problem with an ignition interlock device today is that they're extremely unreliable. As implemented they are also very intrusive
Money spent making the device not suck reduces profit. Nobody will care when you abuse your customers because your customers are convicted criminals.
Pretty much every company selling stuff that people need to use to not violate the terms of their sentence is like this.
Money spent making the device not suck reduces profit. Nobody will care when you abuse your customers because your customers are convicted criminals.
Pretty much every company selling stuff that people need to use to not violate the terms of their sentence is like this.
> Money spent making the device not suck reduces profit.
That may be true. But it's also possible that measuring blood alcohol with breath tests is never going to work consistently for all people. Breathalyzers are well known for widely variable results between people who have identical BAC.
That may be true. But it's also possible that measuring blood alcohol with breath tests is never going to work consistently for all people. Breathalyzers are well known for widely variable results between people who have identical BAC.
It doesn't have to be the car companies that do the research and design, it can be state funded (since it will be state mandated) research, design and development and open source/patent-free to manufacture.
If it's meant to be used by everyone (I'm not thinking DUI recidivists, how many people have you seen rationalize driving after a drink or two or six) then make it usable by everyone.
If it's meant to be used by everyone (I'm not thinking DUI recidivists, how many people have you seen rationalize driving after a drink or two or six) then make it usable by everyone.
I was thinking breathalyser ignition interlock but yes, probably high rate of false alarm, although we could probably make it far better if used so much, even wireless, wearable... I know higher standards (such as emissions) tend to encourage cheating but dammit I'm tired of people killing each other like this.
I'm also extremely tired of people veering into the fucking bikelane while phoning, texting, hands off talking on the phone, and sometimes (to often) just 'checking' the damn cargo with my two kids inside. So they can get to work 'on time' and spend 15 minutes at the coffee machine. Dammit.
Make it impossible to interact with in a moving object, cut the data and phone, I don't have the answer or a patent but this is killing so many people for very, extremely selfish and stupid reasons...
But since we're OK for the road being some kind of far west, Dashcam it is...
I'm also extremely tired of people veering into the fucking bikelane while phoning, texting, hands off talking on the phone, and sometimes (to often) just 'checking' the damn cargo with my two kids inside. So they can get to work 'on time' and spend 15 minutes at the coffee machine. Dammit.
Make it impossible to interact with in a moving object, cut the data and phone, I don't have the answer or a patent but this is killing so many people for very, extremely selfish and stupid reasons...
But since we're OK for the road being some kind of far west, Dashcam it is...
I was just joking about this with a friend, an engineer at Cruise. You don't pay and GM can tell the car to drive off. He laughed like it wasn't that far from the truth.
I think this is a sign of the times we live in.
Innovation today seems to have shifted towards serving the owning class.
Innovation today seems to have shifted towards serving the owning class.
And by replacing ownership with either de facto or de jure rental of any and all private property.
I have a big enough philosophical objection to the concept where we don't actually own property and may only rent it from the government due to property taxes. Now we "own" phones we can't control, "own" cars that have features dis/en-abled over the air if you pay for them.
Product managers are brimming with innovative features and benefits enabled by stripping ownership away from the public/consumers. It reminds me of the Black Mirror episode where you pay for your toothpaste $0.05 at a time from a dispenser in your home when you want some on your toothbrush.
I have a big enough philosophical objection to the concept where we don't actually own property and may only rent it from the government due to property taxes. Now we "own" phones we can't control, "own" cars that have features dis/en-abled over the air if you pay for them.
Product managers are brimming with innovative features and benefits enabled by stripping ownership away from the public/consumers. It reminds me of the Black Mirror episode where you pay for your toothpaste $0.05 at a time from a dispenser in your home when you want some on your toothbrush.
I can easily see the argument for owning personal property like a phone, but how can someone have a true ownership claim over land?
For personal property there is a production chain with labor that went into the item, but for land it's just out there and at some point someone decided they should be able to restrict what other people do in some area. If you see that it's not legitimate for a government to do, then by the same logic it's not legitimate for an individual - a government is just a collection of individuals acting together
For personal property there is a production chain with labor that went into the item, but for land it's just out there and at some point someone decided they should be able to restrict what other people do in some area. If you see that it's not legitimate for a government to do, then by the same logic it's not legitimate for an individual - a government is just a collection of individuals acting together
> If you see that it's not legitimate for a government to do, then by the same logic it's not legitimate for an individual
I see the rights of government as secondary by default with exceptions meted out strictly as necessary. There exists a very limited number of jurisdictions where property taxes don't exist and land ownership is therefore real, so there's no philosophical/legal impediment to foregoing property taxes.
I see the rights of government as secondary by default with exceptions meted out strictly as necessary. There exists a very limited number of jurisdictions where property taxes don't exist and land ownership is therefore real, so there's no philosophical/legal impediment to foregoing property taxes.
My argument is that even without property taxes the land ownership isn't real - someone can have a piece of paper and a government to back them up and say they "own" the land, but ultimately it's not the same as personal property and doesn't make sense to treat the same way. As far as I've seen it's impossible to establish a chain of custody for land ownership that doesn't involve theft and invalidate the current ownership claim
Further, the government is the only thing that grants the land ownership claim, if there is no government than anyone can come along and kick you off your land, revealing that you didn't really own it to start with - you're just living there right now
Further, the government is the only thing that grants the land ownership claim, if there is no government than anyone can come along and kick you off your land, revealing that you didn't really own it to start with - you're just living there right now
> it's not the same as personal property
Do you mean because it's immobile?
> it's impossible to establish a chain of custody for land ownership that doesn't involve theft
This is a big issue in some places, e.g. I've heard in South Africa, because of legal issues arising out of confiscation when apartheid ended. Not so much in the US. There are some disputes going back to deeds with native Americans but they're very rare.
> the government is the only thing that grants the land ownership claim, if there is no government than anyone can come along and kick you off your land
The government's authority is the only reason a theory of any private property can exist in the real world anyway. Unless we're talking about super abstract theories of private enforcement in anarchist philosophy or something. In the world we live in, no government means people take your stuff, whether it's land or not.
Do you mean because it's immobile?
> it's impossible to establish a chain of custody for land ownership that doesn't involve theft
This is a big issue in some places, e.g. I've heard in South Africa, because of legal issues arising out of confiscation when apartheid ended. Not so much in the US. There are some disputes going back to deeds with native Americans but they're very rare.
> the government is the only thing that grants the land ownership claim, if there is no government than anyone can come along and kick you off your land
The government's authority is the only reason a theory of any private property can exist in the real world anyway. Unless we're talking about super abstract theories of private enforcement in anarchist philosophy or something. In the world we live in, no government means people take your stuff, whether it's land or not.
> Do you mean because it's immobile?
Yeah I'm talking about personal vs private property, generally defined by movability, so like a house itself is private but the land isn't
> Not so much in the US. There are some disputes going back to deeds with native Americans but they're very rare
I think you're only talking about disputes recognized in the courts, not the actual disputes over the whole land claim which have consistently been there historically
> In the world we live in, no government means people take your stuff, whether it's land or not
Seems like we agree on this point - land ownership comes from the govt who ultimately "owns" all the land (but still through theft or some random claim)
Yeah I'm talking about personal vs private property, generally defined by movability, so like a house itself is private but the land isn't
> Not so much in the US. There are some disputes going back to deeds with native Americans but they're very rare
I think you're only talking about disputes recognized in the courts, not the actual disputes over the whole land claim which have consistently been there historically
> In the world we live in, no government means people take your stuff, whether it's land or not
Seems like we agree on this point - land ownership comes from the govt who ultimately "owns" all the land (but still through theft or some random claim)
I think a good analogy is other planets - can I say I own Mars and anyone who goes there has to rent the land from me? Without a government that's not going to happen, and with a government it only happens through force which invalidates the whole "exchange"
>And by replacing ownership with either de facto or de jure rental of any and all private property.
My theory is that as profits decline due to the tendency of markets to reach equilibrium with respect to products/services supplied that capital owners will begin to reintroduce pre-capitalist norms and practices such as landlordism as these can sustain revenues to their liking as you renter won't have any ownership rights to contest their actions. It means they can raise rental rates anytime in the majority of cases and then just evict you from or repossess what was rented. Kind of like feudalism but without the fancy hats and titles.
My theory is that as profits decline due to the tendency of markets to reach equilibrium with respect to products/services supplied that capital owners will begin to reintroduce pre-capitalist norms and practices such as landlordism as these can sustain revenues to their liking as you renter won't have any ownership rights to contest their actions. It means they can raise rental rates anytime in the majority of cases and then just evict you from or repossess what was rented. Kind of like feudalism but without the fancy hats and titles.
Shifted?
When was it different?
When was it different?
It is always amusing talking to Americans about the Luddite movement. So ,any seem to think they were anti-technology when in fact they were mostly artisans who embraced technology save for when the ownership class started to exploit their labor.
I've known a couple of possessed Fords.
I think antique car restoration and modernization is going to be a great business to be in for the next 20yr or so. At least the demons in older cars can be propitiated with minor rituals like a fetish hung on the mirror or the occasional blood sacrifice.
This shit is going to lead to hilarious scenes of cars flocking places because of a node.js bug.
edit: i forsee "car leashes"; probably something in the nature of a parking boot so make sure the car stays immobile or becomes nonviable. And there's always the trick of jackstands and hiding the wheels at night.
I think antique car restoration and modernization is going to be a great business to be in for the next 20yr or so. At least the demons in older cars can be propitiated with minor rituals like a fetish hung on the mirror or the occasional blood sacrifice.
This shit is going to lead to hilarious scenes of cars flocking places because of a node.js bug.
edit: i forsee "car leashes"; probably something in the nature of a parking boot so make sure the car stays immobile or becomes nonviable. And there's always the trick of jackstands and hiding the wheels at night.
My company's premises overlook a roundabout that is part of of a virtual crossroads - the A37 and A30, as well as several other routes: It's called Five Ways, there are four obvious ways these days, the other one becomes apparent when you look at a map and history. Also, we are surrounded by residential housing, a cemetary, and a college.
I deployed Home Assistant as a building monitor and stuff a few years back. HA gains new super powers with each release.
I let it listen to the airwaves and when the funky new Bluetooth stuff came online, it now sees a lot more stuff. We also have a couple of Unifi APs. So HA can listen to 2.4 and 5GHz, we have Zwave and Zigbee dongles in it and Bluetooth.
It notices every car that goes past on two major single carriageways, when they advertise themselves. The roads are classified at around 30,000 cars per day each.
Also I see several toothbrushes (Oral B+) and a lot of lights ... a lot of lights. I've already started having a chat with my neighbours about IoT.
Cars are a bit of a worry ...
I deployed Home Assistant as a building monitor and stuff a few years back. HA gains new super powers with each release.
I let it listen to the airwaves and when the funky new Bluetooth stuff came online, it now sees a lot more stuff. We also have a couple of Unifi APs. So HA can listen to 2.4 and 5GHz, we have Zwave and Zigbee dongles in it and Bluetooth.
It notices every car that goes past on two major single carriageways, when they advertise themselves. The roads are classified at around 30,000 cars per day each.
Also I see several toothbrushes (Oral B+) and a lot of lights ... a lot of lights. I've already started having a chat with my neighbours about IoT.
Cars are a bit of a worry ...
I hope they defend it with a vengeance so nobody can copy it
Maybe I'm naive, but I don't see this as particularly evil. It's just a more efficient of what already happens in terms of care repossession.
What needs to happen is better consumer protection to prevent americans buying cars on finance that they are never going to be able to afford.
What needs to happen is better consumer protection to prevent americans buying cars on finance that they are never going to be able to afford.
> prevent americans buying cars on finance that they are never going to be able to afford
The issue is that "Making finance accessible to low income Americans" and "predatory lending" are approximately two sides of the same coin. And so it is not politically popular.
The issue is that "Making finance accessible to low income Americans" and "predatory lending" are approximately two sides of the same coin. And so it is not politically popular.
That's part of the narrative for the financial crisis. Even without waging that particular fight, it's important to remember that, for a long time, there were plenty of barriers to full participation that had nothing to do with the individual's ability to afford something. Redlining is probably the best documented of these practices.
Every creditworthiness measure is subject to some bias. Most practical ways of tightening lending is going to end up with some correlative demographic being disproportionately excluded.
Lowering the cost of repossession lowers the risk/cost to lending to low income. It's good for the poor.
In theory it should but I’m practice it probably won’t since the market isn’t actually competitive
Yes, I agree with that.
I can see it now: A cash-strapped, frazzled single-mom parks her car on her driveway to unload groceries, leaving her child in the car seat while she carries bags inside the garage. While the mom is walking toward the door the car repossesses itself and heads back to the dealership, child trapped inside.
After this happens the first time they will add some kind of checking mechanism which means you can defeat repossession by putting a doll sitting on some bricks in a child car seat to avoid this happening automatically.
haha! At this rate, in the future, fooling an AI will be considered a form of hacking and met with computer fraud and abuse or inauthentic behavior charges.
You’re giving Ford the benefit of the doubt that it will work as described and won’t be abused.
Have they earned that reputation regarding automated systems, and how will they deal with false positive/bugs etc. when the wrong car is repossessed at the worst time for its owner ?
Have they earned that reputation regarding automated systems, and how will they deal with false positive/bugs etc. when the wrong car is repossessed at the worst time for its owner ?
I suspect it would be dealt with in the same way that human error is dealt with today.
Which means, not at all, look at the recent Hertz case about rental cars reported as stolen and then doubling down, because admitting to problems with the process would mean admitting to criminal intent.
Repos and reporting cars as stolen are two different things.
The poster was talking about "human error". If you are out of a car because your lender messed up (perhaps intentionally to pocket the late fee) you are in trouble, because everyone needs a vehicle to get to work on time. And of course you have as much recourse against your lender as the people at the receiving end of the Hertz case. Didn't Peter Thiel say you need a seven-figure sum to make the legal system work for you?
I don't disagree with the end point, but I have a hard time understanding why the Hertz case demonstrates that Ford is likely to lie with criminal intent about a mistaken repo. It has literally nothing in common except that it involves a car.
If Ford wants to lie about repos or lie about human error, they can do that now, they don't need a computer to do it. The whole damn process is subject to human error as it is today.
If Ford wants to lie about repos or lie about human error, they can do that now, they don't need a computer to do it. The whole damn process is subject to human error as it is today.
On the "people lying" side of the issue you're describing, up until now a tow company needed to be involved. With this system, the middle man is gone, so potentially a single employee could initiate repossesion of a whole fleet by themself.
Will the owners have recourse after being stranded without their car explaining their boss it just went away ? probably. Will the employee be punished ? surely. Is it something we want to allow on the first place ? I'm mot so sure.
Here we're really digging on the "working as intended" side, bit the more probable issues would be it's just buggy and sometimes an older cars thinks it got repossessed, goes away, and you're left to battle for getting reparations and/or another car, knowing you're probably broke so not in a strong position for that.
Will the owners have recourse after being stranded without their car explaining their boss it just went away ? probably. Will the employee be punished ? surely. Is it something we want to allow on the first place ? I'm mot so sure.
Here we're really digging on the "working as intended" side, bit the more probable issues would be it's just buggy and sometimes an older cars thinks it got repossessed, goes away, and you're left to battle for getting reparations and/or another car, knowing you're probably broke so not in a strong position for that.
> On the "people lying" side of the issue you're describing, up until now a tow company needed to be involved. With this system, the middle man is gone, so potentially a single employee could initiate repossesion of a whole fleet by themself.
Tow truck drivers don't currently play any role in certifying the requests they get. A bank emails them repo paperwork, and they tow the car. If the paperwork they receive is not correct, they would have no way of even knowing that. In fact, the human tow truck drivers themselves create another layer of possibility for human mistakes.
Tow truck drivers don't currently play any role in certifying the requests they get. A bank emails them repo paperwork, and they tow the car. If the paperwork they receive is not correct, they would have no way of even knowing that. In fact, the human tow truck drivers themselves create another layer of possibility for human mistakes.
The reduction of friction has me worried here. Nowadays you have to get a tow truck out to retrieve the vehicle, and you have an incentive not to do that pointlessly. But once the car can drive itself back to the dealership the bar will be lowered pretty quickly.
It's all the same to the lender, no? They file the correct paperwork to do it, and it is handled by some outside process.
This. I anecdotally seen this happen to my wife's friends. Long story short, their credit is shot so they are forced to either purchase car by cash ( they seemingly can't ) or go to one of those places that will give them a car loan at ridiculous rate and installed with gizmos to allow easy repossession once payment is missed.
<< What needs to happen is better consumer protection to prevent americans buying cars on finance that they are never going to be able to afford.
I think you would have everyone and their mother fighting against this saying you need freedom to make stupid decisions. Even I am personally on the fence. You do need better protections, but you need to have an ability to make your choices ( and in US - not having a car is not really a valid solution ).
<< What needs to happen is better consumer protection to prevent americans buying cars on finance that they are never going to be able to afford.
I think you would have everyone and their mother fighting against this saying you need freedom to make stupid decisions. Even I am personally on the fence. You do need better protections, but you need to have an ability to make your choices ( and in US - not having a car is not really a valid solution ).
The solution is probably to work on that very last part
Exactly (on both sides). We should help people to find and choose cars they can afford.
And, when someone does not pay as agreed to a significant degree, the more efficient that a repossession can happen, the better a deal can be offered to borrowers who do pay as agreed.
And, when someone does not pay as agreed to a significant degree, the more efficient that a repossession can happen, the better a deal can be offered to borrowers who do pay as agreed.
In the 1970s my dad found that American car dealerships had no interest in selling small and economical cars at all.
Japanese car dealerships have been this way recently, before the pandemic hit we tried to buy a new Honda Fit and had to buy a used one because they had none in inventory because, allegedly, the factory had washed away in a flood but they had a row of 50 CR-Vs made in the same factory. The dealer tried to push us into one of those.
The automotive press uncritically reports that American consumers are crazy about huge vehicles but what I've observed is that dealers are crazy about selling huge vehicles. Before the pandemic you would frequently see small cars were selling out as fast they arrived on the lot but dealers would have a sea of huge and expensive vehicles and be offering $8000 or so in incentives to sell them. If small vehicles were really unpopular it would be the other way around.
There are rumors that Toyota and Honda would love to kill the Corolla and Civic but the quality of those vehicles is so legendary and the attachment of owners is so fanatical that they know people aren't going to "trade up" but will be paying new car prices for high mileage vehicles.
Japanese car dealerships have been this way recently, before the pandemic hit we tried to buy a new Honda Fit and had to buy a used one because they had none in inventory because, allegedly, the factory had washed away in a flood but they had a row of 50 CR-Vs made in the same factory. The dealer tried to push us into one of those.
The automotive press uncritically reports that American consumers are crazy about huge vehicles but what I've observed is that dealers are crazy about selling huge vehicles. Before the pandemic you would frequently see small cars were selling out as fast they arrived on the lot but dealers would have a sea of huge and expensive vehicles and be offering $8000 or so in incentives to sell them. If small vehicles were really unpopular it would be the other way around.
There are rumors that Toyota and Honda would love to kill the Corolla and Civic but the quality of those vehicles is so legendary and the attachment of owners is so fanatical that they know people aren't going to "trade up" but will be paying new car prices for high mileage vehicles.
Most of the costs of manufacture are fixed or at most scale linear with mass, so the range of costs to mfgr the smallest commuter car vs the hugest truck are, at most, perhaps 3 to 1 but more realistically 2 to 1.
"The market will bear" a consumer paying 5 to 10 times as much for the largest fanciest SUV or pickup truck vs the smallest cheapest commuter car. Therefore the profit is VASTLY higher on larger cars and there's an immense motivation to get as many customers as possible into the biggest cars. If you can get a customer to pay 6 times as much for a SUV that costs 3 times as much to make, that's a huge profit lost if the customer is permitted to buy the commuter car.
Another way to phrase it is if almost all your profit comes from selling giant cars, then the customer experience of buying a small car is always going to be awful.
The people buying the largest vehicles are not concerned by cost, so increasing the cost of large vehicles via taxes or fees or regulation only makes the situation worse. You'd like to think that a 20% surcharge on large cars would result in fewer large cars sold, but the guy buying them is a general contractor and he needs the pickup truck to make money so he's just going to pass the cost on to real estate inflation and the extra 20% is going to motivate the dealership even harder to only sell expensive cars.
"The market will bear" a consumer paying 5 to 10 times as much for the largest fanciest SUV or pickup truck vs the smallest cheapest commuter car. Therefore the profit is VASTLY higher on larger cars and there's an immense motivation to get as many customers as possible into the biggest cars. If you can get a customer to pay 6 times as much for a SUV that costs 3 times as much to make, that's a huge profit lost if the customer is permitted to buy the commuter car.
Another way to phrase it is if almost all your profit comes from selling giant cars, then the customer experience of buying a small car is always going to be awful.
The people buying the largest vehicles are not concerned by cost, so increasing the cost of large vehicles via taxes or fees or regulation only makes the situation worse. You'd like to think that a 20% surcharge on large cars would result in fewer large cars sold, but the guy buying them is a general contractor and he needs the pickup truck to make money so he's just going to pass the cost on to real estate inflation and the extra 20% is going to motivate the dealership even harder to only sell expensive cars.
"The automotive press uncritically reports that American consumers are crazy about huge vehicles but what I've observed is that dealers are crazy about selling huge vehicles."
Very true. Same for houses. A lot of people probably would prefer a small house over not being able to afford a big house and renting eternally. But big houses are more profitable, so that's what's being built. That's why in a lot of markets supply and demand don't really work if the supply can be restricted.
Very true. Same for houses. A lot of people probably would prefer a small house over not being able to afford a big house and renting eternally. But big houses are more profitable, so that's what's being built. That's why in a lot of markets supply and demand don't really work if the supply can be restricted.
In both scenarios there are laws encouraging these outcomes. Minimum lot sizes and CAFE standards, respectively, lead to bigger cars and houses. There are also small utility trucks and electric vehicles in other countries, but they’re unfortunately illegal in the land of the free, ostensibly for crash test performance opposite the giant trucks that are considered safe. Indeed, distorted markets are worse.
Always seems bizarre to me I can ride an ATV around or even a motorcycle on the highway, but a cheap 1980s style Honda CRV is apparently to unsafe to sell anymore because it doesn't meet crash test standards.
Theoretically CAFE standards should be work for encourage small cars. Regulators shouldn't give bad fuel bonus for big cars.
Your dealer doesn't know what they're talking about, which is par for the course. You couldn't find a Fit because Honda stopped importing them. They were discontinued in the US due to poor sales.
Not in my neighborhood. The Blue Honda Fit is the ideal getaway car in Tompkins County because you could do donuts in somebody's yard and they tell the cops and then they'd have to flag down every 20th car.
They're great cars, but (unfortunately) compact SUVs are far outselling them. Compare the Fit and HRV sales figures and it's clear why Honda did it.
That assumes that sales figures are entirely controlled by demand. The OP points out a perfectly plausible mechanism by which demand is not the only factor affecting sales volume. It's almost certainly true that dealerships will stock what's profitable, customer preferences be damned.
This would assume that either the only game in town is Honda or that all the other manufacturers are colluding with Honda. Absent significant evidence, it is safer to assume people’s preferences are causing the lower sales.
Where I live, all of the major new car dealerships are owned by the same company.
No I'm not making this up: https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/business/2014/10/02/w...
No I'm not making this up: https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/business/2014/10/02/w...
It's not hard in a small market. Often, large dealership chains don't put all their eggs in one brand basket. It works the same way in other cities, but larger cities can support multiple dealers of the same brand.
This is true in my town. Believe it or not some customers and employees really love some car dealers and speak reverently about them and that was true of the last Toyota dealer but it is not true of the current one.
HRV sales have consistently blown away even the all-time peak year of US Fit sales.
People are going to use this to steal cars and scam people. It will almost certainly screw up and kill somebody at some point.
No amount of new features will ever convince me to buy a car that does this but the people who do buy them will undoubtedly be poor and marginalized and offered a great deal on their financing if they choose the roborepo car.
No amount of new features will ever convince me to buy a car that does this but the people who do buy them will undoubtedly be poor and marginalized and offered a great deal on their financing if they choose the roborepo car.
I'd rather a human was involved in the process. With this all you get is "computer says no" and poof your car is gone.
With a human tasked with the repo, at the very least even if "computer says no" to them, they have some leeway (even if it's slim-to-none) in talking to you about it.
With a human tasked with the repo, at the very least even if "computer says no" to them, they have some leeway (even if it's slim-to-none) in talking to you about it.
I had a different thought - this makes it very appealing to stop selling cars altogether, and only lease or rent them.
> care repossession
Does autocorrect make Freudian slips?
Does autocorrect make Freudian slips?
I wish I had a pic of it, but in a building I once worked in, there was a Ford Model T with a brass plaque mounted in a visible location on the firewall that essentially said if you violate the patents or sell the car in an unauthorized way, the title reverts to being owned by FoMoCo.
Doing an image search for "ford model t plaque" yields some examples.
Doing an image search for "ford model t plaque" yields some examples.
It didn't immediately yield any for me, so here is one directly for the interested: https://www.ebay.com/itm/364109744022
This is why buying as low-mileage a used car you can get from ~2010 or older is wise. Especially one with a keyed ignition vs. push start.
It might be my conspiracy brain acting up but "multi-ton machine without manual override" sends all the red flashing lights and klaxons off in my head.
Political assassination via cyber attack/backdoor? ezpz, find a tree, accelerate into it, claim it was the car acting up.
Bug in the software? Sorry you're dying today because they wanted to repossess cars easier, your life is less important than protecting capital.
We're in a world where deregulation has planes either falling out of the sky or attempting to. I don't trust any soft handed regulation on cars without manual overrides.
My car has a push start, but also a manual transmission. I know if something goes wrong and my engine stops responding to the electric throttle I can just pop out of gear and coast.
Political assassination via cyber attack/backdoor? ezpz, find a tree, accelerate into it, claim it was the car acting up.
Bug in the software? Sorry you're dying today because they wanted to repossess cars easier, your life is less important than protecting capital.
We're in a world where deregulation has planes either falling out of the sky or attempting to. I don't trust any soft handed regulation on cars without manual overrides.
My car has a push start, but also a manual transmission. I know if something goes wrong and my engine stops responding to the electric throttle I can just pop out of gear and coast.
Manual transmissions are almost entirely extinct in new vehicles (in the US at least) and even some manuals have an interlock that can prevent you from taking it out of gear if the power-train control module decides it needs to stay in gear.
That's why I jumped to buy a new one as soon as I had the money. No interlock on the gearbox, no electric seats to break, manual parking brake, but with android auto on an OEM infotainment.
Not saying they're super common, but as someone who writes software, I don't like the increasing dependency on software implementations of certain components that are fairly simple in their mechanical form.
Not saying they're super common, but as someone who writes software, I don't like the increasing dependency on software implementations of certain components that are fairly simple in their mechanical form.
Which vehicle is this?
Your thoughts are likely not very far fetched, but in this case, to the best of my knowledge, IC and LEOs seem to be more worried about stopping individual 'bad guys'( quotations, because I hate this term ) from causing damage with ICE machines hence solutions like mandated remote off switch and so on.
On the political assassination front, wasn't there a story out about one such attempt or did I dream it?
On the political assassination front, wasn't there a story out about one such attempt or did I dream it?
There was a suspicious "political staffer dies from freak single car accident" events shortly after the first Jeep Cherokee was remotely taken control of. That's what stuck with me.
LEOs are also notoriously corrupt and difficult to keep tabs on. Imagine police harassment when they have the ability to remotely shut off your car.
LEOs are also notoriously corrupt and difficult to keep tabs on. Imagine police harassment when they have the ability to remotely shut off your car.
You may be thinking of Michael Hastings?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hastings_(journalist...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hastings_(journalist...
That's the one. Thanks.
Inset joke about loving my 12 year old 4runner that's the most basic car I've ever owned.
But this isn't anything new. Buy here pay here places have been throwing ignition locks on cars for ages and shut off the ignition if you don't make payments. This would take it a step further, integrate it into the car, and add autonomous features to it.
But this isn't anything new. Buy here pay here places have been throwing ignition locks on cars for ages and shut off the ignition if you don't make payments. This would take it a step further, integrate it into the car, and add autonomous features to it.
In 10 years there will be love songs about your car leaving you.
Why wait 10 years, when you've got ChatGPT.
Verse 1: I bought a brand new truck, shiny and so smart It had all the latest gadgets, it was a work of art But I got behind on payments, my bills just piled high And one day I woke up, to a big surprise
Chorus: My smart truck repossessed itself, it had a mind of its own It drove away into the sunset, left me all alone I should have paid my bills on time, kept up with the loan But now my smart truck's gone, and I'm all alone
Verse 2: I searched high and low, for my smart truck so true But it was nowhere to be found, no matter what I do It had GPS and sensors, it knew just where to go Back to the dealership, where it could be sold
Chorus: My smart truck repossessed itself, it had a mind of its own It drove away into the sunset, left me all alone I should have paid my bills on time, kept up with the loan But now my smart truck's gone, and I'm all alone
Bridge: I guess I learned my lesson, to pay my debts on time But it still hurts so bad, to see my truck's tail lights shine I'll never forget the day, my smart truck drove away And I'll always regret, the price I had to pay
Chorus: My smart truck repossessed itself, it had a mind of its own It drove away into the sunset, left me all alone I should have paid my bills on time, kept up with the loan But now my smart truck's gone, and I'm all alone
Outro: So if you're thinking of buying, a smart truck of your own Make sure you pay your bills on time, and keep up with the loan Or you might end up like me, with a broken heart and soul Watching your smart truck drive away, leaving you alone.
Verse 1: I bought a brand new truck, shiny and so smart It had all the latest gadgets, it was a work of art But I got behind on payments, my bills just piled high And one day I woke up, to a big surprise
Chorus: My smart truck repossessed itself, it had a mind of its own It drove away into the sunset, left me all alone I should have paid my bills on time, kept up with the loan But now my smart truck's gone, and I'm all alone
Verse 2: I searched high and low, for my smart truck so true But it was nowhere to be found, no matter what I do It had GPS and sensors, it knew just where to go Back to the dealership, where it could be sold
Chorus: My smart truck repossessed itself, it had a mind of its own It drove away into the sunset, left me all alone I should have paid my bills on time, kept up with the loan But now my smart truck's gone, and I'm all alone
Bridge: I guess I learned my lesson, to pay my debts on time But it still hurts so bad, to see my truck's tail lights shine I'll never forget the day, my smart truck drove away And I'll always regret, the price I had to pay
Chorus: My smart truck repossessed itself, it had a mind of its own It drove away into the sunset, left me all alone I should have paid my bills on time, kept up with the loan But now my smart truck's gone, and I'm all alone
Outro: So if you're thinking of buying, a smart truck of your own Make sure you pay your bills on time, and keep up with the loan Or you might end up like me, with a broken heart and soul Watching your smart truck drive away, leaving you alone.
Damn, makes me want to break out the ol' acoustic guitar and I don't even play any instrument.
In 10 years you won't be able to buy a car anymore.
"You will own nothing and be happy."
And broke. And not actually happy.
And broke. And not actually happy.
As a current Ford Mustang Mach E owner I laugh about stories like this. The Mach E had so many TSBs, recalls, software updates, attempted software updates, updates that _bricked_ the update ECU (the APIM module) that I have no worry what so ever that this will ever work reliably in this decade.
Didn't Tesla have one of their cars drive out of a garage so it could get repo'd. I don't see how you can patent "a car driving itself to get repossessed". After you patent autonomous driving why does the location it drives to matter whether showroom or scrap yard?
How ironic considering how much Ford avoids doing recalls
There was an episode of Knight Rider where Kitt turned evil and did this to Michael!
Theres the episode of Star Trek TNG where data takes control of the enterprise because his father/maker activated a program to return to him.
Yet another reason to ditch cars. The car is an engineering disaster and it's time has past. I know this will be a shock to some people.
Lol, absolutely not. I just came back from a trip to a national park that simply would not have been doable without my car. My commute into work each day would be significantly harder without my car. I wouldn't be able to visit much of my family without my car.
I can get into the nearest city and town just fine on public transport, and that's what I do. But public transport here is spoke-hub. If you want to go somewhere that is moderately far away from a hub, it becomes incredibly difficult (and expensive).
If you live in a city, and you never leave that city other than to go to other cities, then you absolutely do not need a car. Most other people do.
I can get into the nearest city and town just fine on public transport, and that's what I do. But public transport here is spoke-hub. If you want to go somewhere that is moderately far away from a hub, it becomes incredibly difficult (and expensive).
If you live in a city, and you never leave that city other than to go to other cities, then you absolutely do not need a car. Most other people do.
Take public trans to the park. Hike and camp overnight. Your experience in the park will be heightened. Those memories will warm you into old age.
- Public transport doesn't go near to where I need to go
- Camping overnight is both illegal, and less comfortable than the hotel I was basing my hikes out of
I drove there, stayed at a hotel, and hiked out from that hotel every day. It was a very memorable trip. I then drove home.
The alternative would have been to get a bus to the train station (40 minutes), a train to the south of the park (2 hours), get a bus from the train station to another town (only 2 buses a day, morning and night, so we'd have had to leave home much earlier or lose a day), get another bus from that town to another town, then get another bus from that town to another town. All whilst lugging a large suitcase, camera bag & gear, and another backpack between us. The buses would have taken another 3 hours. Then if I needed to get home in an emergency, or otherwise leave quickly, I'd have to redo it all backwards, and hope I could make that twice a day bus.
No thanks, I'll just stick with my 1.5 hour drive from my front door to the hotel.
- Camping overnight is both illegal, and less comfortable than the hotel I was basing my hikes out of
I drove there, stayed at a hotel, and hiked out from that hotel every day. It was a very memorable trip. I then drove home.
The alternative would have been to get a bus to the train station (40 minutes), a train to the south of the park (2 hours), get a bus from the train station to another town (only 2 buses a day, morning and night, so we'd have had to leave home much earlier or lose a day), get another bus from that town to another town, then get another bus from that town to another town. All whilst lugging a large suitcase, camera bag & gear, and another backpack between us. The buses would have taken another 3 hours. Then if I needed to get home in an emergency, or otherwise leave quickly, I'd have to redo it all backwards, and hope I could make that twice a day bus.
No thanks, I'll just stick with my 1.5 hour drive from my front door to the hotel.
The car is an engineering miracle. It's one of my most useful possessions and I'll never voluntarily give up the personal mobility that it enables.
Consider alternatives.
Ok, I've considered them. Now what?
The car may be an environmental disaster, but I don't see how it's an engineering disaster?
It fulfils the desire to go from point A to point B in relative comfort at relative speed, at reasonable cost that scales to the local economy. US market cars tend to have lots of extraneous features and not be suitable for rugged roads; less developed economies get models with fewer comfort features, but a more robust suspension for use where roads are more aspirational. Autorickshaws are common in some places and unknown elsewhere, etc.
It fulfils the desire to go from point A to point B in relative comfort at relative speed, at reasonable cost that scales to the local economy. US market cars tend to have lots of extraneous features and not be suitable for rugged roads; less developed economies get models with fewer comfort features, but a more robust suspension for use where roads are more aspirational. Autorickshaws are common in some places and unknown elsewhere, etc.
There is no way for a human to operate a car safely over a mid to long period of time. The human brain does not have bandwidth to process all the information taken in while driving a car. Eventual the driver will get into an accident with a high probability of injury and possibly death. Cars are designed to filter information from the environment. A driver can't sense what is around them. Cars are too big and too heavy. Infrastructure demands are too great. The fuel costs are too high no matter what fuel you use. A cars fails on practically every meaningful metric.
Walking, biking, and public transit in a livable community is the only rational way forward.
Walking, biking, and public transit in a livable community is the only rational way forward.
Just because you're not a competent driver doesn't mean the rest of us are getting into accidents. Walking, biking, and public transit are great options for short trips with limited cargo. But none of those options are going to be viable in my lifetime for getting my daughter to a volleyball tournament 40 miles away at 7:00 AM on Saturday. Including hauling backpacks, folding chairs, boxes of snacks for the team, etc.
I've noticed that the arrogant and condescending people who are most opposed to cars tend to be childless young urbanites with very limited life experience. The rest of the country operates in a completely different way, and votes accordingly.
I've noticed that the arrogant and condescending people who are most opposed to cars tend to be childless young urbanites with very limited life experience. The rest of the country operates in a completely different way, and votes accordingly.
You over estimate you competence. Married, kids, and suburban.
> There is no way for a human to operate a car safely over a mid to long period of time.
My observed injury rate per vehicle mile, per trip, or per time spent, in a car is much lower than the same rates on a bicycle. Incidentally, my largest injury on a bike was due to street car rails, so thanks public transit for making the roads less safe for bicycling. I can't count the number of times I've tripped while walking, resulting in mostly minor injuries, but nevertheless more injuries than I've sustained in automobiles (not counting violence from siblings). Lack of safety restraints on public transit mean more minor injuries from sudden stops as well.
> Cars are too big and too heavy
Autorickshaws are much smaller, lighter, and more fuel efficient. Plus they're cute!
> Infrastructure demands are too great
Infrastructure demands for cars scale. You can use cars if you can get fuel to enough fueling stations and have cleared trees and other obstacles from paths. Pavement is optional but encouraged. Parking lots are nice to have, but any cleared space works. You don't get a lot of speed, and probably not much fuel efficiency, but it works. Paved roads are nicer, and they get built because they're useful. Of course, busses and bicycles like paved roads too (paving for bikes requires a lot lower standard too).
If you can't get fuel to fueling stations, there's things like wood gasifiers[1], although gasoline and diesel are much more scalable if the infrastructure is present.
> Walking, biking, and public transit in a livable community is the only rational way forward.
This would severely limit the scope of livable communities. Or at least significantly increase transit time for many to most activities. Those are all great options, when available and appropriate, but a lot of times it's not the best mode of transportation and often it's not even appropriate. The diversity of origin/destination pairs in most metropolitan areas of a certain size makes it very hard for most users to be served by direct public transit routes, and hub and spoke routing makes a lot of trips turn into first go 30 minutes in the wrong direction, then 30 minutes in the right direction, when a point to point automobile trip would be much less time.
I can't imagine some of my recent trips working well with public transit. Especially those trips where I'm carrying sports equipment for multiple people not traveling with me. How do you take three or four sets of hockey gear on a bicycle, or walking the half mile uphill from the bus stop to my home?
[1] https://www.amusingplanet.com/2022/02/wood-gas-vehicles-cars...
My observed injury rate per vehicle mile, per trip, or per time spent, in a car is much lower than the same rates on a bicycle. Incidentally, my largest injury on a bike was due to street car rails, so thanks public transit for making the roads less safe for bicycling. I can't count the number of times I've tripped while walking, resulting in mostly minor injuries, but nevertheless more injuries than I've sustained in automobiles (not counting violence from siblings). Lack of safety restraints on public transit mean more minor injuries from sudden stops as well.
> Cars are too big and too heavy
Autorickshaws are much smaller, lighter, and more fuel efficient. Plus they're cute!
> Infrastructure demands are too great
Infrastructure demands for cars scale. You can use cars if you can get fuel to enough fueling stations and have cleared trees and other obstacles from paths. Pavement is optional but encouraged. Parking lots are nice to have, but any cleared space works. You don't get a lot of speed, and probably not much fuel efficiency, but it works. Paved roads are nicer, and they get built because they're useful. Of course, busses and bicycles like paved roads too (paving for bikes requires a lot lower standard too).
If you can't get fuel to fueling stations, there's things like wood gasifiers[1], although gasoline and diesel are much more scalable if the infrastructure is present.
> Walking, biking, and public transit in a livable community is the only rational way forward.
This would severely limit the scope of livable communities. Or at least significantly increase transit time for many to most activities. Those are all great options, when available and appropriate, but a lot of times it's not the best mode of transportation and often it's not even appropriate. The diversity of origin/destination pairs in most metropolitan areas of a certain size makes it very hard for most users to be served by direct public transit routes, and hub and spoke routing makes a lot of trips turn into first go 30 minutes in the wrong direction, then 30 minutes in the right direction, when a point to point automobile trip would be much less time.
I can't imagine some of my recent trips working well with public transit. Especially those trips where I'm carrying sports equipment for multiple people not traveling with me. How do you take three or four sets of hockey gear on a bicycle, or walking the half mile uphill from the bus stop to my home?
[1] https://www.amusingplanet.com/2022/02/wood-gas-vehicles-cars...
In the future you will not have a choice. Cars are already gone you just don't know it yet.
Wait'll you hear my plans for your future.
In the future, my transportation may be more limited. In the mean time, I'm going to use the best option I have for my needs. If cars are gone, most of the places I've lived are uninhabitable, and I'll have to live somewhere I'd rather not live, so there's that.
Regardless of the legal mechanics of leases and ownership, as soon as this capability exists it will become the target of ransomware, pranks, and law enforcement (who will 'ask' to activate the car's self-driving capability for just long enough to perform a search. Sure, there was no consent, but you didn't pick up the phone in time.)
It's disheartening that generic concepts like these are considered patentable. Even without the dystopian features this is hardly an invention that merits protecting with a 20 year government enforced monopoly. This particular application is still pending but presumably Ford's patent attorneys considered it attainable.
The real story here is that Ford incentivizes employees to write patents (though I doubt very much this makes them particularly unique). Beyond that, the technology required to support this functionality is so far ahead of what's available today (or likely to be available anytime soon) that it's not worth a serious debate.
I used to work for an automotive OEM. I can confirm this. We got regular (yearly) reminders to submit patient ideas for concepts we’d come up with. There was a bonus incentive once the patent was awarded (maybe just submitted) It was something on the order of $500-1000 IIRC.
Our lawyers were pragmatic about it. They were very clear that the concept should be novel and plausible, and were willing to offer guidance and help with the text of the parent. It was neat, and I wish I’d taken advantage of it.
Our lawyers were pragmatic about it. They were very clear that the concept should be novel and plausible, and were willing to offer guidance and help with the text of the parent. It was neat, and I wish I’d taken advantage of it.
Tech company patent programs I've worked with tend to offer that kind of money for a submitted patent application, and another amount if it's issued while you're there, plus a patent trinket (was patent cubes at one place, and patent idea lamps at another).
The inventor would submit ideas to the patent staff, if selected, spend an hour or so describing it to staff who write the patent application; the inventor reviews and clarifies, etc a couple rounds, and then it's submitted.
The inventor would submit ideas to the patent staff, if selected, spend an hour or so describing it to staff who write the patent application; the inventor reviews and clarifies, etc a couple rounds, and then it's submitted.
[deleted]
Cars is one thing, the real problem is going to be when corporations own all the houses and rentals and they get politicians to automate and streamline the eviction process to just a month and it auto-locks you out so they can get a new waiting-list tenant.
Go on, tell me that's not going to happen by the end of the decade at this rate.
Go on, tell me that's not going to happen by the end of the decade at this rate.
It's partially here already: my Ford breaks down when I skip a payment. Then again, it breaks down when I pay also.
Thanks and this needs to be immediately banned by regulators.
It'll be a net profit loss because its expensive to implement, the lawsuits when it kidnaps children in car seats and whatever will be expensive.
But we will be stuck with it anyway, because of risk aversion. Any car that could have been repo'd at the click of a mouse but doesn't have the functionality will result in explaining to the boss why shareholder value was wasted in that individual situation. It doesn't matter that the project overall will be a net financial loss, just need to avoid that awkward convo with the boss for that one incident.
So we'll all eventually be stuck with this, and we'll all be poorer because of it. But at least risk will be lower and no one will have their feelings hurt at work.
But we will be stuck with it anyway, because of risk aversion. Any car that could have been repo'd at the click of a mouse but doesn't have the functionality will result in explaining to the boss why shareholder value was wasted in that individual situation. It doesn't matter that the project overall will be a net financial loss, just need to avoid that awkward convo with the boss for that one incident.
So we'll all eventually be stuck with this, and we'll all be poorer because of it. But at least risk will be lower and no one will have their feelings hurt at work.
This seems like nothing but a bunch of existing technologies. Checking account status is not new, updating product software or behavior settings based on account status is not new, automatic driving is not new. Is there really anything new here?
I can just imagine the chaos caused by 100s of thousands of cars simultaneously re-possessing themselves due to a bug. And the inevitable victims, that are up to date on their payments, without access to their car in an emergency due to a bug.
BUD: "I can't leave her car in this bad area. Look I need some helpful soul to drive it for me, okay? She's pregnant. She's with twins. She could drop at any time. All right?"
AUTO: "Ok."
AUTO: "Ok."
At first I thought that this is a really odd business differentiator.
Then I realized this is meant for lenders. Ford has a credit and leasing company, which might be the actual target of this. The rest is superfluous.
Then I realized this is meant for lenders. Ford has a credit and leasing company, which might be the actual target of this. The rest is superfluous.
I just had an idea: how about a car that makes you stop by the side of the road to watch 2 minutes of ads before being able to continue. And for a certain amount you can unlock adless travel.
So I guess we can look forward to world's first trillion dollar lawsuit when one of those backs up from a driveway to drive itself to junkard and kills a kid.
How is this new, novel and non-obvious? Do we just give a sticky gold star to the Ford lawyer who pushed through an obviously defective application, and move on?
This brings to mind Philip K. Dick’s book Ubik, the scene where the apartment door (which btw has a personality) won’t open due to lack of payment
Except for the subtle fact that autonomous driving doesn't work with current ml/dl technology, so really not an issue at all at the moment.
This article is over-dramatizing what is essentially just a patent document. Companies often write patents for ideas they will likely never execute. It's easy/cheap for them to write, and on the off chance a competitor ever implements it, they can sue.
It would be very unlikely any car company would have this "feature". It's just a litigation nightmare waiting to happen.
It would be very unlikely any car company would have this "feature". It's just a litigation nightmare waiting to happen.
I would remain calm, this is just a patent. I would not be surprised if it surfaced from some internal patent-storming event with no intention from the company to actually pursue it.
Such patents are among few other things useful for the company to convince investors that it innovates: "Look we have 100 patents in this area in the past year".
Such patents are among few other things useful for the company to convince investors that it innovates: "Look we have 100 patents in this area in the past year".
Having worked in the repossession industry I can tell you it's a messy one. It's become such a sh*t show between vendors and the actual agents/companies, it's a fight to who can bid the lowest for each car. Also I'm not sure how this will work, there is so much regulation in the repossession industry.
Looks like every company wants to extract rent, from software to cars, ownership is going away. Time to claw back.
Ha! This trope started with Tesla, though that threat is much more credible given where FSD is at. (By "much more credible," I mean "more theoretically possible, but not very likely to happen"). I guess Ford should feel flattered that they are being compared to Tesla like this!
Just read up on the "Robo-signing Scandal" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_foreclosure...) and you quickly see why this is a really bad idea.
TLDR: bank has systems issues, thinks you are in default due to bugs, systems "robosign" legal documents saying you are in default, repo home, kick you out, swear to courts it is true, and basically get away with a slap on the wrist
TLDR: bank has systems issues, thinks you are in default due to bugs, systems "robosign" legal documents saying you are in default, repo home, kick you out, swear to courts it is true, and basically get away with a slap on the wrist
Also similar, “Robodebt” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robodebt_scheme
Any system that can be built or imagined will be hacked. Something as simple as pulling a fuse that would take down the vehicles Internet might be all that is needed to prevent this from happening. I don't think the repo men will be out of a job anytime soon.
I'm sure they'll put a very robust algorithm in place to ensure no wrongful repossessions will happen. I'm also sure that, if they ever somehow did, there will be a very accessible customer service system that will be able to resolve the issue.
I could see this getting hacked with everyone waking up to all the cars driving to the beach!
Well-off people can buy or rent cars without difficulty. Increasing the security of cars as collateral will reduce the credit risk of car loans and therefore the car loan interest rates charged to borrowers with low credit scores.
I hope the repossession function verifies there is no human or animal is in the car when it drives away! Though people could then keep a fake baby in the backseat to prevent their car from repossessing itself.
This isn't surprising at all. It's basically DRM for a physical object.
Leave it to Ford to find even more and novel ways to make their customers walk.
This is like talking about "de"Platforming... why doesn't anyone talk about how these people GOT their platform and why people kept giving them a platform? Capitalism.
"re"Possess? How about talking about Possessing in the first place?
Why do we have so much "garbage" parked on our streets, namely cars that are owned but not used?
Just like the American Dream of owning a home (and working 30 years to pay the money you rented to do that), or De Beers diamonds, or College, or whatever, there is a concerted effort to make you crave that thing and make that big-ticket purchase. Mainly to give into all the social pressure mechanisms.
The car manufacturer industry relies on this kind of stuff -- to sell more cars. And sometimes they dial it to an 11:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNzXze5Yza8
And the fossil fuel industry had relied for decades on colluding with them to make sure cars are locked into one type of fuel (fossil fuels). All your other appliances have long ago been able to take electricity -- so they can be powered by hydro, geothermal, solar, wind, nuclear fission, and even fusion as soon as it's enabled. But not cars, no.
And government of course worked hand-in-hand with industry to subsidize fossil fuels and delay electric cars and battery tech: https://vimeo.com/547118547
The only people that this article would alarm are those who believe they want to own a self-driving car. Most people would just time-share them, and self-driving cars would be operated by Uber (another hyper-capitalist company that currently takes 50% of all drivers' wages, but soon the robots will replace them so it won't be an issue).
And we would finally have less parked cars on the streets, open more lanes, and the cities can become more beautiful.
"re"Possess? How about talking about Possessing in the first place?
Why do we have so much "garbage" parked on our streets, namely cars that are owned but not used?
Just like the American Dream of owning a home (and working 30 years to pay the money you rented to do that), or De Beers diamonds, or College, or whatever, there is a concerted effort to make you crave that thing and make that big-ticket purchase. Mainly to give into all the social pressure mechanisms.
The car manufacturer industry relies on this kind of stuff -- to sell more cars. And sometimes they dial it to an 11:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNzXze5Yza8
And the fossil fuel industry had relied for decades on colluding with them to make sure cars are locked into one type of fuel (fossil fuels). All your other appliances have long ago been able to take electricity -- so they can be powered by hydro, geothermal, solar, wind, nuclear fission, and even fusion as soon as it's enabled. But not cars, no.
And government of course worked hand-in-hand with industry to subsidize fossil fuels and delay electric cars and battery tech: https://vimeo.com/547118547
The only people that this article would alarm are those who believe they want to own a self-driving car. Most people would just time-share them, and self-driving cars would be operated by Uber (another hyper-capitalist company that currently takes 50% of all drivers' wages, but soon the robots will replace them so it won't be an issue).
And we would finally have less parked cars on the streets, open more lanes, and the cities can become more beautiful.
Ford (or any finance company) will presumably offer cheaper financing if they know that their repo costs are lowered by this functionality.
What if it's behind a locked gate?
It’ll still do all the annoying things like disable the air con or make an annoying noise.
The full self repossession thing is just another use case for full self drive, which is complete fantasy land on the part of automakers.
The full self repossession thing is just another use case for full self drive, which is complete fantasy land on the part of automakers.
> It’ll still do all the annoying things like disable the air con or make an annoying noise.
So, it will do what every Ford I've owned since the 80s will do...
So, it will do what every Ford I've owned since the 80s will do...
Actually it’s worse, it’s full self drive with an actively hostile adversary (the person that wants to keep their car). This is about as tough as it gets for AI.
Initiating VTOL sequence...
If the car won’t start it’d be like a giant paperweight
Engineer Patents Vehicle Anti-Theft Device That Spikes Tires if Code Not Entered Before Moving
Wow, the future is going to suck.
If it kills someone on the way to repossession, is the owner at fault for not paying?
If the cars can drive themselves around, does anyone really need to own them?
Time to buy Lada stupid LADA.
More rent-seeking, more of the "you will own nothing and like it."
<sarcasm>I would really like to buy such car!</sarcasm>
As if you'd "buy" such a car. I imagine Ford would love getting rid of the idea of car ownership in exchange for years-long rentals, as long as you keep paying them for the privilege.
[deleted]
Repo man is always inside
Time for jail breaking cars to become a real and popular thing!
This is a great argument for improved public transport.
How to guarantee I never buy a Ford again in one easy step
Car boots are going to have a whole new market
Great! The average new car in the US costs $50k, but Ford decides to patent a way to help repo these overly expensive cars instead of making cars less expensive.
This isn't the future anyone wanted.
Another reason to own a manual :)
Will it follow the repo code?
I'm wondering if this article is aimed at boomers? nobody i know that is slightly tech-literate believes that autonomous self-driving will be a thing anymore, at least they haven't since ~2018.
Great, now we're going to get country music about how some guy's truck left him.
ChatGPT to the rescue:
Verse 1: I had a trusty truck, my pride and joy Took me everywhere, never did destroy But times were tough, I fell behind Missed some payments, the bank declined
Chorus: Now my truck's gone, it drove away Left me feeling low, I gotta say I'm stuck here on this dusty land Holding onto memories of what I had
Verse 2: That old truck had a mind of its own But it always knew the way back home Now it's gone, and I'm all alone Sitting here, trying not to moan
Chorus: Now my truck's gone, it drove away Left me feeling low, I gotta say I'm stuck here on this dusty land Holding onto memories of what I had
Bridge: I should have known better, I should have tried To keep my payments up, to keep my ride Now I'm here, looking at the road Wondering where my truck has gone to roam
Chorus: Now my truck's gone, it drove away Left me feeling low, I gotta say I'm stuck here on this dusty land Holding onto memories of what I had
Outro: Maybe someday, I'll get another ride One that won't drive away, won't make me cry But for now, I'll just sit here and sing About the truck that was my everything.
Verse 1: I had a trusty truck, my pride and joy Took me everywhere, never did destroy But times were tough, I fell behind Missed some payments, the bank declined
Chorus: Now my truck's gone, it drove away Left me feeling low, I gotta say I'm stuck here on this dusty land Holding onto memories of what I had
Verse 2: That old truck had a mind of its own But it always knew the way back home Now it's gone, and I'm all alone Sitting here, trying not to moan
Chorus: Now my truck's gone, it drove away Left me feeling low, I gotta say I'm stuck here on this dusty land Holding onto memories of what I had
Bridge: I should have known better, I should have tried To keep my payments up, to keep my ride Now I'm here, looking at the road Wondering where my truck has gone to roam
Chorus: Now my truck's gone, it drove away Left me feeling low, I gotta say I'm stuck here on this dusty land Holding onto memories of what I had
Outro: Maybe someday, I'll get another ride One that won't drive away, won't make me cry But for now, I'll just sit here and sing About the truck that was my everything.
Needs more pandering
Verse 1: Had a pickup truck, my favorite toy, Whiskey in console, feeling coy, Drove on dirt roads, feeling free, With a girl on the tailgate, in tight blue jeans for all to see.
Chorus: My truck left me, feeling stuck, Drinking whiskey in my blue jeans, feeling yuck, Miss the girl on the tailgate, her pretty look, Truck is gone, now I cry like a rook.
Verse 2: Fell behind on payments, lost my ride, The truck drove off, with the girl by its side, She wore tight blue jeans, hugged her curves just right, Now the truck and the girl are out of sight.
Chorus: My truck left me, feeling stuck, Drinking whiskey in my blue jeans, feeling yuck, Miss the girl on the tailgate, her pretty look, Truck is gone, now I cry like a rook.
Bridge: It was just a truck, I know, But its departure dealt a painful blow, I'll find a new ride and try to mend, But memories of the girl and the truck will never end.
Chorus: My truck left me, feeling stuck, Drinking whiskey in my blue jeans, feeling yuck, Miss the girl on the tailgate, her pretty look, Truck is gone, now I cry like a rook.
Outro: Maybe one day my truck will return, With the girl in tight blue jeans for all to yearn, Until then, I'll sip my whiskey and dream, Of the truck and the girl, a perfect team.
Verse 1: Had a pickup truck, my favorite toy, Whiskey in console, feeling coy, Drove on dirt roads, feeling free, With a girl on the tailgate, in tight blue jeans for all to see.
Chorus: My truck left me, feeling stuck, Drinking whiskey in my blue jeans, feeling yuck, Miss the girl on the tailgate, her pretty look, Truck is gone, now I cry like a rook.
Verse 2: Fell behind on payments, lost my ride, The truck drove off, with the girl by its side, She wore tight blue jeans, hugged her curves just right, Now the truck and the girl are out of sight.
Chorus: My truck left me, feeling stuck, Drinking whiskey in my blue jeans, feeling yuck, Miss the girl on the tailgate, her pretty look, Truck is gone, now I cry like a rook.
Bridge: It was just a truck, I know, But its departure dealt a painful blow, I'll find a new ride and try to mend, But memories of the girl and the truck will never end.
Chorus: My truck left me, feeling stuck, Drinking whiskey in my blue jeans, feeling yuck, Miss the girl on the tailgate, her pretty look, Truck is gone, now I cry like a rook.
Outro: Maybe one day my truck will return, With the girl in tight blue jeans for all to yearn, Until then, I'll sip my whiskey and dream, Of the truck and the girl, a perfect team.
Was this song written by ChatGPT or a pair of blue jeans?
Not a fan of the implicit approval of drinking and driving.
Sometimes pop country seems mostly like an advertisement for alcoholism.
ChatGPT sucks
It didn't even mention a can of beer or shotgun
It didn't even mention a can of beer or shotgun
Take my angry upvote.
"My truck done left me and my cellphone said I'm broke"
"My truck done left me and my cellphone said I'm broke"
FWIW, this was the number one comment yesterday on the Reddit thread about this.
When I read the parent comment, I thought “Am I on Reddit?”.
HN used to bury Reddit-like comments a while back, but it seems the Reddit influence is becoming more and more accepted on HN these days, as I’m starting to see them more at the top vs. the bottom of threads.
HN used to bury Reddit-like comments a while back, but it seems the Reddit influence is becoming more and more accepted on HN these days, as I’m starting to see them more at the top vs. the bottom of threads.
I agree. I was not sure if it was just me making this up, but I have been browsing hacker news for 2 years now, and yet I do noticed some kind of regime shift where reddit-like comments are more prominent. I dont like this development, as HN used to be a safe-space from the reddit hivemind, I wish HN moderation would more heavily moderate them.
Edit: Thanks for the upvotes kind stranger!
Edit: Thanks for the upvotes kind stranger!
Serious question. Are there any alternatives to HN? Been reading HN on and off since 2010 and the decline to this is painfully obvious. Used to learn a lot from reading on here but now only check or post out of habit and lack of a high quality alternative.
[deleted]
HN guidelines quote:
"Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Whether it actually is, or is not, is irrelevant.
"Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Whether it actually is, or is not, is irrelevant.
But Jader's account is over ten years old, as is mine, so I don't think you can credibly accuse them of being a noob. I happen to believe that HN has gotten substantially worse, and more Reddit-like over the 15 years I've been using it. That said, this change is likely because more people (from a broader spectrum of backgrounds) are using it, and the site's total utility has probably increased.
The total utility has increased for who? Not for me. Half the time when I want to have a more nuanced discussion or talk about primary sources it just doesn't happen.
I didn't say it. The site rules do.
They're guidelines, and they say it's an illusion. The examples linked are to accounts only a few months old, from 14 years ago. At this point, some of us have been around long enough to understand what's going on.
It's a great way to get up to the 500+ threshold as a full account here on HN.
We can't keep reddit influence out entirely. But with heavy moderation, we can keep out the worst of it, and that will have to be good enough.
If you liked my comment, please upvote and subscribe, and consider donating to my Patreon to have access to my future comments one day earlier.
If you liked my comment, please upvote and subscribe, and consider donating to my Patreon to have access to my future comments one day earlier.
I think you’ve confused Reddit and youtube
I thought Reddit is the “Internet”? And YouTube is the television…
Yeah these comments are awful. Someone even wrote, “take my upvote.” Not a good look for HN discus quality.
Back on topic:
I find this hard to believe, what happens if it repossess itself by mistake? Gets in an accident on the way home during said repo? Especially since nowadays most Fords are just oversized trucks.
And why is this even a desired feature? Is the average Ford customer that untrustworthy? I’m curious what the expected amount of use for a feature like this is.
In any case, autonomous driving isn’t far along enough yet for this to be practical and out in the streets, so I wonder how it even got approval.
Back on topic:
I find this hard to believe, what happens if it repossess itself by mistake? Gets in an accident on the way home during said repo? Especially since nowadays most Fords are just oversized trucks.
And why is this even a desired feature? Is the average Ford customer that untrustworthy? I’m curious what the expected amount of use for a feature like this is.
In any case, autonomous driving isn’t far along enough yet for this to be practical and out in the streets, so I wonder how it even got approval.
I take it to mean they're writing this into the lease agreement in readiness for full autonomous driving.
Desired feature for leasing companies and as to damage after the company takes remote possession I expect the same shenanigans you get when returning rentals.
Desired feature for leasing companies and as to damage after the company takes remote possession I expect the same shenanigans you get when returning rentals.
Aren't mistaken repossessions and accidents during repossession things that happen already? The used car market is incredibly predatory and full of the same car getting repeatedly repossessed from new owners.
I’m sure they are, though probably pretty rare.
But my comment isn’t about the occurrence of them, it’s about the muddied waters when a vehicle repo’s itself with no driver. Who’s at fault if the vehicle crashes?
The purchaser of the vehicle clearly did not crash - they may not even know the vehicle was being repo’d. So then is the dealership or bank to blame? (If so, will this add to higher premiums?) Say a predatory dealership has some stake in the game. Given the asymmetry of information, maybe they will claim the car wasn’t being repo’d at all, rather the purchaser must have caused the damage and lied.
What if no repo even occurs but the software malfunction?
It just seems like such a mess.
But my comment isn’t about the occurrence of them, it’s about the muddied waters when a vehicle repo’s itself with no driver. Who’s at fault if the vehicle crashes?
The purchaser of the vehicle clearly did not crash - they may not even know the vehicle was being repo’d. So then is the dealership or bank to blame? (If so, will this add to higher premiums?) Say a predatory dealership has some stake in the game. Given the asymmetry of information, maybe they will claim the car wasn’t being repo’d at all, rather the purchaser must have caused the damage and lied.
What if no repo even occurs but the software malfunction?
It just seems like such a mess.
i think is based on the fact that more devs have been raised by reddit by now ;)
For instance:
i found hn throuh r/hackernews
For instance:
i found hn throuh r/hackernews
"but I won't let that bother me like it does other folk. I'll stand out on the roadside, thumb up in the air, and wait for some good passer buy to show me that they care"
Elon says I'm lazy.
I think he's a joke.
Folks told me to learn to code.
That's great, but now I'm broke.
Little do they know, I might not be thrifty.
But I still have my ol' F150.
And my tractor tole' me I don't matter, ever since John Deere told me to Steer clear, from them old repairs. Used to be, you could fix'em for free, now it's all John Deere IP.
Edit: And Monsanto, don't you know, told me ya'best not go, usin' your own seeds.
(no joke folks, I think there's some real potential for a satire country song here, I'm thinkin' by a Jonathan Coulton type singer)
Edit: And Monsanto, don't you know, told me ya'best not go, usin' your own seeds.
(no joke folks, I think there's some real potential for a satire country song here, I'm thinkin' by a Jonathan Coulton type singer)
I had to ask ChatGPT to write one
Verse 1: My truck was my pride and joy, it was my everything But now it's gone, and I'm feeling the sting Ford said I couldn't pay, so they took it away And now I'm left here, with nothing to say
Chorus: My truck done left me, and my heart is broke I'm just a heartbroken man, and it ain't no joke But I'll find a way to get back on my feet And maybe someday, my truck and I will meet
Verse 2: Elon says I'm lazy, but he don't know me I worked hard every day, but still couldn't keep my truck, you see Folks told me to learn to code, but that ain't for me I just want my truck back, and to be free
Chorus: My truck done left me, and my heart is broke I'm just a heartbroken man, and it ain't no joke But I'll find a way to get back on my feet And maybe someday, my truck and I will meet
Verse 3: My tractor used to be my trusty steed But John Deere said I couldn't fix it, no indeed Used to be, I could do it all myself But now it's all about John Deere's wealth
Chorus: My truck done left me, and my heart is broke I'm just a heartbroken man, and it ain't no joke But I'll find a way to get back on my feet And maybe someday, my truck and I will meet
Verse 4: Monsanto told me not to plant my own seeds But I didn't listen, and now I'm in need Of some help, to get back on my feet But I won't give up, no, not me
Chorus: My truck done left me, and my heart is broke I'm just a heartbroken man, and it ain't no joke But I'll find a way to get back on my feet And maybe someday, my truck and I will meet
Outro: My truck may be gone, but I still have my pride And I won't let anyone, take that away inside I'll find a way to make it right And maybe someday, my truck will be back in sight.
Verse 1: My truck was my pride and joy, it was my everything But now it's gone, and I'm feeling the sting Ford said I couldn't pay, so they took it away And now I'm left here, with nothing to say
Chorus: My truck done left me, and my heart is broke I'm just a heartbroken man, and it ain't no joke But I'll find a way to get back on my feet And maybe someday, my truck and I will meet
Verse 2: Elon says I'm lazy, but he don't know me I worked hard every day, but still couldn't keep my truck, you see Folks told me to learn to code, but that ain't for me I just want my truck back, and to be free
Chorus: My truck done left me, and my heart is broke I'm just a heartbroken man, and it ain't no joke But I'll find a way to get back on my feet And maybe someday, my truck and I will meet
Verse 3: My tractor used to be my trusty steed But John Deere said I couldn't fix it, no indeed Used to be, I could do it all myself But now it's all about John Deere's wealth
Chorus: My truck done left me, and my heart is broke I'm just a heartbroken man, and it ain't no joke But I'll find a way to get back on my feet And maybe someday, my truck and I will meet
Verse 4: Monsanto told me not to plant my own seeds But I didn't listen, and now I'm in need Of some help, to get back on my feet But I won't give up, no, not me
Chorus: My truck done left me, and my heart is broke I'm just a heartbroken man, and it ain't no joke But I'll find a way to get back on my feet And maybe someday, my truck and I will meet
Outro: My truck may be gone, but I still have my pride And I won't let anyone, take that away inside I'll find a way to make it right And maybe someday, my truck will be back in sight.
Someone on reddit posted something extremely similar to this!
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11dnngu/future_...
Except theirs is way funnier :)
edit- err sorry, it was this one!
https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/11drf6o/future...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11dnngu/future_...
Except theirs is way funnier :)
edit- err sorry, it was this one!
https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/11drf6o/future...
Aite I'm sold
I had some fun with the ChatGPT prompt:
> Write a country song about a guy whose truck left him. The first verse starts "My truck done left me and my cellphone said I'm broke"
> Write a country song about a guy whose truck left him. The first verse starts "My truck done left me and my cellphone said I'm broke"
I thought country music was already about my wife died, my dog won't start, and my truck ran away?
No: your beer died, you cried into your dog, and your wife wouldn't start.
Yes: your truck still ran away with your fishing boat and eloped on BLM land.
Yes: your truck still ran away with your fishing boat and eloped on BLM land.
You know what happens when you play it backwards?
You get out of jail, your wife comes back, your dog comes back to life, you get your truck back, you get your farm back...
You get out of jail, your wife comes back, your dog comes back to life, you get your truck back, you get your farm back...
[deleted]
With narrow AI, the truck will drive to the Austin-Bergstrom airport and launch a generative country music career. (There are venues at AUS where country music legends play.)
Ford: Fix or Repossess Daily
"Jesus took the wheel..."
This but unironically.
[deleted]
Funny but reddit-tier comment, dang??
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Taking a look at this now, for the first time in months. There's nothing in here about comedy not being allowed. It does discourage users from making comments like yours, though.
Shallow jokes to break up heavy conversations, like about our society slipping into a dystopia, are very human.
Taking a look at this now, for the first time in months. There's nothing in here about comedy not being allowed. It does discourage users from making comments like yours, though.
Shallow jokes to break up heavy conversations, like about our society slipping into a dystopia, are very human.
[deleted]
Violently capitalist car.
I'm pretty happy with the old, non-Internet-connected car that I drive. My phone already has all the smarts that my car needs for navigation and playing media and stuff. And from backup cameras to safer lane changing to full self driving, I can't think of a feature that I'd want to be built into the car and Internet-connected except for remote start (not sure I'd use it) or full-on "tell my car to drive somewhere without me."