Zythryn wrote: It has more issues under certain circumstances than others and is still a work in progress.
And that's a major software system design problem where lives are affected by a software evolution in the field after the initial
design was fully tested and evaluated prior to the initial sales of a product. Software updates should only be done to fix critical initial
design flaws and NOT for system enhancements. Consumer products like cell phones or PCs are not as likely to risk lives by
evolving a software system over time. It's likely that the safety issue previously posted up-thread had been fully simulated
and tested for, i.e. prevented from happening, but when the system software was modified some parameter could have changed
allowing the problematic and potentially deadly scenario to occur.
Remember, for software systems as used for AI in the Tesla AP, there're most likely a number of software groups involved
in basically independent efforts. Most who have been involved in software development understand that a simple tweak
in one area may result in another area of the system being compromised when a unique path, i.e. set of infrequent occurrences,
becomes active and results in a system failure, e.g. a life threatening accident. It's very likely that most all OEM automotive AP
efforts will finalize the system design, fully simulate all known possible scenarios, and fully field test the AP system prior to any
consumer sales. Only for major design flaws that risk lives or compromise the initial system design specification will the OEMs
resort to firmware updates. If the consumer isn't happy over time with the features of the original AP system when the vehicle
was purchased, then it's time for another vehicle, as is the case when any vehicle system/feature ages.
#1 Leaf SL MY 9/13: 74K miles, 48 Ahrs, 5.2 miles/kWh (average), Hx=70, SOH=78, L2 - 100% > 1000, temp < 95F, (DOD) > 20 Ahrs
#2 Leaf SL MY 12/18: 4.5K miles, 115 Ahrs, 5.5 miles/kWh (average), Hx=98, SOH=99, DOD > 20%, temp < 105F