I use “m”. Here is how to set the default btw:

git config set --global init.defaultBranch m

So we transition to Ethanol or what? What climate-friendly fuels is he thinking about?

I guess what they want is a smooth transition where they can devise a reliable plan until 2035 when to sell how many cars of what variant.

Worst case would be that they customers buy only ICE cars until 2035 and then nothing because of a ban. Then it makes no sense to build EVs until its too late.

Mercedes calls it „Drive Pilot“. Did your EQS have that?

Tesla is not self-driving, just SAE level 2. Mercedes is actually level 3.

Tesla wants to do it without LiDAR which seems hopeless to me.

Not sure about the “50 times safer” claim but a common mistake: Sober humans are much better drivers than humans in general (including drugged ones). Something like 100 times if I remember it correctly.

Chink

And yet you use a offensive slur for them?

They want to contrast it to Tesla which is a lot of fanfare without delivering.

Yes, it works like that for me. Now I’m confused.

Does this count as “backwards-compatibility”? 😄

Somehow this is only a link to image but not to the full post. Original post if anybody else has the same problem.

Similarities to the Toyota history in the 60s?

It isn’t known what parts are short. Are they from China, EU, Mexico, …?

The ADAS industry hopes that this is a way around costly QNX licenses.

Hacker News has quite some discussion on this.

“Software is supposed to be soft,” Field says, “and the industry has made it hard and made it match up to the physical boxes. So to me, like the biggest thing is, are you making your software soft, putting it where you need it to be, and not being at the whim of the legacy of where all the software sits?”

The tradeoff is that “softer” software requires more verification work on the receiver side because there is too much variation for the supplier to test everything like before. OEMs don’t accept that responsibility in my experience and try to outsource it back to the suppliers. It gets only superficially resolved during acquisition and later it becomes a blame game resulting in “surprise” costs. Well, not surprising to the engineers usually.

From the suppliers point of view, there is currently chaos. Every OEMs has very unique requirements and it is not feasible to offer scaling products. That means high costs for the OEMs because more stuff is custom-built.

OEMs handle this very differently. Some try to pull things in-house (Ford FNV4, VW CARIAD) but now find out that it is too costly. Others try make suppliers collaborate more closely (Continuous Integration!) but find out that the old patterns (plugging black-boxes) prevail.

I imagine all the big OEM managers are quite frustrated now because nothing seems to work. Meanwhile the “new kids” wonder why they struggle.