The cars actually CANNOT run without the code, firstly there are far more computers in the vehicle than the Ecm or engine control module. Secondly, stand alone engine management isn’t more advanced than the factory setup and generally high performance vehicles tune their factory maps with tuning software in the modern day.
There is no stand alone for climate control, auto roll up windows, keyless entry and starting systems, the instrument cluster, parking aid systems, adaptive cruise control, transmission control modules, etc. So technically that statement is right although the author saying, " Because of the software in the engine" makes me cringe because it’s very incorrectly stated.
Anyway, all that said GM sucks. However I think many of the other manufacturers would be in on it to.
And to a point I kind of understand it because of the following. I’m a German car mechanic, an Audi and VW specialist these cars in particular suffer greatly due to a public perception that they have more electrical problems, are unreliable, and more expensive to fix.
Much of that perception is brought on by people taking their vehicle to unqualified mechanics who use inferior parts that fail, incorrectly diagnose the vehicles and then charge customers for their incorrect repairs, and generally don’t know how to properly work on them. I can see how protecting that interest would help the company.
That said I don’t think it’s right to take that ability away from people and give car companies a monopoly, I’m an independent tech as well and I knew guys even at the dealer who weren’t good techs.
Bad analogy. The fallacy of broken windows is that while smashing windows is good for the glazier’s business, it doesn’t yield an economy-wide increase, since the glazier’s profit comes at the expense of the window-owner’s. It’s pretty much a wash, like two people handing the same $20 bill back and forth.
Self-checkout machines, though, decrease the erstwhile cashiers’ income disproportionately to the increase realized by the machine manufacturers and maintainers. That is, over time, the manufacturers are not going to gain as much as the cashiers are losing. It’s a net loss to the economy, borne on the backs of those least able to carry it.
Which is only a problem because the benefits of mechanization continue to accrue almost exclusively to the owners of the mecha. If less work meant everyone got a three-day workweek at the same wage we’d be living in a glorious IGY Epcot future. Instead 20% of the workforce gets laid off altogether and the rest see no benefit at all.
Bad analysis. You’re making the same mistake that people who say things like “paying glaziers (or cashiers) to do something that doesn’t need to be done is good for the economy”. You have to look at all parties directly and indirectly involved.
To spell it out, self-checkout machines are drastically less expensive than the manual labor + point of sale system that they replace. Retail is intensely competitive so those reduced costs benefit everybody with reduced prices.
I would never suggest eliminating the staffed terminals, but I wouldn’t be surprised if stores start charging a few dollars for the luxury of a human attendant.
They walk along the street, and see a turd. One dares the other one to eat it, for $10,000. The other thinks for a while, then does it and gets the money.
After a while, they see another turd. The economist #2 now challenges the first one, for the same money. The first one accepts the challenge and gets the money.
After another while #1 grumbles, “you know, we both ate crap but no one of us is any better than we were before.” #2 reacts, “sure, we’re both full of shit, but the gross national product increased by $20,000!”
The downside of having unemployed cashiers roaming the streets is far from balanced by some miniscule theoretical savings on groceries — which will evaporate as soon as the competition adopts self-checkout, nullifying the competitive advantage.
Competitive advantage? Where the hell did that come from?
When competitors adopt the same technology their prices can drop as well, benefiting even more people.
The problem isn’t that stores are getting to be too efficient, if anything the problem is that displaced workers don’t get sufficient support from their community and their government (this is really the same thing). That’s a sentiment I agree with.
Or do you also think ever elevators should still have an attendant to push the button for you? Should it be illegal for people to pump their own gas?
Fine, forget about competitive advantage, even though you were the one who brought up competition as a driver.
Cheaper groceries plus that influx of job seekers means downward pressure on wages. So now consumers leave the grocery store with the same amount of money in pocket they had with costlier groceries and higher wages, only there are more people out of work. In that Epcot utopia, that’s a good thing — machines are doing all the dull and dirty work, leaving us the wherewithal to seek higher purpose. But in our current system, the net result is a detriment.
Not really. You, however, are making the mistake of saying that “automating everything which can be automated (which is everything) is good for the economy.” It is indubitably good for the owner for the machines, and as @shaddack notes GDP might even go up, but I struggle to to believe the overall outcome is going to be a good one.
Anyway. Think global, act local. I want my kids - and other folks kids - to be able to find jobs. Therefore one of the things I’m doing is avoiding self-checkout. I fully understand that by doing this my groceries will be slightly more expensive because humans are more expensive to ‘run’ than robots, and I am happy to pay those higher prices because the benefit far exceeds the cost.
You don’t own your car anyway. The state holds the Manufacturer’s Statement of Origin (MSO) which is the actual title to the car and the document that establishes ownership. All you have is a “certificate” of title which basically does nothing but demonstrate that a real title (the MSO) exists somewhere else and that you’re borrowing/renting the vehicle from the state. So the government beat GM to the punch a very long time ago.
Oh, it’s legal to install 3rd party parts. They just won’t work, because the software is configured to prevent them from working, and if you try to get around that, you’re breaking the law.
Sure, because you define your terms such that it’s impossible to win, and
you’re the judge. A certificate of title is a title for all reasonable
purposes.
States like to record chains of legal ownership, as it makes it easier to prevent and prosecute Motor vehicle theft. The certificate of title is tangible evidence of this record. The Statement of Origin is a less legally cumbersome method of tying a vehicle to a car dealership, and serves as the first link, (but only the first link) in this chain of of ownership.
Or something along those lines. I don’t own or operate a automobile.
This is not unlike the argument over whether or not you “own” your body. If we really owned our bodies, we should be able to legally sell any part thereof, like a kidney, for example. Does that mean that the government actually owns our bodies?
