Rivian says "fat finger" caused software update to brick infotainment systems, physical servicing may be required
Rivian says "fat finger" caused software update to brick infotainment systems, physical servicing may be required
Today’s cars are more like computers on wheels, and even a seemingly routine software update can lead to unexpected consequences. Rivian unfortunately experienced a “fat finger” mishap with their latest software update, bricking infotainment systems [...]
Rivian says "fat finger" caused software update to brick infotainment systems, physical servicing may be required::Today’s cars are more like computers on wheels, and even a seemingly routine software update can lead to unexpected consequences. Rivian unfortunately experienced a “fat finger” mishap with their latest software update, bricking infotainment systems [...]
You're viewing a single thread.
I would think they would keep at least 1 of each model/trim of vehicle for testing these things. This leads me to believe one of the following:
- Too tight of deadlines
- Cheap management won't pay for testing time or units
- Culture of pencil whipping
- A bad apple didn't do their job, which should be caught by procedures
I got an offer for software engineering role at Rivian a few years ago. The pay was low.
That's typical of the automotive industry, they don't pay anyone reasonably, they treat the workers like shit, and then they get mad when the workers protest, unionize, or quit. This is how the automotive industry works from the top down, from the highest executive to the lowliest salesman.
Also from an IT/Development perspective, the money is usually meh, but also the technology is usually expected to be cutting edge, while on the backend they're cutting corners and costs, thus undermining that "cutting edge" factor.
I think it's more likely just typical dysfunctional software industry workflows. Companies that actually test their software adequately before deployment are the exception, not the norm. That's different from what you said in your second bullet point because it's not even an issue of cheapness, it's an issue of not actually understanding what the best practices need to be.
I mean... those "typical dysfunctions" are what OP described. You're just describing the general state of the industry, not providing further examples of disfunction.
No, the parent commenter attributed it to management not wanting to spend money. I'm attributing it to management being incompetent instead, which isn't the same thing. Spending even unlimited amounts of money is not sufficient to fix what's wrong.
¿Porque no los dos?
All of the above.