undefined | Better HN

0 pointsArainach8d ago0 comments

There's no need when OBD does just fine for this purpose.

It's also not clear what the purpose of this line of argument is. Some sensor says "car is moving". The operating system in the car/head unit is responsible for enforcing that signal, and it could ignore it equally from either OBD or some pile of gyroscopes. Where that signal comes from has nothing to do with why you will not see cars accepting custom operating systems.

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

ssl-38d ago· 1 in thread

> It's also not clear what the purpose of this line of argument is.

It completely dismantles your previous goalposts, which were planted firmly on GPS:

>> Not with the necessary precision. GPS doesn't work in tunnels or parking garages and can be wildly inaccurate in city centers with skyscrapers blocking line of sight, for instance.

(I guess we all have the freedom to be as flexible with our goalposts as we wish. I didn't come here for a tireless argument that is motivated by nothing but the desire to argue, though. Have a great day!)

ArainachOP8d ago

My line of argument is "the head unit is responsible for not allowing video playback while in motion". Anything to do with detecting motion came after that.

dylan6048d ago· 1 in thread

The point of argument is that it no longer becomes a security issue to allow customOS on the infotainment system because it absolutely has no connection to the engine computer.

ArainachOP8d ago

This is not an architectural issue. The threat isn't a bad OS causing the car to explode. This is a safety issue where the car is required to prohibit certain things - such as video playback.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse