Until that bug causes a car to drive unexpectedly into a wall in the interim time until you've sent out a patch. The importance of being bug-free is much more driven by the potential damage caused by a bug than how quickly you can update the software.
do you think that the gasoline cars don't have software updates? their engine is nowadays all software controlled and theres a fw update plug, generally under your driving wheel.
and they'll update it when they service the car. how is that software any safer than the OTA?
Fear monger. What if what if what if... I'm not saying it couldn't happen, I'm just saying that possible new issues are no reason to persist the old issues
No. It's a car, and has the power to kill people on software malfunction, making it a critical system. Critical systems are tend to go through a much greater and more robust form of testing.
The destructive potential of a car exceeds that of a lot of handguns one can buy.
There have long been techniques for writing software as formal proofs of correctness. As far as I can tell, they haven't been popular with mainstream programmers because they are simply too different.
That is a really neat bit of fact; but, what does that have to do with what I was talking about? I really would like to know, it sounds like a really important insight, I'm just not sure what train of thought led to that.
