Other brands will have dealerships do "pre-inspection" work. The data may be skewed if certain brands are more likely to have pre-inspection done. Some brands even offer it as a free service - maybe they know the public looks at these numbers. Tesla doesn't care, or doesn't have the infrastructure to offer the same service.
Your list is misleading, the TÜV is about safety, but you're only listing the more trivial things, I wonder why. They also check major things like steering.
I think it is reasonably safe to assume that the issues that are not directly related to the specific model of the car are roughly evenly distributed among cars of the same age.
> the issues that are not directly related to the specific model of the car are roughly evenly distributed among cars
No, because most cars are tested after a yearly servicing which includes a pre-inspection and remediation of issues. Tesla is somewhat unique in not having dealers and a recommended yearly servicing schedule.
> you're only listing the more trivial things, I wonder why
There is an impression in the comments and the article headline that the test is about vehicle reliability. I'm pointing out a small list of the non-reliability parts of the test.
TUV inspection failures are not a good indication of reliability. The lack of Tesla dealers and no need for yearly servicing means issues get caught at the inspection step for Tesla where for others they are caught at the pre-inspection step.
Also, you need a breakdown of the failures as wear and consumables (washer fluid low, splits in wipers, headlight alignment, mobile phone holder in wrong location) can be a failure but would not be a good indicator for lack of quality.
Maybe so, but I also cut m finger quite badly on NYD, I went to an urgent care centre had it looked at, x rayed and dressed and some antibiotics. The next day I had an appointment with a consultant and then went in to surgery to have it inspected to see if I had cut the nerves or tendon (thankfully I had not), had it swen up dressed, and a follow up appointment to have the dressings removed and final check. All at no cost.
The £9 is for the administration of the prescription - if th drugs are super expensive heart medication or whatever, it would still be £9 (or free).
I stand by NHS being the only great thing we have left.
Not all data brokers are sketchy, some are very good. Data brokers help assess who is creditworthy and lowers rates for more trustworthy people, and allow the creation of more specialty lending products.
Credit checks, and the 3 big companies that do it, are already pretty regulated. I don't think they're counted as data brokers that'll have to comply with Delete Act. Can anyone confirm?
update: Looked it up and this seems right. The credit bureaus have specific exemptions in the Delete Act, specifically because they're already covered by the "Fair Credit Reporting Act". But it does apply to adjacent "people search" features from the same credit bureaus.
Also you can't delete your own credit history data unless it's proved inaccurate. Though you can't delete freeze it.
Hard to respect vague laws. Apple can't read the regulators' minds and figure out their interpretations, or instantly pivot when regulators change their minds.
You don't need to read minds to know that abusing your dominant market position in one market to disadvantage your competitors in a different market (advertising) has a very high likelihood of breaking competition rules. That's a textbook example of anti-competitive behavior.
When did they change their minds, can you provide a link to a previous regulatory decision which approved this behavior?
All laws are inherently vague. Some actions are clearly legal and some are clearly illegal. Between them, there is a gray zone, where it can be impossible to say in advance what's legal and what isn't.
If you are an amoral profit maximizer, like the average publicly traded company, it's often rational to take risks by entering the gray zone. Sometimes nobody cares that you do that. Sometimes you manage to get a favorable court ruling. And sometimes the expected gains outweigh the eventual fines.
It's almost always easy to comply with the laws by playing it safe. But shareholders don't like that.
Good introduction, sad that it's needed. I've written hundreds of schemas and massive meta schemas and used most of the 2020-12 spec. I still struggle to navigate and use json-schema.org documentation to look up simple information.
JSON Schema could get more traction if its homepage was oriented more towards users instead of implementors.
The JSON Schema community would LOVE some more detailed feedback on this.
We would ideally like to do that in our slack or via a GitHub Discussion. Can you reach either of those OK? Please ping/mention me, same username.
reply