• eric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 年前

      Thanks. That sure seems like a lazy and wrongheaded move to call an update a recall, but I don’t know why I expected more competent logic from the US govt.

      • markr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 年前

        actionable defects are ‘recalls’. How they are remedied is irrelevant.

        • eric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 年前

          That’s not really an accurate definition. A recall is a public call to RETURN a product that is defective. There is nothing being returned with a software update.

          • markr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 年前

            It is the terminology required by the NHTSA regulations. Those regulations were obviously written before software updates were relevant to automobile components. The public documentation of defects are ‘recall notices’ by regulation.

            • eric@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 年前

              Yeah, I get that part, but it doesnt change the fact that using the word for a mandated update is lazy and wrongheaded on the part of the NHTSA. Rather than use a different and more correct word, they are just shoehorning it in and leading people to the wrong conclusion.