Code is run more than read (2023)(olano.dev) |
Code is run more than read (2023)(olano.dev) |
The battery is in a compartment in the left front wheel well. You have to remove that wheel to access the battery.
I was instantly impressed by the pure creativity and artistic expression the team employed for that design.
All of them have been in Ford (or Saturn).
Most maintainability conflicts come from packaging and design for assembly.
Efficiency more often comes into conflict with durability, and sometimes safety.
There is just no universe in which placing an oil filter in one location or another is going to make such a difference. You'd have to mount it completely outside the engine, say sitting as a cylinder on top of the hood, and even there you are not going to get a 2mpg improvement.
Anyone who actually drives their car regularly will be doing an oil change at least twice a year. If an oil change takes more than 30 minutes of actual labour time of an inexperienced mechanic, it's going to be a serious financial burden which will likely outweigh any 2mpg improvement.
There’s definitely a programming equivalent as well…
Between rebuilding an engine and disassembling a bumper to replace a lightbulb most mechanics would genuinely rather be doing the lengthy but interesting work of rebuilding an engine than the lengthy and fucking boring task of disassembling a bumper to fix a lightbulb.
Moreover, even if a mechanic must charge you stupid amounts of labour cost to do a simple repair because it genuinely takes that much time, the customer might not come away with it thinking: "fuck, I bought a dumb car which is expensive to repair", they might instead come away with it thinking: "all these mechanics, quoting ridiculous prices to fix a light bulb, they must all be scammers".
So, similar with software design, as in other fields, often a problem goes away when you ask a different question.
Every moving part - especially gears -- needs to be oiled, and whenever you are oiling metal on metal contact such as in gears, you are going to want an oil filter to catch worn metal debris, to remove it from the oil.
The difference between EVs and ICE vehicles is not that only one of them uses oil to reduce friction, but that the oil service intervals on EVs are so long that regular oil maintenance is not needed, you do it every 60,000 miles or whatever the manufacturer recommends, so it's out of mind. But that doesn't mean it doesn't require service.
Once EVs have been around for a while and there is an established market for used EVs, the people who buy them are going to want to change the oil to add more life to the EV. So it's something that is dealt with in the long-life maintenance, not the monthly maintenance. But when you do the oil service, you will curse Tesla for needing to drop the battery in order to do it, and all of a sudden you will care where things are placed and how accessible they are.
Here is a nice video -- I follow Sam Crac as one of my favorite automotive youtubers - and he picked up an old Tesla and did an oil service for it. It's a nice watch:
They actually will need oil changes starting anywhere from the 50k to 100k mile mark.
Here's the maintenance guide with pictures walking through changing the oil and filter for the Rear Drive Unit (RDU) in a Tesla Model S:
https://service.tesla.com/docs/ModelS/ServiceManual/Palladiu...
The obvious one is the battery, and you can argue that modern EVs have batteries so expensive that when they are dead the car becomes scrap, and - sure, whatever.
But EVs still have: cabin air filters, coolant, brake fluid, lubricants in various places (although granted, these lubricants will mostly last the service life).
At the end of the day, as long as you have a car which moves, and not a statue, it will have things which wear out and which should be easy to replace.
Engine oil and oil filters are just an example.
It is absolutely astounding how much of them run on code that is:
- very reliable aka it almost never breaks/fails
- written in ways that makes you wonder what series of events led to such awful code
For example:
- A deployment system that used python to read and respond to raw HTTP requests. If you triggered a deployment, you had to leave the webpage open as the deployment code was in the HTTP serving code
- A workflow manager that had <1000 lines of code but commits from 38 different people as the ownership always got passed to whoever the newest, most junior person on the team was
- Python code written in Java OOP style where every function call had to be traced up and down through four levels of abstraction
I mention this only b/c the "LLMs write shitty code" isn't quite the insult/blocker that people think it is. Humans write TONS of awful but working code too.
I am afraid that without a major crash or revolution of some sort, user won't matter next to a sufficiently big biz. But time will tell.
For companies that have a solid competitive moat they have at best gotten lazy about user centricity and at worst actively hostile.
How could this have happened? Well, the code was shipped but no customer was running it in production.
This sentence, itself, takes on new meaning in the age of agentic coding. "I'm fine with treating this new feature as greenfield even if it reimplements existing code, because the LLM will handle ensuring the new code meets biz and user expectations" is fine in isolation... but it may mean that the code does not benefit from shared patterns for observability, traffic shaping, debugging, and more.
And if the agent inlines code that itself had a bug, that later proves to be a root cause, the amount of code that needs to be found and fixed in an outage situation is not only larger but more inscrutable.
Using the OOP's terminology, where biz > user > ops > dev is ideal, this is a dev > ops style failure that goes far beyond "runs on my machine" towards a notion of "is only maintainable in isolation."
Luckily, we have 1M context windows now! We can choose to say: "Meticulously explore the full codebase for ways we might be able to refactor this prototype to reuse existing functionality, patterns, and services, with an eye towards maintainability by other teams." But that requires discipline, foresight, and clock-time.
Obviously, our regulations aren't perfect or even good enough yet. See DRM. See spyware TVs. See "who actually gets to control your device?". But still...
If that's what the regulators are optimizing for.
"We arrived at a little model that expresses the relative importance of various factors in software development..."
biz > user
Survivorship bias exists, but look at all the Virgin brands and at places like Google. So for a moment let’s posit he’s correct.
So, then, the problem would seem not to be capitalism generally. It would be the sort of short-term quarterly goals capitalism we see so often in recent years.
LLMs regurgitate shitty code. They learned it entirely from people.
To be fair, the standard library `unittest` and `logging`, along with the historic `distutils`/Setuptools stack, are hardly any better.
This looks like an example of biobackend: defective IT compensated by humans
Your point is very sane, of course, shitty code was not invented now. But was it ever sold as a revolution ? Probably, too !
It's a continuous object lesson in missing the point. A similar thing happened a few hours ago when an article was posted about a researcher who posted a fake paper about a fake disease to a pre-print server that LLMs picked up via RAG, telling people with vague symptoms that they had this non-existent disease. Lo and behold, commenters go in immediately saying "I'd be fooled too because I trust pre-print medical research." Except the article itself was intentionally ridiculous, opening by telling you it was fake, using obviously fake names, fictional characters from popular television. The only reason it fooled humans on Hacker News is because they don't bother reading the articles and respond only to headlines.
It's just like your code examples. Humans fail because we're lazy. Just like all animals, we have a strong instinct to preserve energy and expend effort only when provoked by fear, desire, or external coercion. The easiest possible code to write that seems to work on a single happy path using stupid workarounds is deemed good enough and allowed through. If your true purpose on a web discussion board is to bloviate and prove how smart you are rather than learn anything, why bother actually reading anything? The faster you comment, the better chance you have of getting noticed and upvoted anyway.
Humans are not actually stupid. We can write great code. We can read an obviously fake paper and understand that it's fake. We know how hierarchy of evidence and trust works if we bother to try. We're just incredibly lazy. LLMs are not lazy. Unlike animals, they have no idea how much energy they're using and don't care. Their human slaves will move heaven and earth and reallocate entire sectors of their national economies and land use policies to feed them as much as they will ever need. LLMs, however, do have far more concrete cognitive limitations brought about by the way they are trained without any grounding in hierarchy of evidence or the factual accuracy of the text the ingest. We've erected quite a bit of ingenious scaffolding with various forms of augmented context, input pre-processing, post-training model fine tuning, and whatever the heck else these brilliant human engineers are doing to create the latest generation of state of the art agents, but the models underneath still have this limitation.
Do we need more? Can the scaffolding alone compensate sufficiently to produce true genius at the level of a human who is actually motivated and trying? I have no idea. Maybe, maybe not, but it's really irritating that we can't even discuss the topic because it immediately drops into the tarpit of "well, you too." It's the discourse of toddlers. Can't we do better than this?
Not for normal car
ChatGPT, write me a 2010-style Hacker News front page essay about how software maintenance is just like automobile maintenance, and why nobody wants low-value maintenance work to be arduous, failure-prone, and boring.
I gagged after 2 sentences.
Fun Fact: Along with the "Bees are disappearing" scare, which was just measurement error, there has been an "insects are disappearing" scare, due to the fact people's windshields are not covered with bugs like they used to be. However that is because cars have gotten more aerodynamic so fewer insects are hitting the windshield.
According to this research the opposite is true:
"The survey of insects hitting car windscreens in rural Denmark used data collected every summer from 1997 to 2017 and found an 80% decline in abundance. It also found a parallel decline in the number of swallows and martins, birds that live on insects.
The second survey, in the UK county of Kent in 2019, examined splats in a grid placed over car registration plates, known as a “splatometer”. This revealed 50% fewer impacts than in 2004. The research included vintage cars up to 70 years old to see if their less aerodynamic shape meant they killed more bugs, but it found that modern cars actually hit slightly more insects."
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/12/car-spla...
Or fixed? The suspected cause at the time was pneumatic planter dust-off and addressing that was as simple as adding a baffle to direct the dust to the ground, so it was quickly adopted once identified.
Um I’m pretty sure that’s not the only evidence for insect population declines.
I did manage to replace those bulbs myself, and it's ridiculous, it has some sort of spring to hold it in place that is extremely hard to open with your fingers, and even harder to close. And on top of that you can't even see it, you have to take first pictures with your phone, understand how it works and then go entirely by tactic feedback
Or, we consider that 2mpg across 100,000 cars can save 3,500,000 gallons of gas being burned for the average American driving ~12k miles per year. And maybe things aren't so black and white. You're argument, in this hypothetical, is that negligent car owner who destroys their car because they're choosing to not change the oil is worth burning an extra 3.5millon gallons of gasoline.
We're already in the land of the fucking ridiculous. Let's have fun with it.
Putting some random number of hypothetical mpg improvement was clearly a mistake, but I assumed people here would be able to get the point I was trying to make, instead of getting riled up about the relationship (or lack thereof) of oil filters and fuel efficiency.
Do you optimize an engine for how easy it is to replace a filter once or twice a year (most likely done by someone the average car-owner is already paying to change their oil for them), or do you optimize it for getting better gas mileage over every single mile the car is driven?
We're talking about a hypothetical car and neither of us (I assume) design engines like this, I'm just trying to illustrate a point about tradeoffs existing. To your own point of efficiency being a trade with durability, that's not in a vacuum. If a part is in a different location with a different loading environment, it can be more/less durable (material changes leading to efficiency differences), more/less likely to break (maybe you service the hard-to-service part half as often when it's in a harder to service spot), etc.
If the car is going to need to be in shop for days needing you to have a replacement rental because the model is difficult to service and the cost of service itself is not cheap , that can easily outweigh any marginal mpg gain .
Similarly because it is expensive and time consuming you may likely skip service schedules , the engine will then have a reduced life, or seizes up on the road and you need an expensive tow and rebuild etc .
You are implicitly assuming none of these will change if the maintenance is more difficult , that is not the case though
This is what OP is implying when he says a part with regular maintenance schedule to be easily accessible.
[1] of which fuel is only one part , substantial yes but not the only one
You’d be surprised how few people actually consider TCO when looking at vehicles, the amount of people driving Jeeps and Audis and similar vehicles that depreciate 60-70% in 5-6 years blows my mind, I just assume anyone driving a car like that hates money.
I bought a RAV4 for $32,000 in 2021, a co-worker of mine paid just over $60k for a Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xe the same year, and the model years are the same. 5 years later, my car is worth more than his (around 22k, his is 18-20k), he ate over $40,000 of depreciation in 5 years, that’s just insane to me.
The point that I am making (obviously, I think) is that tradeoffs exist, even if you don't think the right decision was made, your full view into the trade space is likely incomplete, or prioritizes something different than the engineers.
Putting some random number of hypothetical mpg improvement was clearly a mistake, but I assumed people here would be able to get the point I was trying to make, instead of getting riled up about the relationship (or lack thereof) of oil filters and fuel efficiency.
I recommend to never go to the dealer, unless you're going there for a warranty or recall repair. A local repair shop is always the better option. And if you don't know of a trustworthy local shop, take it to the dealer for an estimate, and then you know if the local shops are bullshitting you (they should come in way under dealer prices).
Even within an organization, creating externalities from one department's perspective seems common enough.
Even if a decision maker is aware of the possibility of externalities and cares about a broader constituency (temporal or "spatial"), evaluating actual costs is an expense as is justifying that investigation expense and any mitigation/avoidance expenses to others in the decision web.
—
In general, the point was it is not operational efficiency in ideal conditions alone and serviceability is an important component because it can add to the overall cost of ownership significantly and individual car owners (in comparison to fleet) are typically poorer in factoring this in their buy decisions.
——
It comes down to numbers , if the proposed change, results in 10% improvement probably not worth it, 10x then definitely so .
I.e will the car become 22 MPGe or 200MPGe . Larger the gain more trade-offs like serviceability or life expectancy all can be sacrificed.
hybrids costs more upfront (both sets of expensive components - transmission/motor +engine/battery) but still work if driven enough miles, as the gain in efficiency makes up for the upfront.
Exact number of that miles is localized to you and me - depends things like tax difference including tolls, gas prices, MPGe diff, electricity prices, interest and purchasing power of currency other consumables costs like tires and so on.
The point that I am making (obviously, I think) is that tradeoffs exist, even if you don't think the right decision was made, your full view into the trade space is likely incomplete, or prioritizes something different than the engineers.
Based on the replies, saying there's a hypothetical 2mpg improvement to be had was a mistake, everyone is latching on to that like there's some actual engine we're investigating.
Yes, I'm sure most people on this website have ran into seemingly bad design choices which made sense once they knew more context. But that doesn't mean that all bad design choices are like this.
Specifically dumb oil filter placement is an example of such a case where the _only_ legitimate justification is design cost saving for the manufacturer (re-using an existing design meant for a different car).
You can maybe argue that saving on design costs (and I guess also re-tooling costs) is a saving that gets passed onto the consumer. But that consumer is unlikely to feel like they're saving much money when cars depreciate faster than ice cubes in the desert, and when their oil change is 2+ times more expensive every 6 months. Really that cost savings will only really benefit the manufacturer (well, at least until they tarnish their reputation).
I'm literally just saying the yin to this yang. Just because you run into a design that feels malicious doesn't mean that it always is.
Again, sorry for the sin of trying to make an analogy/example of something I'm not an expert in. You can rest easy at night knowing I'll never do it again.
You also pretty neatly laid out how re-using an existing design meant for a different car leads to some benefits to the end customer. Sure the full cost savings don't ever make it to the buyer, but there's still net wins in not spinning up new manufacturing processes (as you say). So I'm not sure why you're coming at this so combatively? Because I dared float the idea that maybe it's an engine efficiency thing we're unaware of, instead of part re-use cost/lead time efficiency improvement? Again, sorry for stepping outside of my lane...
The reason why automakers place serviceable parts in bad locations is due to either incompetence (If you are, say, Bentley) or malicious design (almost everyone else) -- e.g. they do not prioritize serviceability. Car makers really hate that ordinary people can repair their own vehicles. There were proposals in the 1960s to try to lock shut the hood so that car owners wouldn't be able to open it and service the cars on their own. Hyundai just announced that they will not allow car owners to retract their own parking brakes when they want to replace brake pads. You need a login with a website and prove that you are a professional mechanic before you can retract your own parking brakes. This is done, ostensibly, for "cyber security" reasons. But the real reason is that Hyundai does not want people to be able to service their own cars, they want you to take the car to a dealer. They also are not fans of independent mechanics, they would prefer if everyone that touched the car had a business relationship with Hyundai and was under contract with them. The fact that you can work on your car is an endless source of pain for manufacturers, and when they repeatedly make it hard to work on your car, or try to lock down parts so that you can't pull an old seat heater from the junkyard and use it to replace your own failed seat heater -- that is all part of the war on independent repair.
So what should be discussed is the environment of hostility to serviceability, everything from insisting that transmission oil is "lifetime" to forcing you to pay money to the manufacturer if you want to read the data from your sensors, or making it extremely hard to do simple things like changing a headlight or replacing a battery. All of that is part of the same issue, which is hostility to end user repair. It has nothing to do with improving gas mileage, or ending world hunger, or celebrating the Year of the Pig. These are all equally specious arguments.
First, anything serviceable by the owner is also accessible to a local garage or independent repair shop. That means a competitive market for those owners, rather that being stuck paying extra to a local monopoly or to a rent-seeking manufacturer.
Second, it makes long-term repairability of the product much easier, things don't just suddenly become irreparable because the manufacturer closed down their "unlock codes for trusted affiliates" site. Their asset retains more of its value.
There are things which provide value even when nobody uses them.
We do - they are just a lot bigger.
You should replace the oil filter when it is no longer filtering. Replacing it early is a pure waste of money. Unfortunately the tests of do you need to change the oil filter is more expensive than just replacing the filter so just replace it before it can possibly be clogged is the right answer. Generally the manufactures recommendations are correct and you should follow what they say unless you have lab results that say otherwise.
Yeah, of course, but I am not aware of any regular car which comes stock with such filters.
The point was really that lasting 22k miles longer than stock would be an unrealistic improvement for a filter for a normal car.
> You should replace the oil filter when it is no longer filtering.
I was specifically referring to manufacturer recommendations. Of course they're conservative, they also have to account for engine wear.
And yes, you are right that ideally you'd test. Although testing the filter from what I've seen is destructive, and there's a nontrivial turnaround time.
I'd disagree that following manufacturer recommendations is a waste of money though. As you say, testing is _more_ expensive. Engine damage is even more expensive. Replacing the filter on schedule is the economical choice.
It might be strictly a waste of resources, but that's a separate concern.
filter test can be inferred from flow rate and oil analisys. Destructive testing is best if you must know - but also not helpful.
Putting some random number of hypothetical mpg improvement was clearly a mistake, but I assumed people here would be able to get the point I was trying to make, instead of getting riled up about the relationship (or lack thereof) of oil filters and fuel efficiency.
But to keep it concise: The core problem is that you are stating a truism in response to a famous counter-example to specifically that truism. The other problem being that you are stating a truism which everyone else is already familiar with.
To be concise as well: it's been duly noted by me that contributing to a conversation by attempting to bring in nuance is not always well received when you make up a hypothetical for a topic people are very touchy about.
You should be replacing your oil filters based on the manufacturer’s service schedule, there’s no rule of thumb. Look at the service manual, my car has the filter change scheduled every 10,000 miles.
That's the point you're not getting. People get your point. They're just pointing out that sometimes the juice isn't worth the squeeze. And for something that needs to be regularly accessed, it's better for it to be accessible than strictly optimal.
And during the whole debacle, you've demonstrated that you don't have much insight to the trade space at all. And you're so dead set on "not being wrong" here that now you're accusing everyone around you of being riled up. We're chill, dude. We're starting to worry about you.
Bruh that's literally what I was saying? Instead of how efficiently can you replace a filter in an engine, another benefit might exist instead. Said another way, maybe the "juice" gained from redesigning a fuel filter system instead of using an existing one form another car wasn't worth the "squeeze" of cost and development for the company.
Kinda feels like maybe you (the majority of replies to my original message) didn't get the point, and instead took this as some literal suggestion that I think engines need to have filters in certain spots.
The fact that so many people took this as literally as they did, and seemingly chose to ignore the underlying message of "hey maybe consider tradeoffs exist" makes me start to worry about you too.
And you were explicitly told several times that your hypothetical efficiency just does not exist. So constantly saying, "Yeah, but what if" looks like you're being obstinate for its own sake.
If the majority of people "didn't get your point", consider that maybe you aren't great at getting your point across.
Option 2: "Certainly, I do not understand the various trade offs that led to this design"
I wished at least in software tech circles there would be more of option 2 kind of thinking.
Where do you believe I said that?
I don't recall saying anywhere that efficiency should be a priority over accessibility. I said "what if" to create a hypothetical to demonstrate that it could be. You know, trying to introduce nuance to a conversation. You can read that as obstinance for its own sake if you want.
My hypothetical not existing doesn't mean that some similar scenario isn't true. That's kind of the point of a hypothetical, it's an imaginary example to demonstrate a point. My suggestion that fuel efficiency could be effected may not be correct, but the efficiency of using a pre-existing design to save on new parts/labor very likely is true.
Again, people choosing to latch onto a hypothetical and tear that down instead of treating it like a tool for illustrating a point like it's intended to be is really odd and related to:
> If the majority of people "didn't get your point", consider that maybe you aren't great at getting your point across.
As I've said in other replies, I've already noted this- a specific mention of a hypothetical 2mpg that seems to really have distracted people lol