• eric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

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

        • eric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.