696
this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2024
696 points (98.1% liked)
Technology
59123 readers
2294 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Because they're different things? For the user it doesn't matter if they're both same legally, in one case they need to bring their car somewhere, in the other one they don't. If anything it's confusing to call them both a recall.
But they are NOT different things. In every one of these examples:
The only thing that is different in this entire process is how the remedy is applied. Every single step other than that is identical.
And that's the thing that matters to the person who owns the car. Currently when a user sees that word they don't know what they need to do to fix it. You can have some other name encompassing both (like 'critical fix'), but if you keep recall for when that fix isn't user applicable, (and furthermore have specific names for the fixes themselves if they're user applicable) people would immediately understand
Lots of people here are disagreeing with me but I'm yet to see an argument about why that shouldn't be the case other than that it currently isn't. But even that's an argument for why changing the term would be difficult, not for why calling every fix 'recall' makes sense.