Grippler

It was pulled from voting a second time, it will undoubtedly return for another round.

But like I said, I believe global revenue is a better measure for global corporations when it comes to how large fines should be. They have to be large enough to make these companies proactive and not just reactive. 10% of their global revenue is almost 50% of their income, now that is going to make a difference.

No it may not be, but it's one company and I believe they should be fines based on their global revenue, just like the EU fines alphabet, meta and apple. If a fine doesn't hurt in their global financial picture, they don't give a shit.

In a globally spanning company, it doesn't make sense to separate it in to different markets like that when it comes to fines for breaking the law IMO. If the same practice that caused this to happen in Norway is profitable elsewhere, nothing is going to change and the Norwegian "mishap" is just cost of doing business.

I bought a couple of 12tb "used" drives from servershop24.de, thay all had less than 150h of runtime.

Yeah fines for corporations should really be a percentage of yearly revenue, ideally no less than 10%. The current system is ridiculously outdated and has no impact whatsoever.

Gee officer, we dun' kno' nothin' 'bout no hacking stuff sir...

Yes you've seen a few...they don't have hundreds of thousands of them that have driven for several years yet. It's a brand new platform, so it is definitely considered new and untested. Luckily Hyundai has a good track record for making cars in general, and they have BEV experience from the original Ioniq, which is still one of the most efficient BEVs on the market (although range and charge speeds lack severely on those), and the Ioniq 5 so that should work in their favour. Let's hope they learned a lot from their shitty release of the Ioniq 5 which had an unbelievable amount of SW issues, especially related to battery management.

Sure thing buddy, you're a very talented young man indeed 👍

Yes I can read it. You think I'm an f'ing idiot?

I mean, you're certainly not providing much proof that you have any measurable software skills that enables you to do the proper evaluation even if you received the code from proton. Why should anyone believe this unsubstantiated claim from you?

Edit: for the record, I'm don't give a shit and I'm just yanking your chain here.

I wonder why they didn't apply any of their lesson's learned from the 13 models to the 16...it's not like they're starting from scratch with no knowledge, several of the issues mentioned should not exist on a concept that has had multiple iterations already.

A regulatory change would obviously need to prevent them from hiding that kind in intentionally too long legalese TOS. It has to be a clear single acknowledge, not obfuscated or bundled with functionality.