'airbags' aren't filled with air - they are filled very rapidly by the gaseous products of the combustion (deflagration) of a substance such as sodium azide (there are other substances; pyromechanics is a big and very specialist subject); if the airbag has initiated it will be quite obvious, although the bag itself will, after inflation, deflate (mostly) equally rapidly as the gas cools. It sure as hell shouldn't have 'a bit poking out...'
I suppose it depends on how much faith you put in the manufacturer?
www.polestar.com
The issue here is twofold: (i) the scale of model testing needed to provide an adequately high 'confidence interval' (level of confidence of correct operation) prior to release, (ii) ensuring the 'model' adequately represents reality. Key to understanding complex systems (like the new cars) is that the budget bounds the modellers manhours-on-job, hence bounding the V&V (Verification; part (i) above) & Validation (part (ii) above) effort. A big area...
FiFi; we all sympathise/agree with the sentiment and overall meaning of what you've written there, but the reality of 'code' is that most often the 'bugs' are very simple 'low-level' instructions that occur due to a number of reasons - coder error at the fundamental stage is only one of them. Usually the bugs can be pre-empted at coder level by doing such stuff as 'N2' (n-squared) analysis, which is a way of checking all inputs and outputs of a function. But at a lower level, where the machine code is (usually) auto-compiled (i.e. the actual computer instruction set is created from the human/high-level function designer), the compilers can (do) have their own bugs, so even flawless top-level 'code' can have bugs introduced within the actual compiling hence computational stages. [See 'Incose' for further insight.]
The only coding issues I had with my 2020 Mitsi ASX was with the service staff. Their computational output vs their instructional input were always naff. I believe there could have been a coding glitch in the centres revolving around the ‘I’m too good for this job’ or potentially the ‘I’m doing the bare minimum to get by’. The latter involves a severe deficiency in their listening module. I think they were recently testing the new ‘Blank Stare 2.0’ module.
Sorry I completely disagree. I had one of the first uk M3P’s. Whilst yes Tesla were constantly providing OTA updates they didn’t always get it right. Remember the appalling auto wipers? Many attempts to get this right. The horrendously dangerous phantom braking? Again ages to fix. The UI changes that moved everything around and made it harder to see? Yes OTA is brilliant but by no means perfectly tested each version.
