Tesla is/was the largest importer of Chinese-made cars into Europe. That's why the EU tariffs are decided brand by brand (to spare Tesla and BMW mostly)
I wonder if that opens a threat vector from a security point of view? If an attacker knows that the golden firmware has some critical vulnerability which they can exploit easily, they can activate it at will by bricking the device and waiting for it to restart.
They could, and that's been a way for attackers to "jailbreak" devices and load custom firmware in the past. Though for the sake of reducing eWaste and enabling device repurposing and reuse, I do think this is the best path for firmware-updatable devices.
Attackers aren't usually in a position to reset firmware, and if they are they might as well do a whole host of other things like replace the device with a compromised one. I don't think there is much of a point to trying to protect from that.
The golden firmware should reset to the old/first firmware of the device and nothing else. Keep it as simple as possible and restore the customer device back to an operational state.
The reset would be done physically. If there was some danger of the device being exploited after being reset, advice could be included for those performing the reset to prevent this.
For example, to not connect it to a network and to manually perform an update to the latest version with some physical media.
I prefer to keep the factory firmware reset to a manual process that requires user intervention.
For example, holding down the reset button for 10 seconds after plugging the device in.
In my experience, it's not a good idea to have a device automatically roll back firmware and erase user data after failed boots. These mechanisms get triggered too easily during certain power outages (power comes on then goes off just long enough to cause multiple failed boots) or when users are doing simple things like rearranging their power cables.
Ability to reset to original out of the box firmware is not only about failsafe. It's also a protection from "bug fixes" taking away features you had out of the box.
I'm still pissed off about LG removing record to disk option from our TV after an upgrade. I've only connected it to internet & upgraded assuming some of those bug fixes resolved few dlna issues otherwise it's always on internet block list.
Just pointing out the idiocy of the current situation. VW was actually founded by the Nazis and even the name is not neutral, so if "activists" want to use the label "Nazi car" then surely that is as close as it gets...
VW is a public company, and everyone who was involved with that is dead. The name is different, the ownership is different, the principals are different - its ties to its Nazi past are beyond tenuous. Meanwhile the _current CEO_ of Tesla is flouncing around doing Nazi salutes. Like, if you can't see the difference, then I dunno what to tell you.
Ford might be a better example, as there's been some continuity of ownership/control there, but, well, Henry Ford is, thankfully, extremely dead. Again, that does make a difference.
It will be a comparable situation once antifascists liberate the USA, political and capital reconstruction with strong de-neonazification removes the ideology from influence and power, and after a couple generations of global veterans and victims spitting at the name, pop culture jokes and ad-fueled media rehabilitation.
Until then, I don't think it's fair to whitewash the Tesla brand with the brush that allowed the successful rehabilitation of German and Japanese industry. Elon Musk is already the eugenicist face of the destruction of USAID (>1M deaths/ year) and positioned to deploy an orbital constellation of weaponized satellites with offensive capabilities (Golden Dome). Do we really need to play this one out? It ends with tens or hundreds of millions dead, has the pursuit of money blinded so many of us to our shared humanity?
> Just pointing out the idiocy of the current situation. VW was actually founded by the Nazis
I don’t really get this.
So if we continue with this, logically Germany (and even Britain due to other reasons) should dissolve itself because it is permanently tainted as a country?
One of the reasons US seceded from Britain is because they wanted to steal more land from the natives and weren’t allowed to. It’s a country that’s basically founded on genocide (and not much better than VW)
He had three wives in succession. Any one or three could make the claim. There was probably a limited budget that had to go through a small committee to allocate the new funds. After a while it runs out.
I've checked and indeed his first wife died in 1826 (maybe during childbirth looking at the date), his second in 1851, he married his third wife that same year. Ruth was actually his 7th and last child.
It was the 19th century. People didn't "just" divorce and people also tended to die of many deceases and during childbirth.
> Any one or three could make the claim.
Well, no. He could only be married to one at the time of his death (even if the others were still alive) and so only leave one widow behind to make a claim.
Under traditional English common law, a woman gave up her personal property rights on marriage (see Coverture). Upon separation from marriage, the husband retained the right to the wife's property, but, in exchange, had an ongoing responsibility to support the wife after dissolution of the marriage.[6][7] English law was amended by legislation including the Married Women's Property Act 1870 and Married Women's Property Act 1882 which reformed women's property rights relating to marriage, by, for example, permitting divorced women to regain the property they owned before marriage.[7][26][27][28]
"Dissolution" is a strong word considering traditional Christian beliefs, and it would seem that a man couldn't simply divorce a woman and her children and wash his hands of responsibilities, even if spending a year dead for tax purposes.
Because a woman entering marriage with a dowry, with property, with capital assets: those would be entrusted to the entire family and so the man, offspring, and heirs would end up with management of whatever resulted, during the marriage, after the divorce, and after his own bodily death
If that is a reply to my "Well, no" then it is beside the point.
You are quoting laws that are about responsibility to "ex-wives" during the husband's life while the discussion is about widows.
There can only be one widow and widows' pensions did not, and do not, apply to ex-wives. Under common law alimony typically stops at the paying spouse' death, too.
I don't know but a probable answer is that she was "able-bodied", pand perhaps was not destitute, as I believe widows were not entitled to anything at the time simply for being a widow. Pensions were only introduced in 1908.
reply