Regarding 1: I am a huge proponent of Kaizen and, what you&#x27;re probably more after is the influence Demming had on Japanese companies.  The interesting part is that if you&#x27;ve studied Demming you&#x27;ll know he pitched his process to every American manufacturer first - and all of them wrote him off, which, as we all know came back in spades from a quality comparison perspective shortly after.  Demming: Quality = Results of Work Efforts &#x2F; Total Costs.<p>Regarding OTA: It is.  But, ignorance is even scarier.  Look at any company that embraces CI (continuous improvement).  Amazon - how many changes to production do they push a day?  Now compare that to a legacy F50 that has process designed to be change averse as they view that as risk in and of itself.  This seems to be the viewpoint you&#x27;re working from through GM and maybe (I&#x27;m speculating here) you&#x27;re influenced by the process internally. Maybe your view is that it&#x27;s risky because of what you&#x27;re exposed to?  My guess is that given the culture of Telsa - critical software OTA is not taken lightly.  Speculation - but they likely have a far more rigorous process for deployment than many others since they&#x27;ve done this from the beginning. If I can suggest reading on this subject I would point you in the direction of Gene Kim&#x27;s work in this area as he has studied high performing organizations and, in a nutshell, has found that companies that embrace change and do it frequently have less operational problems than those who don&#x27;t.  Risk-averse seems to compound mistakes and, this could very well flow into those hypothesis around practice.  The more you do, the better you are and &quot;10k&quot; hours.<p>While I agree accidents can (and will) happen - again I wouldn&#x27;t put my money that it happens to Tesla first or with any cadence of frequency.  Keep in mind Tesla is riding on quality in software - full stop.  If they have a problem there, it could be detrimental to the point of failure.  This is a good thing for consumers because they&#x27;re most likely getting a superior product comparatively.  And we already know that non-OTA software that has gone out the door in vehicles has caused death and harm.  Is it scary that those bits are note able to benefit from a timely OTA update?  There are definitely two sides to this coin.<p>And finally...  While I know that it&#x27;s been said quite a bit that &quot;we&#x27;ve done that&quot;.  I&#x27;m not truly sure people are grasping the reality of what Tesla is doing.  While I understand others have these features, the Jalopnik short sums up what they&#x27;ve accomplished that, in my opinion, others are definitely lagging behind in - if you haven&#x27;t watched it definitely do:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=3yCAZWdqX_Y" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=3yCAZWdqX_Y</a><p>Again...  Even if others are kind-of-sort-of doing this today, the iterations will be across model years.  No vendors have the long-term upgradability that Tesla does at this point.  Not sure I would trust an American car to change lanes on it&#x27;s own based on it&#x27;s situational awareness as shown in the video.