> The company hardcoded algorithms that would report failures of parts that work correctly (like a compressor), if it detected that train has been repaired by another company (based on location readings), and stop the train from running
This isn't correct by my understanding - there's actually two separate things here:
- The company made their trains stop functioning after spending 10 days at competing maintenance locations, based on GPS
- In one firmware, they hardcoded to pretend a compressor failure a few days after the next scheduled maintenance for the train
I'm writing from memory so I could be wrong, but based on (IIRC) two articles and some comments I read in Polish:
- The 10 days limit was their initial attempt, no GPS involved
- After it turned out the trains were immobilized in the "wrong" location, they added GPS geofencing
- The compressor failure was supposed to happen every day till the end of the year, starting on the scheduled maintenance date. (This might as well be bad coding.)
Again, I could get some details wrong, especially that the articles I read were kinda all over the place (subjectively, IMHO).
This isn't correct by my understanding - there's actually two separate things here:
- The company made their trains stop functioning after spending 10 days at competing maintenance locations, based on GPS
- In one firmware, they hardcoded to pretend a compressor failure a few days after the next scheduled maintenance for the train