You are ignoring rate of incident, and degree of consequence. Nothing that involves humans achieves 100%, including humans making machines that fail due to human design, manufacturing error, etc
So saying the SDC has bugs is an obvious. But ascribing significant or huge fault, making SDC sound like it is not market ready, is clearly false because a) the rate of error is quite low, and b) the consequence when an error happens is also usually quite low
The known issue with SDC is a slow speed crash now and then into outpost landing pads - which I've replicated as due to my own initial boost before I contact outpost for landing, and then initiate auto doc. SDC gets confused on rate of speed closure and hits the landing pad bit hard in that case, but never anywhere near fatal - minor hull damage for unshielded, very light shield dmg otherwise.
But using your car parking system analogy, there ARE automotive systems released to market with known issues - in fact, every single one of them. The only difference is what the "acceptable" rate of error each system has, and what the degree of consequence each system has. Ask any corporate malpractice attorney - suing an automotive company for negligence is not about proving error - that never is a deciding factor, EVER.
It is whether the rate of error is higher than society deems "normal", and then if it does fail - what the consequence is - just a bump while parking, or full throttle down and high speed crash.
You can either take my word in the corporate legal side of things, or just research automotive fuel tanks and PDC or park distance control. Every car has fuel tanks - many cars come with some form of park distance control or assistance.
ALL of them, 100% - every single one - has a known rate of failure incident report on file with each corporate entity - this is to PROTECT them - so that if and when they are inevitably sued, there are able to prove beyond reasonable credibility that they had researched and tested exhaustive scenarios that proved the rate of error was low, and in what manner the consequence was when the system failed.
EVERY fuel tank has a crash collision rating in which if you exceed that, it may burst into flames and kill you by agonizing death-by-burning - the percentage is low, but when that speed is achieved (you hit someone, or drunk driver collides with you in just the right angle). And guess what? The speeds most of us drive at exceeds almost every single fuel tank manufactured by the industry.
but society has deemed that if the manufacturer cut costs and only achieved say a 15 mph rating, then they are evil cheap s and should be sued for billions - *read up on or google re: $4.9B -as in Billion - dollar jury verdict against GM (Anderson v. GM, 1999)
but if the manufacturer achieves say 60-70 mph, then society shrugs and says well that seems reasonable because the costs to allow for higher tolerance becomes logarithmic.
the same example applies for park distance or parking assistance - there is not a single, released to market and state / fed regulatory approved parking system that does not have known collision issues. but as stated, the rate of incident is fairly low, and the consequence is usually low. keywords usually - at some point, a baby will get in the way and then there will be another billion dollar suit which may or may not ever get paid out ala GM suit.
The SDC is basically the parking assistance of any modern car - usually fine, usually a ding when it does fail. That is by definition what every real life manufacturer tries to achieve and is tolerated to achieve - why should an AI program in a game be any different?
