forgetfreeman

probably because standards have slipped so far over the decades.

If you think that's wild you should see some of the stuff that gets flagged to death on the front page.

You might want to take a closer look into the current state of play on new and late model vehicle parts availability and general serviceability, because your take here appears to be a couple decades out of date. Parts are frequently difficult or impossible to source for cars that are less than 5 years old.

Ish. Traditional car manufacturers had this figured out but intentionally dropped the plot over the last couple decades because make number go up. Net result: my wife had a mouse die in a vent duct in her 2 year old SUV. We drove a dealership loaner for 8 months waiting for parts. They ended up replacing the entire dash assembly (including gauge clusters, and infotainment unit). Many (most?) modern car transmissions aren't field-serviceable because no parts are available. Any issue with the transmission means the entire unit gets replaced.

Given it's already happening I shouldn't have to hold my breath for long. Have a look at Ford's sales numbers in their bread-and-butter truck market. Volkswagen's getting replaced by Nokia on major indices in Europe. Toyota seems to see the writing on the wall and have been flirting with bringing the Hilux to North America. Across all domestic manufacturers dealer lot retention figures are through the damn roof and have been for some time now. They can't keep this shit up much longer.

Suits me. US manufacturers willingly chose to double and triple down on luxury pricing models and chose to include enough software and sensors for a moderately capable aircraft, cutting every corner they could find in terms of reliability and serviceability in the process. I gleefully await the "find out" phase of this little experiment.

Given how often parts are unavailable for new and late model "western" brands this is more like a generic worry that comes with car ownership than anything brand-specific. If anything the proliferation of brands demonstrates robust use of off-the-shelf components, which in turn suggests replacement parts should be ubiquitous.

Why should they engage with something they didnt ask for and clearly don't want? The burden of proof is on new technology, not its skeptics.

1. Not my job to do your homework for you. You advance claims, you provide proof or gtfo.

2. (and this is really the most important part) literally every claim in your list was later refuted by... wait for it... better data. So, again for the cheap seats, data plz.

Yeah, that's me. I played Lemonade Stand on an apple some software salesman hustled the local school board into buying, and understand that's the only market that "game" sold into, so it's got more in common with spreadsheet software than PacMan, and certainly isn't relevant to a discussion of popular games and gaming in the 80s. Edit: I wish I'd checked your username before I bothered engaging.

Fair, a lot has changed in the space over the last 45 years. Take the proliferation of titles that are basically just you having a job as an example. That shit absolutely would not scan with older gaming audiences. Why it became popular is a complete mystery to me. Audience expectations for their entertainment dollar spent have definitely declined sharply.

This is a relatively recent attitude. OG gamers expected to have their hair blown back through some combination of novel game mechanics, setting, and storyline pretty much every title every time, and if a game didn't deliver it didn't sell.

Showing up with your feels is now how one counters claims backed with data. Where is your data?

Research has shown there isn't any ambiguity here. Stuff like this isn't good for adults, and is even worse for kids. So yeah, obvious child abuse.