young_blood

From my understanding of the ADA, my employer is only required to make some "reasonable accommodations" available, and not tailor them to my specific needs. As stated in the link provided, "An employer is not required to provide an accommodation that would involve undue hardship (significant difficulty or expense)." I would think it would be possible for my employer to argue that setting up remote work would involve undue hardship...

The state I work in is an "at will" state, so you're right that I'm at the whim of my employer. I also need health insurance to cover my ongoing treatment, and sometimes it feels like my employer knows that as well. Why would they worry about how they treat me when they know that there's no way I can just leave?

This might get me sent home, but this doesn't help me continue to make money while out of work. The problem is I am not in a position where I can take two weeks of unpaid leave. We are already only given 12 days of PTO, and I have to use those to cover the days I go to treatment.

I wholeheartedly disagree. I would much rather have some sort of warning than to have the decision made for me. If an indicator in the dash turned on saying "the oil is not the correct viscosity," then I would be able to decide to not run the vehicle.

Imagine you were stranded somewhere and the only option was to use the wrong oil. Sure, it may destroy the vehicle, but at least you would be able to run the vehicle and (hopefully) get to safety before your engine block melts. My issue is when the decision has been made that "you _might_ break it, so we've taken the choice away."

Another example might be, should users not be allowed to install programs on their computer because those programs might interfere with the computer's performance?

Even if there were, should it matter? You could fill your car with moonshine and attempt to run it. It might explode, sure, but the car doesn't detect that the fuel is not the specified quality and decide to not run entirely.

Would something like a "using unauthorized filters voids your warranty" agreement suffice? I can understand the manufacturer's desire to avoid costly repairs caused by shoddy aftermarket parts, but I don't understand the idea of rendering the end product totally unusable.

To put it another way, should my car stop running entirely if it detects that I'm using a "non-GM-certified" cabin air filter?

Thank you very much. I figure I'll keep slowly pushing along this python script I have and add features when and where I can. Maybe one day it'll be at a point that it can be released as some sort of OS project to help others in a similar situation.

I've owned and used an OnlyKey for around a year and a half now and have had a really positive experience using mine. There is one issue, unfortunately the LED lights do not work when the key is plugged into a USB 3 port. The key itself works, but you do not get any LED feedback which can make unlocking and using it a little difficult. Be sure to keep this in mind if you're thinking about purchasing one.