Well this is absolute bullshit. You're discussing private software. It's up to the owner to offer a bug program that's enticing enough to debug their own software if they care.
> Isn't market intervention more like corporate socialism though? I mean that's literally not capitalism.
I mean I'd argue the "too big to fail bailots" are a particularly ineffective bit of market intervention in the long term, but generally speaking "market intervention to save the health of the economy" is bog-standard neoliberal, capitalist ideology. The only whiff of socialism comes from recognizing that without guardrails the fully freed economy will destabilize, possibly from angry with pitchforks, angry they can't afford food, shelter, and the basics. So—it is still serving the ultimate needs of the capitalists who run society by not ousting them when they do destabilizing things.
Plus, if this weren't capitalism, no society in history would have been capitalist making it a bit of a useless word for sticking to extant political movements.
> In short, hardware is more capable, and so perhaps now we can afford to take more opportunities to trade a little bit of overhead for abstractions that are more modular and robust.
We could afford that before, it's just that Linus didn't see the value and put his foot down. Which is definitely a choice.
The text is "patterns of use that indicate or encourage addiction-like behaviors".
It's broad but careful wording. The FTC and courts will have to decide the exact meaning. I think "encourage" is clear enough and pretty obviously something we should regulate, since it signals intent. The implication of the word "indicate" is more ambiguous.
I think "Rear Parking Assist" would be better phrased as "Rear Proximity Sensors", as the "Automatic Parking Assist" (which is what I thought we were discussing) only brings a (likely statistically insignificant) marginal risk reduction of 2% and seems to fall under the "bullshit convenience" category. I do agree that the proximity sensors are themselves huge wins but (if I'm understanding correctly) this could be fairly trivially conveyed on the dashboard instead of the infotainment system.
As I see it, the issue here is that it's in automakers interest to tie together the safety improvements (which are great and benefit people) with the cost-reduction mechanisms consolidating controls and monitors into a single screen which seem to conflate operation with infotainment and, I would argue, reduce peoples' safety.
This is only tangentially related but different to the repair question, so I modified what I said a bit to reflect I was going off topic.
