You don't need power to steer or brake if the motor conks out in a modern car: at any speed, steering assist is minimal and any normal person should have enough strength to steer to the side of the road. And power brakes are vacuum-operated, so even if the engine dies, you still have one or two full brake applications available. Basically, it should be perfectly feasible for you to safely pull over to the side of the road and stop if your engine dies on any modern passenger vehicle while driving at speed, but that's about it. You can forget about any fancy maneuvers. But it's been like this for a very long time, and it's probably better than, say, the 70s when cars were huge and had clunky recirculating-ball steering systems.
What's a bit worrisome is they go to complete drive-by-wire systems with the steering and brakes completely decoupled mechanically from the driver controls.
Given the cost of specialized labor, it's likely far, far cheaper to just order a new OEM mirror glass. I don't even know where you'd find someone who can do that. Usually, when someone wants to get a custom-cut mirror, they just go to Lowe's or Home Depot where they do that work cheaply, but they only do rectangular sizes, not odd curvy shapes like car mirrors.
Also, how exactly are you going to find a generic mirror that has a heating grid in it that'll hook up to your car's heated-mirror circuit? Or do you drive in a vehicle that's unsafe to use in the winter?
Well I guess Honda minivans are all illegal now because they now have side-facing cameras that display whenever your turn signal is on. RVs have been using these systems for years and years.
When mirrors are properly adjusted, there are no blind spots.
This is wrong, and depends on the vehicle, the driver, where the driver's seat is positioned (which largely has to do with how long his legs are), etc.. Mine are adjusted properly and there's still a blind spot. Luckily, I have a BSM system in this car.
Given that/. has lots of engineers and scientists among the userbase, I'll be generous and guess that about 50% of slashdotters get it right, and the other 50% are imbeciles who have all three mirrors looking directly behind the car./. has a bunch of old technology-hating curmudgeons who still think carburetors and 1970s cars are better, and that seat belts are unnecessary. Most of the smart people left this place ages ago.
You have the wrong younger people working for you. Your company must be one where the bottom-of-the-barrel candidates get hired. You might want to start looking for a better job if they're hiring people like that now.
WTF? Your experience on American roads is laughable.
Arizona has some of the best roads I've ever driven on. It's really easy to understand why: it never even snows there, so the ground never has freeze/thaw cycles, which over time make cracks in the roads. Even better, they never use salt on the roads, or road plows, since there's no snow, so potholes just aren't a big problem. The highways in AZ, in particular, are fantastic.
All the roads in western states are generally pretty good for these reasons. CA probably has crappy surface streets just because of poor governance, poor funding, and too much traffic and not enough maintenance. The highways I drove on over there were always smooth.
If you want to see shitty roads, go to the northeast states, to Michigan, or to Alabama.
The northeast states and places like Michigan have terrible roads mainly because of the weather. They repave frequently, but all the salt in the winter, plus the snowplows, tear up the surface quickly, causing lots of potholes. Alabama doesn't have these problem so I guess they're just incompetent/corrupt or don't spend any money on repaving: the interstate suddenly goes from smooth to extremely rough as soon as you cross the state line from any surrounding state into AL.
You'll get a better shave (and cheaper) with a straight razor, it's true. However the skill needed is higher than with the DE safety razors, the cost isn't that much lower (DE blades are dirt cheap: $7/box of 100 on Amazon, I can go 2 weeks on a blade), and the shave isn't that much better. DE represent a very good compromise over the all-out performance of a straight razor and the shave and cost offered by modern multi-blade systems which perform pretty well but cost a fortune, though they're safer (DEs won't hurt you as bad as a straight razor, but are more dangerous than a multi-blade cartridge so you do need more practice).
Unfortunately, engineering-types tend to have a very black-and-white extremist view of the world.
And before anybody says those things are dangerous, I've never got a major cut with my safety razor, and only had maybe 5 minor nicks when I started learning how to use it.
I got a few really nasty cuts when I started using one. Nothing requiring stitches of course, but I did have to wear bandages.
But after having it for several years, and getting used to it and learning to not be in a hurry (this is REALLY important), I haven't cut myself like that in a long time. It's definitely a learned skill. The results are worth it IMO, but it is a sharp blade, and just like a fine chef's knife, if you're careless and/or inexperienced, it's quite possible to hurt yourself with it. But just like the fine kitchen cutlery, there's simply no substitute. Using a safe bread or butter knife just isn't going to give you the same results and performance.
As for "an extra 2-3 minutes", now that I'm so used to it, I don't think it takes me any extra time at all; it's actually pretty quick.
And I agree about going a week and a half: that's at least how long mine last, usually more like 2 weeks.
However I disagree about technology not making our lives better. You have to differentiate between technology that really does improve things (like rearview cameras over mirrors), and technology that does a worse job and costs a lot more money, mainly with the only benefit being ease-of-use for inexperienced people, and it's even worse when such technology is frequently deliberately engineered to be expensive and have a very short lifetime (as in the case of multi-blade cartridge razors) and sell well due to marketing (cheap razor, expensive blade replacements). Technology which is engineered to simply be better (as in bang-for-buck) is almost always a good thing. Technology which is engineered by marketers seeking to maximize profit is usually not.
WTF? A "hundredish" for pads? You can get pads for $20 on Ebay. Rear rotors are even cheaper than front ones. You can even get a full rotor+pads package for ~$75.
A couple hundred for labor? That's what you get for being too lazy to take off a few bolts. Brakes are easy. Oil + filter is worth about $25 at the most.
Subarus are infamous for their head gasket problems in the 00s. Not all Japanese cars are the same. The reliable ones are Honda and Toyota, and these days Mazda. Subaru is probably pretty good these days too, but don't get anything older than 2010.
That's $100 for two front brake rotors for a '07 Impala. Brand new, no machining needed. Brake rotors are an utterly simple thing to replace. Machining is not, of course, but at these prices you don't need to (and machining removes material anyway, if the rotor is already worn you might as well just replace it).
Sure, if in the "real world" people are driving like jackasses and flooring it every time the light turns green. I don't see the problem.
The whole point of a turbo engine is that it gets the fuel economy of a small engine when operated at light load, but for those times when you need more power it's able to deliver it using forced induction. It also gives you a better power-to-weight ratio. If you're constantly driving like a street racer, then yeah, it might not give you better fuel economy than a larger naturally-aspirated engine.
And EPA fuel economy figures for turbo engines are bogus as hell. The EPA dyno testing rarely gets into operating modes where the turbo contributes, so the fuel economy of the relatively small base engine dominates. In the real world, people step on the gas and keep it there for a while, and when the turbo's pumping the gas is flowing; figure you'll get at least 20% less than what EPA says.
No, that's bogus. Maybe if you drive like a street racer all the time you'll get shitty fuel economy, but these cars (and the EPA tests) are built for normal drivers who don't drag race from stoplights. V6 and V8 cars (NA) aren't going to get EPA fuel economy figures either if you drive them like that.
If you're getting crappier fuel economy with a turbo than you would a V6 of the same power, you need to look in the mirror for the person to blame.
I think Ford was probably the most likely. Remember, he's the only President who was never elected into that position at all, he was appointed (he was elected by Congress to be VP after Agnew resigned, and then succeeded to Prez when Nixon resigned). That really says something, doesn't it?
I think it shows that we'd do better with a Parliamentary system like every other decent western nation has. With Ford, he was overwhelmingly elected by Congress, and by both parties in it. Obviously, when Congress can agree on a leader, they do a much better job selecting one that we do, as proven by this year's election.
The economy is not just improved, it's fantastically improved. Unemployment is low. Recruiters email or send LinkedIn solicitations daily (And sometimes go so far as to hunt down my phone number from the three-year-old resume that's in some database somewhere.).
Recruiters aren't doing this for people outside the tech industry, and definitely not for people with no college education. *That's* why Trump has done as well as he has.
It seems weird, but it's a valid way to quantify it. Security guards normally *are* paid by the hour, not by the month or year, so it only makes sense to compare the hourly rental rate of the robot to that. Obviously, you have to consider that this is a 24x7 rental rate, but if you have a sizeable facility, it's not going to be any different for human guards either. It's not like your facility doesn't need security guards on holidays or at night.
Do you write your own emails? If so, you're depriving someone of a job. You need to hire a secretary to take dictation from you and write your emails for you, otherwise you're contributing to the demise of society by killing jobs.
Do you cut your own grass? If so, you're depriving someone of a job as a landscaper.
Do you cook your own meals at home? If so, you're depriving someone of a job as a personal chef.
Do you make your own bed? If so, you're depriving someone of a job as a maid/housekeeper.
Do you drive yourself to work? If so, you're depriving someone of a job as a chauffeur.
Do you spend time with your kids, giving them baths (if they're young), feeding them in their high-chair (if they're really young), taking them places, or helping them with their homework? If so, you're depriving someone of a job as a nanny.
We need to separate into two countries, one which institutes a Universal Basic Income, and another which tells people who lose their job to go get an education (on their own dime, with no financial assistance).
We'll see within a decade I think which approach works better.
Huh? That's a clear case of self-defense. What a dumb example.
Here's why arming security guards is a big liability and only done for certain high-value scenarios (like armored cars):
An armed security guard draws his weapon and tries to stop a criminal. The shot hits the criminal, but overpenetrates (or one of the shots misses) and hits a bystander. Guard may be in jail for negligent homicide, and guard's employer is being sued for a huge amount of money.
It's a lot less risky to just let the criminals take the loot and let the police try to get them.
Well if most of the American population suddenly stopped eating burgers and instead ate burritos, it would be a sensible business move. However, it's questionable how many people would start eating at McDonald's again, considering their competence is in burgers (if you like McD's burgers), not burritos. Usually, when this happens, the business ends up failing. Trying to belatedly "join the crowd" is probably the best course of action at that point, but it's still usually futile.
That's not what the EPA fuel economy figures show for modern turbo engines. There's a reason so many automakers are all moving to them: they get better fuel economy overall.
Our economies are not set up to handle contraction in a nice manner. Also, more people means more advancement: more smart people to do great work.
The problem with resources and sustainability is that our current lifestyles are too wasteful and use too many resources; if more of us moved into well-designed cities, and we built SkyTran to replace most cars, we wouldn't need nearly as much energy. It's entirely possible for us to even have a significantly larger population, but we have to be smarter about how we use our resources and allocate and use space.
His pads hit metal so the rotors were probably impossible to refurbish. Those can cost quite a bit for 4 of them assuming that all of them were damaged.
Yeah, I got the bit about the rotors needing replacement. $50 at Autozone. Rotors are cheap. These are GM parts, not Mercedes parts; GM cars still aren't that great, but one good thing about them is the parts are really, really cheap, even cheaper than parts for Japanese cars. There's a huge number of those GM cars on the road, plus they tend to reuse parts for a long time and on different models (particularly for things like brake parts, not for interior parts obviously), so there's lots of aftermarket parts available at very low prices. I changed the rear pads on a friend's '10 Impala recently and the parts were about $15 on Ebay with shipping. I could have gotten a full set of pads + rotors for about $50 IIRC.
$700 sounds exactly like a dealer price, like you said. There's a reason those places are called "stealerships"; they're the absolute worst place to take your car for service out-of-warranty. The prices are insanely high, and the service technicians frequently aren't that great (the good ones go to work at independent shops where they can make more, or start their own shop).
As for changing plugs, all I can say there is that in this day and age, you should never buy a car that doesn't have an inline 4-cylinder engine. There's simply no need for it; with all the turbo-ing carmakers are doing, and with the high horsepower numbers they're getting even from naturally-aspirated I4s, it's just silly to get a V6 or more. Sure, you can get some extremely powerful V6s like in the Camaro, but this thread seems to be about people wanting sensible, economical transportation, and for that a 4-cylinder is all you need now. They're all getting well over 150HP now (and over 200 for the ones with turbos), which is plenty for your typical 4-door family car. And with an inline-4, changing plugs is ridiculously easy because they're all right on top. What kind of engine does your daughter's Nissan have?
With a modern Japanese 4-cylinder economy-to-midsize car, the only maintenance that should be a PITA these days is changing the timing belt. And even there, many cars have finally dumped that stupid belt and switched to a chain. Everything else is extremely simple: brakes, spark plugs, coolant, air filter, etc. Everything is easy to get to and usually made to be easy to do. And Japanese cars (Honda, Toyota, Mazda) seem to take extra trouble to make service simple, unlike some other cars where they either treat it as an afterthought or even seem to make it intentionally hard or require special tools (Euro brands seem to be the worst here).
Slashdot Mirror
You don't need power to steer or brake if the motor conks out in a modern car: at any speed, steering assist is minimal and any normal person should have enough strength to steer to the side of the road. And power brakes are vacuum-operated, so even if the engine dies, you still have one or two full brake applications available. Basically, it should be perfectly feasible for you to safely pull over to the side of the road and stop if your engine dies on any modern passenger vehicle while driving at speed, but that's about it. You can forget about any fancy maneuvers. But it's been like this for a very long time, and it's probably better than, say, the 70s when cars were huge and had clunky recirculating-ball steering systems.
What's a bit worrisome is they go to complete drive-by-wire systems with the steering and brakes completely decoupled mechanically from the driver controls.
Given the cost of specialized labor, it's likely far, far cheaper to just order a new OEM mirror glass. I don't even know where you'd find someone who can do that. Usually, when someone wants to get a custom-cut mirror, they just go to Lowe's or Home Depot where they do that work cheaply, but they only do rectangular sizes, not odd curvy shapes like car mirrors.
Also, how exactly are you going to find a generic mirror that has a heating grid in it that'll hook up to your car's heated-mirror circuit? Or do you drive in a vehicle that's unsafe to use in the winter?
Well I guess Honda minivans are all illegal now because they now have side-facing cameras that display whenever your turn signal is on. RVs have been using these systems for years and years.
When mirrors are properly adjusted, there are no blind spots.
This is wrong, and depends on the vehicle, the driver, where the driver's seat is positioned (which largely has to do with how long his legs are), etc.. Mine are adjusted properly and there's still a blind spot. Luckily, I have a BSM system in this car.
Given that /. has lots of engineers and scientists among the userbase, I'll be generous and guess that about 50% of slashdotters get it right, and the other 50% are imbeciles who have all three mirrors looking directly behind the car. /. has a bunch of old technology-hating curmudgeons who still think carburetors and 1970s cars are better, and that seat belts are unnecessary. Most of the smart people left this place ages ago.
You have the wrong younger people working for you. Your company must be one where the bottom-of-the-barrel candidates get hired. You might want to start looking for a better job if they're hiring people like that now.
WTF? Your experience on American roads is laughable.
Arizona has some of the best roads I've ever driven on. It's really easy to understand why: it never even snows there, so the ground never has freeze/thaw cycles, which over time make cracks in the roads. Even better, they never use salt on the roads, or road plows, since there's no snow, so potholes just aren't a big problem. The highways in AZ, in particular, are fantastic.
All the roads in western states are generally pretty good for these reasons. CA probably has crappy surface streets just because of poor governance, poor funding, and too much traffic and not enough maintenance. The highways I drove on over there were always smooth.
If you want to see shitty roads, go to the northeast states, to Michigan, or to Alabama.
The northeast states and places like Michigan have terrible roads mainly because of the weather. They repave frequently, but all the salt in the winter, plus the snowplows, tear up the surface quickly, causing lots of potholes. Alabama doesn't have these problem so I guess they're just incompetent/corrupt or don't spend any money on repaving: the interstate suddenly goes from smooth to extremely rough as soon as you cross the state line from any surrounding state into AL.
You'll get a better shave (and cheaper) with a straight razor, it's true. However the skill needed is higher than with the DE safety razors, the cost isn't that much lower (DE blades are dirt cheap: $7/box of 100 on Amazon, I can go 2 weeks on a blade), and the shave isn't that much better. DE represent a very good compromise over the all-out performance of a straight razor and the shave and cost offered by modern multi-blade systems which perform pretty well but cost a fortune, though they're safer (DEs won't hurt you as bad as a straight razor, but are more dangerous than a multi-blade cartridge so you do need more practice).
Unfortunately, engineering-types tend to have a very black-and-white extremist view of the world.
And before anybody says those things are dangerous, I've never got a major cut with my safety razor, and only had maybe 5 minor nicks when I started learning how to use it.
I got a few really nasty cuts when I started using one. Nothing requiring stitches of course, but I did have to wear bandages.
But after having it for several years, and getting used to it and learning to not be in a hurry (this is REALLY important), I haven't cut myself like that in a long time. It's definitely a learned skill. The results are worth it IMO, but it is a sharp blade, and just like a fine chef's knife, if you're careless and/or inexperienced, it's quite possible to hurt yourself with it. But just like the fine kitchen cutlery, there's simply no substitute. Using a safe bread or butter knife just isn't going to give you the same results and performance.
As for "an extra 2-3 minutes", now that I'm so used to it, I don't think it takes me any extra time at all; it's actually pretty quick.
And I agree about going a week and a half: that's at least how long mine last, usually more like 2 weeks.
However I disagree about technology not making our lives better. You have to differentiate between technology that really does improve things (like rearview cameras over mirrors), and technology that does a worse job and costs a lot more money, mainly with the only benefit being ease-of-use for inexperienced people, and it's even worse when such technology is frequently deliberately engineered to be expensive and have a very short lifetime (as in the case of multi-blade cartridge razors) and sell well due to marketing (cheap razor, expensive blade replacements). Technology which is engineered to simply be better (as in bang-for-buck) is almost always a good thing. Technology which is engineered by marketers seeking to maximize profit is usually not.
You need to get some brighter LED reverse lights; that'll help with your nighttime issues.
Tinting your windows might help with your glare issues on the screen. It'll also make your A/C work better in the summer.
WTF? A "hundredish" for pads? You can get pads for $20 on Ebay. Rear rotors are even cheaper than front ones. You can even get a full rotor+pads package for ~$75.
A couple hundred for labor? That's what you get for being too lazy to take off a few bolts. Brakes are easy. Oil + filter is worth about $25 at the most.
Subarus are infamous for their head gasket problems in the 00s. Not all Japanese cars are the same. The reliable ones are Honda and Toyota, and these days Mazda. Subaru is probably pretty good these days too, but don't get anything older than 2010.
http://www.autozone.com/brakes...
That's $100 for two front brake rotors for a '07 Impala. Brand new, no machining needed. Brake rotors are an utterly simple thing to replace. Machining is not, of course, but at these prices you don't need to (and machining removes material anyway, if the rotor is already worn you might as well just replace it).
Sure, if in the "real world" people are driving like jackasses and flooring it every time the light turns green. I don't see the problem.
The whole point of a turbo engine is that it gets the fuel economy of a small engine when operated at light load, but for those times when you need more power it's able to deliver it using forced induction. It also gives you a better power-to-weight ratio. If you're constantly driving like a street racer, then yeah, it might not give you better fuel economy than a larger naturally-aspirated engine.
And EPA fuel economy figures for turbo engines are bogus as hell. The EPA dyno testing rarely gets into operating modes where the turbo contributes, so the fuel economy of the relatively small base engine dominates. In the real world, people step on the gas and keep it there for a while, and when the turbo's pumping the gas is flowing; figure you'll get at least 20% less than what EPA says.
No, that's bogus. Maybe if you drive like a street racer all the time you'll get shitty fuel economy, but these cars (and the EPA tests) are built for normal drivers who don't drag race from stoplights. V6 and V8 cars (NA) aren't going to get EPA fuel economy figures either if you drive them like that.
If you're getting crappier fuel economy with a turbo than you would a V6 of the same power, you need to look in the mirror for the person to blame.
I think Ford was probably the most likely. Remember, he's the only President who was never elected into that position at all, he was appointed (he was elected by Congress to be VP after Agnew resigned, and then succeeded to Prez when Nixon resigned). That really says something, doesn't it?
I think it shows that we'd do better with a Parliamentary system like every other decent western nation has. With Ford, he was overwhelmingly elected by Congress, and by both parties in it. Obviously, when Congress can agree on a leader, they do a much better job selecting one that we do, as proven by this year's election.
The economy is not just improved, it's fantastically improved. Unemployment is low. Recruiters email or send LinkedIn solicitations daily (And sometimes go so far as to hunt down my phone number from the three-year-old resume that's in some database somewhere.).
Recruiters aren't doing this for people outside the tech industry, and definitely not for people with no college education. *That's* why Trump has done as well as he has.
Basically, you're advocating trickle-down economics.
It seems weird, but it's a valid way to quantify it. Security guards normally *are* paid by the hour, not by the month or year, so it only makes sense to compare the hourly rental rate of the robot to that. Obviously, you have to consider that this is a 24x7 rental rate, but if you have a sizeable facility, it's not going to be any different for human guards either. It's not like your facility doesn't need security guards on holidays or at night.
Do you write your own emails? If so, you're depriving someone of a job. You need to hire a secretary to take dictation from you and write your emails for you, otherwise you're contributing to the demise of society by killing jobs.
Do you cut your own grass? If so, you're depriving someone of a job as a landscaper.
Do you cook your own meals at home? If so, you're depriving someone of a job as a personal chef.
Do you make your own bed? If so, you're depriving someone of a job as a maid/housekeeper.
Do you drive yourself to work? If so, you're depriving someone of a job as a chauffeur.
Do you spend time with your kids, giving them baths (if they're young), feeding them in their high-chair (if they're really young), taking them places, or helping them with their homework? If so, you're depriving someone of a job as a nanny.
How does it feel to be a job-stealer?
We need to separate into two countries, one which institutes a Universal Basic Income, and another which tells people who lose their job to go get an education (on their own dime, with no financial assistance).
We'll see within a decade I think which approach works better.
Huh? That's a clear case of self-defense. What a dumb example.
Here's why arming security guards is a big liability and only done for certain high-value scenarios (like armored cars):
An armed security guard draws his weapon and tries to stop a criminal. The shot hits the criminal, but overpenetrates (or one of the shots misses) and hits a bystander. Guard may be in jail for negligent homicide, and guard's employer is being sued for a huge amount of money.
It's a lot less risky to just let the criminals take the loot and let the police try to get them.
Well if most of the American population suddenly stopped eating burgers and instead ate burritos, it would be a sensible business move. However, it's questionable how many people would start eating at McDonald's again, considering their competence is in burgers (if you like McD's burgers), not burritos. Usually, when this happens, the business ends up failing. Trying to belatedly "join the crowd" is probably the best course of action at that point, but it's still usually futile.
That's not what the EPA fuel economy figures show for modern turbo engines. There's a reason so many automakers are all moving to them: they get better fuel economy overall.
Our economies are not set up to handle contraction in a nice manner. Also, more people means more advancement: more smart people to do great work.
The problem with resources and sustainability is that our current lifestyles are too wasteful and use too many resources; if more of us moved into well-designed cities, and we built SkyTran to replace most cars, we wouldn't need nearly as much energy. It's entirely possible for us to even have a significantly larger population, but we have to be smarter about how we use our resources and allocate and use space.
His pads hit metal so the rotors were probably impossible to refurbish. Those can cost quite a bit for 4 of them assuming that all of them were damaged.
Yeah, I got the bit about the rotors needing replacement. $50 at Autozone. Rotors are cheap. These are GM parts, not Mercedes parts; GM cars still aren't that great, but one good thing about them is the parts are really, really cheap, even cheaper than parts for Japanese cars. There's a huge number of those GM cars on the road, plus they tend to reuse parts for a long time and on different models (particularly for things like brake parts, not for interior parts obviously), so there's lots of aftermarket parts available at very low prices. I changed the rear pads on a friend's '10 Impala recently and the parts were about $15 on Ebay with shipping. I could have gotten a full set of pads + rotors for about $50 IIRC.
$700 sounds exactly like a dealer price, like you said. There's a reason those places are called "stealerships"; they're the absolute worst place to take your car for service out-of-warranty. The prices are insanely high, and the service technicians frequently aren't that great (the good ones go to work at independent shops where they can make more, or start their own shop).
As for changing plugs, all I can say there is that in this day and age, you should never buy a car that doesn't have an inline 4-cylinder engine. There's simply no need for it; with all the turbo-ing carmakers are doing, and with the high horsepower numbers they're getting even from naturally-aspirated I4s, it's just silly to get a V6 or more. Sure, you can get some extremely powerful V6s like in the Camaro, but this thread seems to be about people wanting sensible, economical transportation, and for that a 4-cylinder is all you need now. They're all getting well over 150HP now (and over 200 for the ones with turbos), which is plenty for your typical 4-door family car. And with an inline-4, changing plugs is ridiculously easy because they're all right on top. What kind of engine does your daughter's Nissan have?
With a modern Japanese 4-cylinder economy-to-midsize car, the only maintenance that should be a PITA these days is changing the timing belt. And even there, many cars have finally dumped that stupid belt and switched to a chain. Everything else is extremely simple: brakes, spark plugs, coolant, air filter, etc. Everything is easy to get to and usually made to be easy to do. And Japanese cars (Honda, Toyota, Mazda) seem to take extra trouble to make service simple, unlike some other cars where they either treat it as an afterthought or even seem to make it intentionally hard or require special tools (Euro brands seem to be the worst here).
That's some scary stuff there.
They better get working on anti-aging therapies so we can decrease the death rate.
Or maybe the elites and political leaders can work on giving us a society with lower cost of living and more free time.... nah, that won't happen.