After a bit of searching ...
Another quick search
How many hours, exactly, did he spend researching both issues? How much extra driving, phone calls, research, etc? How much auto repair know-how does he already have?

It's not like running around for two weeks looking for third party parts and installers is 'free'. A very large part of the price of the dealer is the fact that, yes, they do have access to everything for your specific car and the knowhow to diagnose and fix it the first time and in a timely fashion.

You're paying more for that convenience and so are most people. Cars are a huge headache and not having a working car is a worse headache, so people are willing to spend money to reduce the headache.

Why is the Tesla battery considered dead at 80%?

Is the car not usable at that level? I would think it would just lose 20-ish percent of its range and maybe some of its peak acceleration.

Lets burn the lawyers offices down.

The lawyers are powerless without the courts. It's the Court orders, backed by ... wait for it ... men with guns that make this environment possible.

Do you know why everybody is so jumpy and the cops are doing summary executions now? Because everybody is a criminal, everybody is a suspect, and the cops and the courts enforce these absurd laws rather than than defend the Constitution as a co-equal branch.

Hell, the Constitution didn't even make it past 1803 intact in design, and FDR accepted the Supreme Court's final surrender in 1937 from Chief Justice Hughes as a settlement to his plan to expand the Court with its cronies. Overnight, SCOTUS began finding all of Roosevelt's programs suddenly Constitutional even concluding that growing wheat for your family farm is part of "Interstate Commerce" and suddenly of Federal providence.

The problem now is that it's impossible for the People to know what the Constitution says because (supposedly) it doesn't mean anything until SCOTUS tells us what it means, which might well be the opposite of what we "think" it means (that is, the plain English meaning). The catch is that the Constitution is what authorizes the government in the first place. If the People aren't competent to understand their agreement with that government, then they weren't competent to create it in the first place and the grant of power is void.

This is not about science, it is about tje progressive anti-gun stance.

Seriously - stop spreading their propaganda. They explicitly want those in power to have all the guns they need. They just want the People to be disarmed and figure their friends will be in power.

This is not at all an anti-gun stance, it's a central-control stance. This gives them a sense of security, like those living under Mao or Pol Pot.

Somebody tell the Georgists that there's lots of land on Mars to not own and let's see them beat Musk to the stars. The more the merrier!

... or from police weapon lockers.

They also make them. See the case recently in Australia of motorcycle gangs making some (very) effective subguns (automatic pistols and the like).

It's pretty trivial to make a firearm capable of being used to perpetuate crimes against people: they just have to be better than not having a firearm, so looks, and impression of effectiveness, are more important than actually being well made firearms. Someone with crude hand tools can make an AK in a day or two, and that's a fairly capable firearm. The net result of regulation and elimination of privately owned firearms is that only criminals and cops will have guns, and military (and militarized police) will be the main ones with firearms suitable for any sort of tyrannical resistance and/or hunting.

There are already efforts well underway to prohibit any firearm with a rifled bore - you know, something that was invented to the point of being effective in the 15th century, and have been in common military as well as domestic use for 200 years. Still, you can't regulate ingenuity.

This is why they're also trying to control/eliminate consumer ammunition production (by making it prohibitively expensive through the banning of things like smelting lead, making it illegal to import lead, and things like that) - at least in the US.

Learning to make do and do well enough on damned little is part of what you're supposed to learn in life. If you didn't learn it before, you'll learn it in college. Being thrifty all around, reusing and repurposing, cooking your own meals because it costs a fraction of what it does to eat out. These are valuable life lessons that will serve you in good stead when things don't go entirely swimmingly later on.

That's a lot fewer jobs than the Republicans killed with their continual obstructionism and focus on social issues.

By the NRA fundamentalists' logic, we shouldn't have laws because criminals ignore laws anyway.

yep. This may be a case of "medicine that tastes awful".

That's the old-school view, in which one's self-esteem is based on achievement of some kind. Those who achieve little or nothing had low self-esteem and this was a principal incentive to identify one's own weaknesses and overcome them with directed effort. The extreme form is Japanese students throwing themselves off buildings (etc.) because their grades didn't quite measure up, making them nobodies.

The newer view is that everyone is a special snowflake. No matter what. The extreme form is shown by the public schools that play soccer without keeping score, because scoring implies winners and losers and that might hurt someone's feelings.

I mostly agree with you in that actions have consequences and you should accept the consequences of your own actions. Otherwise nothing really matters and there is no reason to improve yourself and you turn into one of these "perpetual victims" who never take responsibility for anything while simultaneously wondering why nothing ever changes. But that should be tempered with the fact that some mistakes are much more preventable (less understandable) than others, and as Orlando Battista once said, an error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.

There's no reason to metaphorically crucify someone for an honest mistake, but certainly there is going to be a reaction to it and people aren't going to like it. That's to be expected. It's reasonable to expect someone to accept that and yes, it is an incentive to learn something from the experience and be more careful in the future. If I were a programmer and found that completely unacceptable, I could always choose not to work on such an important project critical to the security of so many.

As an aside: I think replying to you is much more edifying than being like the cowards who modded you down to -1 without once putting forth their own viewpoint which they clearly think is superior. There's too much of that going on at this site. There is no "-1 Disagree" mod for a reason.

Right, but the point is that since Congress won't do anything, then we either let FDA make new regs on their own initiative or we potentially allow dangerous conditions to fester. There really ought to be checks and balances involved, but Congress won't do their job, so...

Yes the "logic" used by many in this thread is specious at best.

Premise: when there are many eyes looking at open source, it leads to more bugs getting fixed.

Faulty reasoning (of too many people): this project didn't have many eyes, therefore the premise is false. Herp derp.

Correct reasoning: when the condition of "many eyes" was met, the premise is shown to be true.

Conclusion: some people dislike Open Source for ideological reasons and saw this as a chance to take cheap shots at it and show everyone how clever they are ... and failed because of faulty reasoning. Just like what you see in politics - if you happen not to like something, it must be BAD!! and cannot possibly have merits that you simply don't value.

For a handful of developers to just "run through the code" and fix everything that easily? And do it quickly, without introducing other bugs?

I am not a developer, but I can remember writing software whether for BASIC, Pascal or Perl and going back to fix or extend something and seeing stuff and saying "Why did I do it that way?" and making changes that I'm not honestly sure were "improvements" except for they seemed like improvements at the time even though they may have created new bugs.

I don't know anything about the internals of OpenSSL so maybe it is that easy, but it makes me wonder why it hasn't been done before. But I suspect it is complex and having a lot of people committing changes all at once seems like it runs the risk of working a cross-purposes without a lot of coordination (which, maybe they have).

Really? what algorithms did we develop for landing on either a platform or land that deals with say 100 MPH winds, and dealing with 1G? And if developed in the 50's, then why did the lunar landings not use them? Likewise, why bother with having these competition here on earth for landing? Seems to me that the simple physics equations for dealing with gravity, are well known, but controlling a lander while dealing with wind, rain, storms, etc is quite a different thing. And yes, landing on the moon is VERY easy. BUT, landing on mars, earth, venus, or any planet or moon will be difficult due to side issues, and dealing with it.