Had multiple cars for 20+ years, some daily drivers. Here is what typically happens.

0- 3 warranty.
3-6 usually no issues but consumables.
8 - 10 suspension work, transmission fails unless maintained, some bushings fail.
10-15 if there are design flaws, like CVTs or weak head gaskets, it happens in this period. Major consumables start to go - muffler, bearings, CVs. Unless car was maintained this is where it typically ends.
15-20 more of the same, only parts become harder to get, but plenty of used parts. This is also a point where electronics start to go - leaky capacitors, developing bridges in soldering, failed relays etc. Major rust issues also manifest during this period.
20+ parts availability is an issue, anything rubber that original probably on the way out, plastic parts start to go brittle, electronics randomly fail. 30+ Unless garaged all life, things like wiring harness, door seals, etc.all start to fail.

My guess is that this move mostly about people opting out of telemetry and tracking and/or outright disabling data modules.

LLM can do much better than historians because you can actually tell them to only look at contemporary sources or only correspondence, etc. LLMs are also not attached to specific point of view and do not care if they upset someone with their output. Take what happening in Israel right now - no historian would touch it because of how controversial the subject is.

While I generally agree that History as we know it today is full of inaccurate interpretation, the AI has a chance to make history a lot more factual. Thing is, I don't think anyone is interested in purely factual history.

I disagree. YouTube algorithm suggesting videos is not "more of the same", it introduces new ideas that algorithm thinks will provide most clicks/views.

This would not be a problem if support for aftermarket parts was mandated, something similar to Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Yes, you are conflating. There is a categorical difference between recommending next anime series to watch and recommending without being prompted bulimia or gender dysphoria videos to teenage girls.

Your grouping is designed to hide a fatal flaw in your argument. This is like saying: "So your solution to panhandling, murder and genocide to just let them be?". You are also trying to present anonymous internet as a causal factor for a set of separate problems and advocating for simplistic and unworkable solution. To demonstrate - do you think hacking would not be happening in de-anonymized internet? Of course it would continue, even if you strongly authenticate each user, hackers will just steal identities and carry on without much change.

Fundamentally, attacks against internet anonymity are always about censorship and control. Everything else is a pretext that falls apart under scrutiny.

I hope you are wrong. I learned A LOT about how PCs work due to my parents attempts to control my computer time. I might have never learned what a core dump or boot sector if not them trying to set up passwords.

You are conflating "recommend".

There is a difference between recommending movies and shows in the same category and introducing new ideas. YT engagement algorithm will introduce new topics without any care of age-appropriateness of such topics.

I see your calls for what I see as censorship as ultimate bad behavior. You are responsible for curating your own information feed, you don't get to curate legal behavior of others. To put it bluntly, you are modern equivalent of moral police.

Yes and this is intentional. Voting for Brexit, rejection by voters of Hillary and Kamala, opposition to starting regional wars, lab leak expose, trucker convoy in Canada and lockdown protests in Australia, and now insistence on seeing Epstein client list are all the result of Internet's ability to bypass traditional information curators. Powers that be are now trying to undo this and the first step is to systemically eliminate anonymity.

Fully agree, YouTube is social media site because it curates your recommended videos. A version of YT that only returns list of videos according to search terms would not be, but that YT have not existed for many years.

The best way to teach entire generation of teenagers IT and networking is to implement system-wide ban like that. Future Australians will be well-versed in nuances of networking, online tracking, VPNs and TOR, etc. because there is no way they will just accept such systemic ban.

I think it is intended to be imperfect, so they can use faults as a punishment for people they can't track well. That is, age verification is an attack on privacy.