If capitalism were a thing, could someone market a newly made chip-free vehicle?
I haven't seen an analysis of whether regulations preclude those controls being open source and giving the car owner full access. Of course the owner could make the car noncompliant in that case, but the owner can do that on current and past cars using a wrench.
Real dialogue:
> "Can we lower the volume of that artificial sound?" // "In the internal configuration; should we modify it, you lose the warranty".
Plus, we have heard rumors of "tampering detected: degraded mode activated, contact a service office".
Basically, one should avoid in general critical products shipped with kill switches (and in fact I also saw cars that had mulfunctioning kill switches and "shut down" randomly while running).
Also I'm trying to think of what role the computer plays in emissions other than ensuring stoichiometry.
When the engine is cold, the mixture needs to be rich or it won't start. Engines with carburetors use a choke for that - a valve that blocks some airflow so there's more vacuum, causing the engine to suck in extra fuel. Electronic fuel injection can be much more precise about this, minimizing the amount and duration of enrichment.
Changes in air pressure and temperature change the ideal air/fuel ratio. Driving over a mountain will make an engine without the ability to react to run at a suboptimal air/fuel ratio.
Catalytic converters require that the ratio be kept very close to optimal to operate effectively. A small deviation for an extended period of time will result in a large increase in emissions and may even permanently damage the catalyst.
But there is something wrong in the product planning if there are no vehicles outside the wave of "gadgetrification" ("Look, these come with holographic glove compartment. It's for your convenience. Yes, you pay for it").
In other words, CONSUMERS do not necessarily act in the interest of consumers.
That's what I am saying with "broken market, broken supply-demand system, non-rational and non-informed economic agents".
Bad products that sell are a reality since a long time.
What would your goal be, then? Only "good" products are able to be sold -- according to whom will this definition of "good" be decided?
I'm mainly playing devil's advocate here, but my point is that bringing value judgement into other people's decisions is not something I would regard as rational. People have their own reasons for doing things that I don't need to understand.
Rational agents. That quality is an abater of relativism.
> What would your goal be, then
Livability. That requires working systems, so that choice is still possible. In the current situation, there is in many vast territories no choice, in many areas (not just cars), and greatly suboptimal, very thin livability.
Again, livability "for whom?" Do you propose making cheap, accessible beachfront property a basic human right? Should we all live in equally-sized apartments given to us for free by the government? People do not all want the same thing.
Hi there.
> Again, livability "for whom?"
For the rational. The people who tend to dis-want electroshocking cutlery and miasmatic nail polish.
> Do you propose
That societies work on making citizens informed and rational, just like classic economic theory suggested and as is required for the common advantage.