1. 6

    It’s a bit like this with smartphones, particularly iPhones. I can understand Apple not wanting people to root their phones to gain a new feature, in case it messes up something unforeseen and iPhones as a result iPhones get a bad rep if that root kit becomes popular. And there’s the support contracts; I think it’s right that if you fiddle with the software you void this. (Except possibly the physical damage to exterior part. But who knows, maybe your mods make the phone hotter and causing you to drop it?)

    For road vehicles I think that for “herd safety” it would be best if amateurs not tamper with the software. For farm vehicles it’s less clear cut though.

    Aside, I love the closing comment:

    Leave the bullshit to the farmers, who actually need it.

    1. 3

      I agree with your sentiment, but I don’t trust the law as a way to do it. I’d rather make the software itself have the failsafes - technical solutions, not laws. If something needs to be tamper-proof, make it that way making it read-only. You can never make something completely tamper proof, but if you make it difficult enough, you’ll get extremely few people messing with it, and as the article pointed out, doing dangerous things is already outlawed already, separately.

    1. 6

      I think I am feeling how the article intended me to feel. that is, not happy.

      1. 1

        Just so…