I don’t understand why you keep ignoring that point.

Noticed you ignored my whole point of cars already being computerized for many years, and my question to you ....

Before you go, I’d love to hear your opinion on the last point I made, about cars already being computerized and having features for many years, that you would deem as being hazardous to have?

I have already addressed that point twice. Why do you keep ignoring it? Some improvements are good.

I understand the game can be played only while parked. But guess what? That software is in the car all the time. It’s another place there could be a bug that allows access to vital systems. It’s another place where there could be some weird interaction with other systems in unintended ways.

I don’t understand why you keep ignoring that point. A software developer should understand the issue better than most people. I’ve given example after example of why we should be careful about what we put in cars and weigh the benefits against the risks. You refuse to acknowledge that there might even be an issue.

I can only hope when this shit fails, it doesn’t kill me.