this post was submitted on 23 May 2025
219 points (91.0% liked)
Technology
70847 readers
3164 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is a reactionary response, you're just arguing, slow down a bit.
Do you see a value in a check engine light that tells you something is wrong in between full inspections? This is similar, this is telling you there isn't enough oil and damage is occurring before you get a chance to inspect the dipstick.
It's not planned obsolescence unless they also make it unreasonable to service. We already expect to routinely service engines, and they are already very complex and full of sensors, sure this is adding to the complexity but it's relatively pretty minor.
The argument being made, and I agree with it, is that the benefits of an additional long-serving sensor way outweigh the con of having one additional sensor in your car. You get early warning before damage occurs, you get built in fraud protection when you're changing your oil at a shady chain, you eliminate a direct access port for dirt to contaminate the oil.
Yeah, that's just how it goes as the engine becomes more complex, leaving a dipstick there is not gonna change that...