And he's using his hypothetical to illustrate the point that: even while some benefits may exist, there are other considerations besides one measure of efficiency.

That's the point you're not getting. People get your point. They're just pointing out that sometimes the juice isn't worth the squeeze. And for something that needs to be regularly accessed, it's better for it to be accessible than strictly optimal.

And during the whole debacle, you've demonstrated that you don't have much insight to the trade space at all. And you're so dead set on "not being wrong" here that now you're accusing everyone around you of being riled up. We're chill, dude. We're starting to worry about you.

> there are other considerations besides one measure of efficiency

Bruh that's literally what I was saying? Instead of how efficiently can you replace a filter in an engine, another benefit might exist instead. Said another way, maybe the "juice" gained from redesigning a fuel filter system instead of using an existing one form another car wasn't worth the "squeeze" of cost and development for the company.

Kinda feels like maybe you (the majority of replies to my original message) didn't get the point, and instead took this as some literal suggestion that I think engines need to have filters in certain spots.

The fact that so many people took this as literally as they did, and seemingly chose to ignore the underlying message of "hey maybe consider tradeoffs exist" makes me start to worry about you too.