I love that you're telling me how my car (cars, actually, this has been true of all of them) works, and I'm the obnoxious one. :) Clearly I'm not wrong. You are arguing on the basis of what can be done by software given perfect inputs. I'm telling you what is true on real systems. And the fact that you can't distinguish the two is precisely the problem I'm getting at.

That's not "anti-intellectualism", it's called "correct requirements analysis". And it's something I wish more software people knew how to do.

I am certainly not telling you about your car. Your car is very much irrelevant. The topic is very recent luxury cars with climate control. Even if your car would qualify for such a category, it's behaviour does not generalize to all such cars.

A great deal of people beyond yourself drive fancy cars with climate control, myself included. Your car is a single data point. My car is another. That my car, and other posters cars, behave as we say is enough to show that your generalization is wrong.

It is still all anecdote of course; to really determine truth you would need to do a study of as many cars as possible. Further, there is no theory in such a generalization.

This is where your anti-intellectualism comes in. You repeatedly make false statements about theoretical works: "theory is always wrong". It is almost as though you do not understand the definition of "theory." Additionally, your use of "egghead" when referring to engineers is classic anti-intellectualism. I mean, why not just throw out nerd, geek, or pointdexter too? Using anecdote to support your generalization is another extremely common undesirable behavior.

Please stop.