[w0utert]

I drive a 25 year old car that perfectly fits your description, but that's just because I like the way it handles, how it looks, and because it has a little more personality to it than all the dime-a-dozen cars you see on every corner of the street.

What I don't understand is how you can rationalize your preferences by thinking these old cars are safer because they don't have any software-defined points of failure. The chances of dying in a car accident because of driver error (by yourself, or by someone else) or mechanical failure (because of worn-out parts) are infinitely higher than by some kind of electronic failure. And if you end up in crash, your chance of survival will be much higher in a modern car, because of all the safety measures that have been added over the years. So IMO it doesn't make sense to stick with the things you've mentioned if safety is your primary concern.

[tonylemesmer]

he / she didn't mention safety.

[w0utert]

The article is about software systems leading to safety risks. I'd say safety is implied when an electronics designer comments on it that he/she would never drive a car that relies on software to ensure safe operation. Not worth splitting hairs over IMO.