[rimunroe]

> Show me, you say. Prove it. But this is of course unreasonable, for this is not my field, and I am clearly giving my opinion.

This is kinda my point. You don’t seem to be coming at this from a position of much experience in the field but are confidently making assertions about it. You are confidently handwaving away what would be massive advancements in both materials science and manufacturing, all why saying it could result in an affordable fridge which would last for over a century. That’s unrealistic.

We can speculate a lot about advancements which might happen in many decades or even centuries in the future, but it’s foolish to talk about them with confidence, and it’s often irrelevant to the present.

> However, what's happening is that there just isn't much research into longevity.

That is patently false. The field of materials science and several branches of engineering deal with this constantly.

> There is low incentive to make cars last longer beyond a point, and the same holds true for products for the military.

Weren’t you originally trying to make the opposite point by using the B-52 as an analogy?

[b112]

That is patently false. The field of materials science and several branches of engineering deal with this constantly

Which still isn't much, conpared to if everyone cared.

Weren’t you originally trying to make the opposite point by using the B-52 as an analogy?

The B-52 is managed by the government, and from another era. Just as my Volvo example was.

Compare either to modern variants. Who maintains the F-35? Who profits from poor quality?

[rimunroe]

> Which still isn't much, conpared to if everyone cared.

This is yet another blind assertion. Please give details about how it isn't being paid attention to much.

> Compare either to modern variants. Who maintains the F-35? Who profits from poor quality?

You keep arguing vague things without actually giving any examples. The F-35 is a vastly more complicated aircraft than the B-52. Please give an example as to which part or parts you're referring to as being low quality in comparison.

Fighters can't be used for nearly as long as a bomber like the B-52 because the threats they face evolve quickly and are much closer. You wouldn't fly an F-14 against a modern fighter because you'd be blasted out of the sky with an air-to-air missile from 50 miles away. A B-52 can attack from quite a ways away or be held off until airspace is under control. A B-2 on the other hand is supposed to be able to fly in unobserved, and thus its service lifetime will be more limited.

[b112]

https://anycrap.shop/product/bbarnett-s-super-mega-powerful-...