Yeah, I'm not sure I'd credit the economic system with repairability or blame it for unreliability.

To use WW2 as a measurement point: western allied vehicles tended to be extremely repairable. Eastern allied vehicles were also extremely repairable. Western vehicles tended to have closer tolerances for parts, meaning a part could be damaged easier. Eastern tended to have simpler parts, meaning they could be repaired. Western vehicles were geared towards modular components and ease of replacement, so you could swap an engine in 20 minutes or spend an afternoon building a new tank out of two that had been destroyed, even if one was a different model. The Eastern tanks tended to have a more intensive overhaul process, and less shared components between models.
Nazi machines were a shit show with custom parts, low repairability, and poor workmanship. I have no idea why people give them credit for good engineering. Jets are cool, but useless if you can't fuel or fix them. Advanced engine systems are great, but you can't repair them and they explode under stress. Ornate and bespoke parts are cool until they're produced by slaves who do the minimum to avoid death and it warps, leaving you without hope of replacement, no ability to scrap the damn thing, and an enemy who can repair their tanks by either sufficiently motivating a tree trunk into an axle or by using three cars to build a new tank to factory spec over lunch.

You've got America turning car manufacturers into weapons builders: stellar. Mass production and modularization with a skilled assembly line.
You've got the UK having people build machine guns in their basements from simple plans. Wicked little death traps.
You've got the soviets dictating material allocation and design priorities.

The common factor to the good design is the workers distance to design feedback.
The easier it is for a person doing the work to correct how the work is done, the faster the design will iterate and the better it will get.
That feedback loop can be good or bad regardless of the specific economic model.

Hell, duck tape was the result of an ammunition factory worker thinking the tape they were using for ammo boxes was stupid and would get her sons killed, so she wrote the president. He didn't understand in the least, but gave it to the war production board and told them to Fix The Problem, which they did.

Conclusion: if you want good shit, have the people building it tell you how to fix it. Repeatedly.
And don't use fucking slave labor, it's unethical and bad manufacturing.

We often buy too much candy. When we realize we did, we usually have a soulful moment where we need to decide how much candy we're keeping for ourselves. Yes, we can buy candy anytime but we're adults so we usually don't buy bags of little sugar pucks.
After we've broken our hearts taking more than we need and less than we want, we usually try to wait until it's the last kid of the night who's old enough to understand but young enough to be utterly bombastically awestruck and dump some preposterous amount of candy in their bag after doing a quick non-verbal "you cool with this happening?" Negotiation with their parent.

Most people don't put so much pressure on it. It's just a fun holiday where you get to dress in a costume and go running around the neighborhood getting candy.

on TV and it seems to be a stage managed

That's the TV part.

kids dress up and everyone buys candy for everyone else's kids

Yup, that's the holiday in short. You also get "spooky", which is like scary but no one is scared.

It's one of the best holidays because the entire point is "fun" and the stakes are low.

Do they require disclosure of what font the developer used for coding the patch? No one thinks it matters, but no reason not the be transparent, right?

The reason not to require disclosure is because in their opinion it doesn't matter any more than the font matters. If the person reviewing the code can't tell it's AI, and the code stands on its own, then it stands on its own. If they can tell then it doesn't meet code standards anyway.
A perspective that I don't disagree with is that "disclosure" can be a shield for the developer to hide behind. "Anything weird wasn't me being dumb, just the AI being wonky", and that's writing an excuse for subpar code. You submitted it, it's your code, and if you can't justify some dumb bit in it then you deserve the shame without the help of a face saving "it was the AI".

Looks like a few companies have made "AI" condoms for marketing, usually leaning heavily on how everything is a bit too ... On point? ... Into it? Absolutely fucked with AI?

While trying to find the one this one came from I found one that was basically "we put AI in the condom, so just get an erection, put it on, take out your phone, open the app, sign in, scan the QR code on your penis, complete registration and sync, finish software updates, re-pair the condom, configure session preferences, and now you're ready for AI enhanced intercourse with features such as helpful mid coitus tips, aggressive affirmation that you're doing great, and constant requests for feedback".

Ironically, condoms have actually been AI optimized for decades. The laser scanning defect detection system everyone uses is built on a type of AI that's got next to nothing in common with the current frenzy and more to do with "statistics".

My actual feeling is that those who would celebrate a public execution would see someone getting shot to death and think the ordeal should have been much more spectacular.

Years ago I was an EMT student in the ER when someone came in with a nasty case of multiple gunshot wounds to the hands, arms, legs, chest and abdomen (shot in chest through hands in defensive posture, then shot repeatedly while on the ground including in the abdomen via thighs as they curled into a ball).
There's no explosion of gore or dramatic Hollywood effect. The people watching the execution will just see something similar to getting poked by a giant needle and then going limp.

They won't celebrate because they'll be disappointed there wasn't more.

You have too much faith in people. A lot will find the barbarousness underwhelming.

It's the frustrating thing with adding safety features to almost anything.

You add a thing to make something safer under normal conditions by catching the edge cases and mistakes.
People treat a safety feature as a quality of life feature and stop paying as much attention.
Nothing changes unless your change is non-obvious (my car will increase how much brake a certain depression of the pedal implies based on how imminent it thinks an impact is. If it thinks you need to brake, and you confirm that by hitting the brakes, it'll say "cool, lemme just adjust the force per the radar then"), or the lazy approach is just legitimately safer (backing up a car while staring at a backup camera is still safer than only looking at the rearview mirror. Both are wrong, but the easier wrong is still safer).

Ultimately, people will use as much effort as they feel is justified for a safety budget. If you make it harder and safer people won't use it, and if the easier outpaces the safety they won't keep doing both since it's not safety driving the choice.

With power tools adding safety features makes people a little more cavalier, but it's their safety vs their convenience.
With a car, it's my convenience versus your "bone integrity", which is why it so often results in people acting extra shitty.

Crocodile Dundee

It's suddenly a movie about a weirdly elitist Australian talking down to a bunch of Australian expats.

That's actually a more shitty cable. The USB spec gives a maximum cable length based on when wire length will start to pick up more interference and impact data rates.
Basically this is a curly cable that can't be as long as it otherwise would, and if you try it's going to actively try to pull itself out of the device because it's a spring.

There is a weight associated with the electrons needed to convey information, but it's negligible.

Beyond that though, we're not actually so interested in moving the electrons, but in toggling the electric field. Most of the electrons in the wire stay in the wire, and any that leave are balanced by another coming in on the other end. Electrons can move between the atoms, but if your cable is actually changing the number then something has gone wrong, since laptops don't typically ionize copper.

It's a pretty straightforward calculation, since amperage is the number of electrons per second, and the cables has a well documented signaling rate.
It works out to a bit weighing about 2x10^-22 grams for a USB cable.

So why are you using random nonsense to argue your point?

Also, you're like a gen x property owner who runs a food bank. Oh, and you're Australian. The previous generations left you with a pretty sweet setup.
I'm sorry no one died and left you their retirement account.