@nlitworld — The car analogies are entertaining but they slip past the key distinction. If you put a lift kit on your truck, you're accepting known tradeoffs for your own purposes. Nobody is selling you that kit by claiming the Subaru engineers got the suspension wrong and that this is objectively better for all drivers. That's what Danny does — he makes public claims of deficiency and improvement, backed by measurements the evidence suggests weren't adequate to support them. That's a meaningfully different kind of intervention.
The salt analogy fails for the same reason — seasoning your own food affects nobody else. Danny has a platform and a commercial operation. His public claims about the Sierra 2EX have real consequences for Ascend's reputation.
As for stopping while I'm ahead — I'd push back on that framing. The engineering respect point isn't a retreat from the original argument, it's the same argument. The reason Danny's inadequate measurements matter is precisely because the speaker was carefully engineered by someone using far better tools. Those two points aren't separate — one explains why the other is worth taking seriously.