I never said Detroit made "crap" cars. I only said they were unsafe. And they were. Hence the On September 9, 1966, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act became law in the U.S., the first mandatory federal safety standards for motor vehicles. And this all began with "UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED"!
As one of my favorite early Internet personas once said, "Insisting on absolute safety is for people without the balls to live in the real world." There is no such thing as "unsafe at any speed" because there is no such thing as "safe". There is always some risk. Even if you designed cars so that they could never crash into each other, so the passengers were completely shielded and cushioned in the event of a single-vehicle accident, passengers would still be at risk of being injured due to things like a meteor striking the car.
Safety isn't a binary yes/no thing. It's a continuous scale of trade-offs. You can gain additional safety, at the expense of price, performance, comfort, fuel consumption, etc. Or you give up safety to gain performance, comfort, fuel economy, lower price, etc. Pretending that there's some universal threshold of safety which "everyone knows" should be met is, quite frankly, childish. (Unfortunately a large portion of the population doesn't seem capable of reasoning beyond childlike levels, which is why Ralph Nader had to deliberately frame his argument from a binary yes/no right/wrong perspective in order to get enough public support for the changes in auto safety standards.)
Likewise, the "flaws" in Intel's CPUs aren't because of right/wrong design philosophy. They're trade-offs made between security and performance. If you need that security, then you probably want to avoid the affected Intel processors in favor of AMD. If you don't need the security, then you'll probably want to use Intel's processors over AMD's because of their superior performance. Different strokes for different folks. No one size fits all solution. Evaluate what you gain and what you give up in the trade-off, and pick the solution which works best
for your particular application.
Edit: I'll throw in this story because it demonstrates why it's important to understand that safety is a trade-off. United Airlines flight 232 crashed in 1989, but more than half the people survived thanks to a fantastic job by the flight crew.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232
One of the passengers was a lap child. That's an infant who doesn't have a paid ticket, and is held in the parent's lap throughout the flight. When preparing for the crash landing, the head stewardess followed airline procedure and instructed the parents to put the lap child underneath the seat in front, like you do luggage. The parents survived. The child did not.
The stewardess was so racked with guilt that she led a two-decade campaign to prohibit lap children aboard planes. If an infant is required to be in an infant car seat when in a car, then they should also be required to be in the same type of infant seat when aboard a plane. After two decades of campaigning and lobbying, she finally got a hearing in front of the FAA. After listening to her and others' testimony, the FAA carefully considered the issue, and ruled against her. Lap children would still be allowed aboard planes.
Think about that for a minute before reading on. Stupid? A travesty of justice? The airlines must have bribed the FAA officials? Here's why the FAA decided as they did.
Travel by airliner is much safer than travel by car. If you require infants be in a special seat aboard a plane, then that would require the parents to pay for an extra seat when flying. The expense of an extra plane ticket would cause many parents to choose to drive instead of fly. And that would mean a lot more children would die in car accidents than would've died if they'd flown. So while it was unfortunate that this one lap child died, that one child's death was the price for saving roughly 90 children from death in car accidents (you're about 90x more likely to die in a car crash than an airliner crash). So the FAA decided it was better to keep the lap child policy in place, in order to
save children's lives.