Re: Fuses?
"the Boeing 737 Lawndart which exists because pilots etc. can't be retrained."
There seems to be widespread misunderstanding of this. Boeing didn't make it handle like the old one because it's cheaper, or because the pilots can't be retrained, but because retraining pilots carries its own set of risks; training isn't automatically successful. You can argue about whether they struck the right balance of risks, but it's not unreasonable to suggest that we'd have seen at least as many accidents (and possibly more) on a significantly different platform due to (re)training failures than we have seen this way. The air industry has stats on this sort of thing, and I would imagine they show that Boeing got that part of it right.
It's also worth pointing out that there were multiple MCAS incidents, and only two of them resulted in crashes. It's no coincidence that they were in parts of the world where pilot training and experience are not up to rich-world standards. In all the other cases, the pilots successfully managed the situations.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/magazine/boeing-737-max-crashes.html
That's not to say Boeing didn't do anything wrong, but understanding what really went on is important in preventing future crashes - which Boeing-bashing doesn't actually achieve.