I kind of did the best I could to postulate a theory (I think I will see better with the fogs on)
That's not a theory, it's a hypothesis. And even if you'd wanted to test it, you didn't have the knowledge, equipment, or facilities to do so. And even if you had, the lamps you're curious about aren't fog lamps.
Can you offer any proof that any of these statements are more than just your opinion?
Yes, but not in "internet time". It is a complex topic that can't be learned with a handful of sound bites; there's a lot of information to cover. Some resources for you
here (a highly excellent broad-based, accessible entree into the field),
here (another, more focused on the technology and regulations but with some coverage of the human side),
here (another, and this one you can have for free -- jump to pages 21-22 to immediately understand why those things you bought as "fog lamps" aren't fog lamps),
here and
here (the last two are more advanced texts that go into explanatory detail on the human factors and other science involved).
And tell an air traffic controller or a fighter pilot that computer performance is not a life treating issue. It is. Next time you are in the air think about what would happen if avionics or ATC systems are just that little bit too slow.
OK, then: in safety-critical computer installations, is speed determined by some guy like you sitting at the computer, using it in whatever manner you think an ordinary person would use it, and going "Yep, that's fast enough" or "Nope, that's too slow" based on your subjective impression? Or does it involve running prescribed tests that load the computer in various ways and generate objective, numerical test results that are then compared to specifications and benchmarks to determine whether the computer is fast enough?
We could talk about drinking water safety, too: is it determined by some guy like you drinking a glass of it and going "Tastes OK to me and the ten other guys I asked"? Or is it determined by objective tests for contaminants like lead, bacteria, and VOCs?
Or air quality: is it measured by some guy like you going outside and saying "I don't smell anything gross, and I'm not having any difficulty breathing, so it's fine...no need for scientific instruments; I'm testing it the way people actually use it"? Or is it determined by objective tests for contaminants like PM-10, NOx, and CO?
We have Federal safety standards for brakes and seatbelts, too. They contain design, construction, and performance requirements as well as objective test protocols. Why? We could just trust whoever offers something shaped like a brake pad that it's as awesome as they say it is, install it, and have some guy like you get in the car and get it up to...say...70 mph and then stand on the brakes. "They're fine; I tested them the way people use them. The car stopped, the seatbelt didn't break, they're fine."
Food safety! There are objective requirements for how food is handled, stored, processed, and prepared. How come? Why don't we just get some guy like you to grab a handful of whatever food is in question and eat it? "I didn't get sick, so it's fine...I tested it how people use it".
Obviously I could keep doing this, but I think the point was made long ago in this thread...for whoever
wants to understand; the common element in all these examples is that there's an enormous gap between "so completely awful that it's readily obvious" and "might seem OK but it's not good enough".
Next time you are in the air think about what would happen if avionics or ATC systems are just that little bit too slow.
Yeah...next time you are on the road think about what would happen if traffic safety were left up to those who don't know what they're talking about, and just want to do whatever they want to do without being bothered by pesky safety standards and tiresome objective testing with silly scientific equipment.
Pretty sure we can stick a fork in this one, at least until you've done a chunk of "homework" (reading/learning).