Yes. I fully understand that it’s a software safeguard protecting the machine - perhaps too aggressively, I don’t know.
I disagree with your other point, however. The cheaper laser I had (have) isn’t being replaced because it lacked safeguards to keep it in good running condition, but because it was such a workhorse that it’s time to replace the mirrors and the laser cathode which naturally wear out over time. In this case, they lasted over 4 years with very little maintenance - well past their expected life span. To replace them, it would cost about $300, which is about the cost of a new machine.
Rather than replace these consumables, I thought I might move on to a device that offered a more plug and play experience (the cheaper machines do require that you’re a bit more hands-on when setting up your cuts). From what I can see, the GF does provide that, but compared to the less expensive machines, the closed-loop system is absolutely a flaw if I am forced to retrofit some device that circumvents that system. The cheaper machines simply run water directly through the cathode using a small pump. It’s actually not too dissimilar to the fan/radiator system solution that was posted here. And because they do this, they aren’t as sensitive to ambient heat.
So in either set-up, I’m expected to have some external cooling device to keep the machine running. The difference is that the cheaper machines are designed to account for this - it’s built into their architecture so that the machine CAN safely operate. The GF seems to put the onus on their consumers to figure it out. In my book (and as the owner of a company that specializes in usability design), that is 100% design flaw.