Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 325 posts

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#71

Post by twblalock »

Retric wrote: post #66
twblalock wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The choice of those training sets, including their contents, their size, how they are consumed, and the algorithms they are fed to, affects the output. Therefore, programmers make decisions. It is unavoidable.

I don't think the people doing a million miles driving Google cars around are classified as programmers.

Actually, some of them are programmers.

Even if they weren't, it is unrealistic to assume that programmers have no input into the decisions that go into building the training set, which in this case involves where, and in what conditions, the prototype cars are driven.

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#72

Post by jlg23 »

azraomega wrote: post #61

While I hate companies suing people for repairing their own properties, "right" has been overused so many places. What a sensational word! I have the "right" to not being sued! What? I would advocate companies certify other entities as repairing authorities or just do a good job themselves; providing the support. Of course it will reduce their product sale and that would be a huge deal to us consumers as well because…

> While I hate companies suing people for repairing their own properties, "right" has been overused so many places.

I don't think it is outrageous to claim ownership to something that I bought. If a company does not want me to repair my own property, put a big "not for sale, only for lease" label on the package.

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#73

Post by Nullabillity »

Silhouette wrote: post #40
nathan_long wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You bring up very interesting questions, but the self-driving car should be taken as a very special case. A manufacturer can hardly argue that they have a safety reason to keep you from repairing your TV, printer, or cell phone.

A manufacturer can hardly argue that they have a safety reason to keep you from repairing your TV, printer, or cell phone. I believe this is not the strongest argument to make. There are plenty of products that do have legitimate safety or other regulatory concerns, where there is a good reason to prevent someone who doesn't know what they're doing from meddling. However, the relevant point is whether they know what…

> There are plenty of products that do have legitimate safety or other regulatory concerns, where there is a good reason to prevent someone who doesn't know what they're doing from meddling.

The safety of themselves or others?

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#74

Post by mikeash »

foota wrote: post #70
mikeash wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Per hour" is rather ridiculous. I'm talking about per crash . There are a couple million vehicle crashes in the US each year, so if it really is 99.9999%, that's two or three ethical crises per year here. Among a billion vehicles it would be maybe ten per year. And honestly I'd be surprised if it's that many. When have you ever heard of a crash where there was any kind of ethical dilemma in the response? People keep…

I'm actually familiar with a situation like this, the person was on a highway at night and came around a corner to see a deer lying in the road and a crowd right behind the deer. There was a couple of people off to either side. They couldn't brake in time to stop and not harm the people on the other side of the deer.

What's the ethical dilemma there? From your description it sounds like they were just screwed regardless.

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#75

Post by Nullabillity »

extrapickles wrote: post #37
acd wrote: post #17

I think electronics should be designed for repair and easy recycling as a main design goal. For example a cell phone, you could build it with an aluminum back with small phillips screws instead of glued back. Open the phone up with a standard screw driver and you will be able to replace the battery, main board and screen yourself. What kind of environment do you want to leave for future generations. A big pile of ele…

I don't mind them gluing things like the battery in since it make for a more rigid phone provided they use a glue that a moderate amount of heat can greatly weaken. The problem with upgrading parts of something like a phone is that the components interfaces change frequently. Even desktop cpu/memory sockets change every few years. Compact form factors are worse as you dont have room for the connector, and for the lar…

> Even desktop cpu/memory sockets change every few years.

Amusingly, AMD seems to manage fine without nearly as many socket changes as Intel...

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#76

Post by saidajigumi »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #4

I think this whole open source and right to repair/modify will be very interesting with self-driving cars, because of their interaction with the commons. Here are some issues. There have been some discussions about the ethics of self-driving cars if it should sacrifice the lives of the people in the cars to save more lives. In a right to repair/modify wouldn't a lot of people pay to have the algorithm changed for the…

Why on earth should society allow (i.e. license) a randomly-modified software agent to operate a motor vehicle? The idea that any "hacker" has the right to arbitrarily change vehicular self-control software and deploy that on a public roadway is laughable.

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#77

Post by CaptSpify »

I used to do after-market repair medical equipment (MRI's, CT's, X-Ray, etc). One of the biggest frustrations was: $manufacturer wants $5000 to repair a CT. We'd charge $1000.

We'd repair the CT, and it would pass all the built-in diagnostic tests. But then when the customer went to make a scan, a pop-up would appear saying "Unauthorized Repair! Call $manufacturer to fix!".

$manufacturer repair tech would come in, plug in a usb-key, type a code, and charge $1000. They didn't run any of the diagnostics, and were basically paid to keep the usb-key available.

I believe in the right to repair, because preventing it just causes artificial monopolies and price-gouging.

(note: I don't remember actual prices. Numbers were just made up)

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#78

Post by Retric »

twblalock wrote: post #71
Retric wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the people doing a million miles driving Google cars around are classified as programmers.

Actually, some of them are programmers. Even if they weren't, it is unrealistic to assume that programmers have no input into the decisions that go into building the training set, which in this case involves where, and in what conditions, the prototype cars are driven.

Granted, though plenty of Uber drivers are probably also programmers, and I have made plenty of business decisions I probably should not have. But, I would hope this is held to a higher standard.

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#79

Post by maxerickson »

mikeash wrote: post #74
foota wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm actually familiar with a situation like this, the person was on a highway at night and came around a corner to see a deer lying in the road and a crowd right behind the deer. There was a couple of people off to either side. They couldn't brake in time to stop and not harm the people on the other side of the deer.

What's the ethical dilemma there? From your description it sounds like they were just screwed regardless.

Also, an autonomous system would probably get information about that sort of problem and slow down prior to going around the turn.

At least, they will if we don't screw it up.

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#80

Post by themartorana »

CaptSpify wrote: post #77

I used to do after-market repair medical equipment (MRI's, CT's, X-Ray, etc). One of the biggest frustrations was: $manufacturer wants $5000 to repair a CT. We'd charge $1000. We'd repair the CT, and it would pass all the built-in diagnostic tests. But then when the customer went to make a scan, a pop-up would appear saying "Unauthorized Repair! Call $manufacturer to fix!". $manufacturer repair tech would come in, pl…

Pretty scary that they don't run a diagnostic pass - I wonder, if the repair was bad and caused human injury/death, who would be liable? Company X did the repair, but $manufacturer basically certified it.
Post reply on HN