The Fight for the “Right to Repair” • Hacker News Board

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#291

Post by Grishnakh » Thu, Jul 14, 2016, 4:24 PM UTC

tripzilch wrote: post #285

blastrat wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how can you allow people to own guns without allowing them to shoot people? how can you allow mechanics to fix brakes without allowing them to break brakes? I dunno... laws maybe? Like, the same laws that can require manufacturers to allow aftermarket competition.

> how can you allow people to own guns without allowing them to shoot people? even more, correct me if I'm wrong here, but you can repair a gun, but it's illegal to make certain modifications to it, right?

>but it's illegal to make certain modifications to it, right?

That's correct in the US. For instance, you can repair an AR-15 back to factory specs, you can modify it in certain ways (adding different sights, etc.), but if you modify it for full-auto operation (which is quite feasible actually), you can be thrown in jail IIRC and be subject to a gigantic fine.

This system works well: people can repair and modify their property to a certain point, but making specific changes are highly illegal, and the penalties are extremely severe, so almost no one does it. The same can be done for other things if the case for public safety warrants it. So repairing your robo-car should be completely legal, but modifying it to blatantly violate emissions laws or to run cyclists off the road can be punished harshly with vehicle confiscation, $1M fines, lengthy prison sentences, etc.

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#292

Post by Grishnakh » Thu, Jul 14, 2016, 4:29 PM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #122

patrickmay wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As long as cars belong to individuals they have the responsibility to favor the interests of those individuals as far as law permits. Well put. I would not buy a car that wasn't designed to protect its occupants first and foremost. My family is more important to me than abstract, unlikely to occur ethical dilemmas. Having that choice programmed in actually makes it easier for self-driving cars to predict the behavi…

Have you even been in a Taxi? Or a bus? Or any situation where someone who is not you is driving the car? You have put your life into their hands when you do this. No matter what algorithm the self driving car is running, it is going to be 100 times safer than you driving the car. Yes, YOU are a worse driver than a self driving car, NO MATTER what "ethics algorithm" it is running, because any of the ones that could b…

False equivalence.

If you get into a taxi or a bus, there's still a human driver who has the same survival instinct that you have. If he has to run someone over so that he can survive, he likely will, saving you too in the process.

This isn't about systems being perfect, it's about whether the system should err on the side of protecting the car's occupants or on minimizing casualties overall.

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#293

Post by restalis » Thu, Jul 14, 2016, 4:30 PM UTC

coldpie wrote: post #267

teekert wrote: post #242

I don't really understand this fight. Why not let the market sort it out? I for one stopped buying Macbooks as soon as they were being glued shut. My 2011 MBP can be opened, I put 16 GB of RAM in there and a TB SSD. I know Apple thinks it is ridiculous [0] to use a 5 yr old PC but the thing is blazing fast. I'll never buy a laptop that is unusable in 5 years time when there are also models with up to 3 m.2 slots avai…

Because not everyone is perfectly informed about the consequences of their purchase at the time they make the purchase. I'm glad you do your research, but with this kind of law, you wouldn't need to do that research and could instead spend your time doing something you enjoy. Similarly, you don't need to research your grocery store's meat selling policies to ensure you're not getting rotten meat.

"Similarly, you don't need to research your grocery store's meat selling policies to ensure you're not getting rotten meat."

That is a poor analogy. There actually is a lot of research needed in order to get right the edible food, including meat. We just did it in time, collectively, over many generations; then each of us just learned it all from others (parents, mostly). That's how we come to figure out that that piece of meat is not safe to eat if it smells bad and a lot of other important cues. And despite all that, dilettante individual observation can give us only so many results, and that's why there actually was necessary additional professional research that in time got institutionalized and the selling policies - rigorously regulated.

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#294

Post by Zak » Thu, Jul 14, 2016, 4:55 PM UTC

kbart wrote: post #223

eru wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, I just looked up "rolling coal". I can maybe get the political protest aspect---even if I disagree, but blowing the smoke at pedestrians, cyclist or even just other cars seems like one of the most dickish things ever.

Is it even legal in USA? In EU, that would make your card road illegal instantly.

A police officer once told me his favorite traffic ticket to write was "excessive visible emission".

I've noticed a difference in the approach to enforcement of many minor regulations between the US and Germany, where I've spend a considerable amount of time. In the US, it's common for things like vehicle emissions and safety to be subject to many regulations, but only checked if somebody complains or the police happen to notice. In Germany, cars are regularly subjected to fairly strict inspections.

So people in the US do a lot of things with their cars that aren't technically legal. For the most part, this doesn't seem to be a major safety issue. In an analysis by the Department of Transportation[0], 4.9% of crashes were found to involve a tire/wheel deficiency and 1.9% involved some other vehicle deficiency. Tire pressure monitoring recently became mandatory on new cars sold in the US, which should have a significant impact on the most common maintenance issue. It's likely that a comprehensive vehicle inspection program would not have a particularly good cost/benefit ratio relative to, for example improving traffic flow and signaling at intersections. 36.2% of crashes involved intersections.

[0] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#295

Post by Zak » Thu, Jul 14, 2016, 4:59 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #79

mikeash wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Human drivers can already get information about that sort of problem, e.g. by using Waze. This requires that a human who uses the app has reported a hazard (the act of which could sometimes result in distracted driving), however, I would expect autonomous cars to tell each other about such things in the future.

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#296

Post by wil421 » Thu, Jul 14, 2016, 5:00 PM UTC

jolux wrote: post #216

wil421 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for the $200 premium apple chargers to go from a paltry 128 to 256 I could get double that from an SSD on Amazon... Not to mention the $200 premium they charge for RAM. I can get 16gb of crucial RAM for the older MBPs for $56.99. I'll pay to play eventually but I'm not happy about it.

Would the one off Amazon be as fast? Is Crucial RAM as high-binned as Apple RAM is?

I doubt it's as fast but the flash is made by Samsung and if it's using triple layer cells I'm worried about the longevity of the drives.

In 3 years of heavy use will the drive still have the same amount of space? The olds ones I could pop a new drive in as advancements are made in the SSD space, which I have done twice.

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#297

Post by ashitlerferad » Thu, Jul 14, 2016, 5:01 PM UTC

Can I have the right to repair iOS?

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#298

Post by restalis » Thu, Jul 14, 2016, 5:08 PM UTC

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #200

mmanfrin wrote: post #12

John Deere is attempting to make sales of their tractors 'leases' to enforce their ban on self repair: http://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/

I am super hardcore stallman-esque pro openness, but I also have somewhat libertarian views on how people should be allowed to operate. My thinking is: let them lock them down and after a few years, someone who genuinely values openness will come in as a competitor. If you pass a law requiring some kind of openness, companies against openness will just hang out at the edge of what is legally permissible. I am curious…

"My thinking is: let them lock them down and after a few years, someone who genuinely values openness will come in as a competitor."

To me this is akin to "let them do the bad thing, someone will surely come in in no time and the problems will disappear on their own"! Well, first, this is not (at least to me) an issue that we're not sure yet if it's good or bad and will know only when we'll have a competitor doing it differently to serve as a comparison base. This is a clear cut condemnable practice from the manufacturer's part, which does not have a positive impact for the society at large. We don't have to wait and let it happen. Second, if we'll let it be long enough, it'll get ingrained into culture. Then, even if future competition is to pop up, they won't have to only deal with an existing powerful monopoly living off a large margin or system, they'll have to also deal with how things got accustomed to be done (and a successful full scale disruption is never easy nor guaranteed). If you need an example for this, just look at the struggle electric vehicles manufacturers had (or still have) to endure.

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#299

Post by coldpie » Thu, Jul 14, 2016, 5:13 PM UTC

restalis wrote: post #293

coldpie wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because not everyone is perfectly informed about the consequences of their purchase at the time they make the purchase. I'm glad you do your research, but with this kind of law, you wouldn't need to do that research and could instead spend your time doing something you enjoy. Similarly, you don't need to research your grocery store's meat selling policies to ensure you're not getting rotten meat.

"Similarly, you don't need to research your grocery store's meat selling policies to ensure you're not getting rotten meat." That is a poor analogy. There actually is a lot of research needed in order to get right the edible food, including meat. We just did it in time, collectively, over many generations; then each of us just learned it all from others (parents, mostly). That's how we come to figure out that that pi…

What? I meant as individual consumers. There's a whole lot more to food safety than whether it smells OK. We have regulations so end consumers don't have to study the history of every company involved in the retail chain or risk illness. Similarly, we can have regulations to prevent customers from unknowingly buying artificially unrepairable objects.

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#300

Post by Grishnakh » Thu, Jul 14, 2016, 5:29 PM UTC

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…

>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.

You don't need screws on the back. The Samsung Galaxy phones (particularly the S4, S5, and S7) do just fine with a snap-on back. The S5 in particular is nicely water-resistant, even though the back is snap-on and can be removed with your fingernail.

I guess an aluminum back might be nice for ruggedness, but as Samsung shows, screws aren't really necessary. It's entirely possible to design something made of inexpensive plastic that works great, is waterproof, and just snaps together, and can be opened and re-snapped together countless times without breakage.