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

Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

ifixit.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 354 posts

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#281

Post by jeena »

TomMarius wrote: post #94
dleslie wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American McGee is probably the most famous example of this. > Dead-end jobs followed – washing dishes, polishing rings at a jewelry store, ringing orders at a record store and, finally, fixing Volkswagens at Uncle J.O.'s auto repair shop. > The tinkering that's required of mechanics appealed to the teenage hacker. The $6-an-hour job "was the first time I ever felt like I accomplished something at work," McGee said. >…

A lot of software engineers around me love poking in their cars

Before I bought my first computer, at 16 - 22 I was repairing and thus disassembling and assembling back my motorcycles and cars on a monthly basis. I didn't have enough money to buy a good working one so I had to tinker with it very often.

The most extreme I did was to replace the car body after an accident I had (slippery road) in my own garage. After a week or something I got a running car again, with a different color and car body number but whatever ^^.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#282

Post by thirdsun »

was_boring wrote: post #103
ngngngng wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm convinced most successful mechanics could be successful programmers. The skill set of looking at a problem and debugging until you really understand the architecture and design of what you're looking at is very similar in both fields.

I'm convinced most successful programmers can be successful mechanics for the same reason! Most programmers I know tend to be handy in some way, whether that's fixing their own cars (myself), wood working, or some other skill which requires them to think through problems and work with their hands. I actually view fixing cars as not only a hobby of mine, but as a fall back career should I ever become bored of software…

> Most programmers I know tend to be handy in some way, whether that's fixing their own cars (myself), wood working, or some other skill which requires them to think through problems and work with their hands.

I can relate to that. In fact, I find it downright relaxing being able to work with wood (I like to restore mid-century furniture as a hobby) and compared to all those digital, virtual tasks and projects it's so refreshing being able to physically touch, feel, see and use the result of one's work.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#283

Post by sjwright »

killaken2000 wrote: post #231
sjwright wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Literally, anything that looks like an Apple part, but isn't an Apple part according to Apple, gets blocked. Think about the implications of that." The implication is that we are correctly enforcing trademark law... Or are you saying that anyone should be allowed to import anything with anyone's brand on it? Because congratulations, you have now destroyed the value and purpose of every single trademark. Remember,…

To my knowledge they had Apple logos because they were Apple products. Maybe there's more to it but that's what I understood so far. Removing the Apple logo from Apple products in order to ship them to the states so they can be used to fix Apple products seems unnecessary.

> "Removing the Apple logo from Apple products in order to ship them to the states so they can be used to fix Apple products seems unnecessary."

Putting an Apple logo on something that is not an Apple product seems unnecessary.

These parts are not Apple products. In order for a product to be an Apple product, it has to have been sold by, through or under license from Apple at some point in its life.

These were not, which makes them counterfeit by definition. They might be perfectly identical to the real thing, they might be slightly inferior, or they might be dangerous junk. You don't know.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#284

Post by collyw »

tempestn wrote: post #258
cptskippy wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling it ransom isn't spin, it's disingenuous. They paid for x range and received x range. They were given a standing offer to increase that range for a cost significantly less than the cost of replacing or physically upgrading the battery. Now if they had paid for 120kwh batteries and received 120kwh batteries that would only deliver 100kwh of range then we'd be having and entirely different conversation.

For what it's worth, I disagree with you but don't think you should be down voted for this reply, since you're explaining your position clearly.

We all know the theory of down voting and practice of dwon voting are quite distinct by now.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#286

Post by Jedi72 »

beat wrote: post #146
ngngngng wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm convinced most successful mechanics could be successful programmers. The skill set of looking at a problem and debugging until you really understand the architecture and design of what you're looking at is very similar in both fields.

I grew up working on cars and motorcycles. The mindset is very similar. Since I work more in DevOps than as a developer, I often think of myself as a software mechanic. Interestingly, I find the musician mindset is also very similar, particularly musicians who compose or improvise.

Software Mechanic is a pretty good term. A lot of people out there claim to be software engineers (creatively design solutions to problems), when really they are mechanics (apply technical skill and knowledge to already solved problems). Web development is an example of a largely solved problem, the answer to every problem in webdev is to look it up in the manual (Google it). Adoption of this term would clear up a point of mass-confusion in our industry.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#287

Post by tempestn »

sam_goody wrote: post #279
tempestn wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, I disagree with you but don't think you should be down voted for this reply, since you're explaining your position clearly.

FWIW, if HN would offer a disagree and flag button as two options, we would have far better conversations here. Flag / downvote is essential, or we would just get spam or become Reddit. But currently there is no way to disagree without punishing. As it is, many are afraid to post anything other than echo-chamber because they might get downvoted.

Yeah, it's an idea. Either that or they could more enthusiastically push the idea that if you disagree you should explain why, rather than down voting.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#288

Post by reitanqild »

oconnor663 wrote: post #251
ajnin wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patents are already supposed to do that. They are required to describe embodiments of the claims, which can be used by anyone to implement the invention. However they are always redacted in the vaguest, most obscure way possible as to provide the legal protection without the disclosure part. That should be reason to reject any patent application in my opinion, but I'm not a patent examiner.

I don't think they use convoluted language to avoid disclosure. I think they use convoluted language to hide the fact that what's being patented totally fails the obviousness test. But I might have a biased sample here :p

Not denying what you said but I guess an even bigger reason might be to cover as much ground as possible.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#289

Post by devit »

cptskippy wrote: post #230
wtetzner wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a purely artificial limitation. You’re not getting anything new when paying for the upgrade, just effectively flipping a boolean.

Yes. And the person paid for 60 kWh of battery capacity. They didn't pay for 75 kWh of battery capacity. The true capacity of the battery is irrelevant so long as it delivers the capacity the person paid for. Tesla didn't sell the vehicle as having a different curb weight, or a specified number of 18650 cells contained in the battery pack. They sold it based on having a 60 kWh capacity which it does. Why do you feel…

Because the fact that they can do such a thing at a profit means the market is inefficient.

Imagine that instead of having a single Tesla, there were two identical companies each selling half of what the actual Tesla does.

Now one of them could offer an unlocked 75kWh version at $1 more than the locked-to-60kWh version (since they cost the same to make and they are profitable) and would capture all the market, so the cost of those two products should be the same.

So Tesla essentially can only do this because they have a monopoly on Tesla-or-functionally-identical cars.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#290

Post by codeulike »

ngngngng wrote: post #72
jedberg wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With a raspberry pi and a bit of python however you can reset this tamper code once the whole assembly is closed. This sentence is interesting to me. It tells me that now mechanics need to learn programming skills to be successful. Software really is eating the world...

I'm convinced most successful mechanics could be successful programmers. The skill set of looking at a problem and debugging until you really understand the architecture and design of what you're looking at is very similar in both fields.

Its almost as if you could call programming 'software engineering'
Post reply on HN