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

301–310 of 354 posts

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#301

Post by xxs »

arcticbull wrote: post #257
cronix wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This sort of thing is done all of the time in manufacturing to streamline costs. A good example is Intel and chip manufacturers locking their cpus to a specific frequency when they are capable of higher so they don't have to manufacture the same cpu with different frequencies.

That's a bit different, right? CPUs are binned based on their ability to perform at higher frequencies / not be defective. They're turned into different 'products' so that less-than-ideal parts can still be sold instead of thrown out. 4-core CPUs may be 6-core CPUs where 1 or 2 cores are physically defective pieces of silicon. Sometimes, especially as a process matures, there's too few defective parts, so they take s…

Cobalt is likely more controversial the lithium.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#302

Post by xxs »

tolien wrote: post #297
arcticbull wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a bit different, right? CPUs are binned based on their ability to perform at higher frequencies / not be defective. They're turned into different 'products' so that less-than-ideal parts can still be sold instead of thrown out. 4-core CPUs may be 6-core CPUs where 1 or 2 cores are physically defective pieces of silicon. Sometimes, especially as a process matures, there's too few defective parts, so they take s…

Intel and AMD have sold hardware as lower SKUs than binned in order to meet demand too. Intel’s also sold upgrades [1] that unlocked features that were already in the CPU. I guess the closer analogy to CPU binning would be if they found a fault in a P100’s batteries and sold it as a P85 instead of replacing the battery. CPUs aren’t a great analogy though, since the unused material in a Xeon-E that failed binning and…

also battery packs have nom trivial weight that affects both performance and range.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#303

Post by franga2000 »

sjwright wrote: post #223
derefr wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple already has some sort of sweetheart deal with US Customs that gets Apple parts shipped from China rejected at import time unless they're part of an Apple-tracked shipment. This blocks devices have been third-party-repaired in China from being re-imported; but also blocks "ghost-shift" (but otherwise first-party!) Apple parts from coming into the country. Literally, anything that looks like an Apple part, but is…

> "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,…

I'm not familiar with Rossman's battery case, but those same laws have been used to stop shipments of refurbished Apple parts. I believe it was iPad Rehab this happened to most famously. They would disassemble an iPhone, send the display assembly (broken glass, LCD intact) to China, they would replace the glass and send it back. Because the LCD had an Apple logo on it, it was seized. But the LCD was genuine - it came directly out of an iPhone. That's equivalent to stopping the sale of a used car, just because it had the tires replaced with third-party ones, but still bares the maker's logo.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#304

Post by [deleted] »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #153
romwell wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that fact making you terrified in the context of this discussion?

JD uses desktop simulators, then simulation using real hardware on test stands with recorded data, then field trials, then controlled trials with partner operators. THEN they release to the public. I'm terrified somebody will think their tweak is 'obviously safe' and share it online and before we know it a combine will run through an elementary school.

[deleted]

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#305

Post by Dowwie »

romwell wrote: post #159
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

JD uses desktop simulators, then simulation using real hardware on test stands with recorded data, then field trials, then controlled trials with partner operators. THEN they release to the public. I'm terrified somebody will think their tweak is 'obviously safe' and share it online and before we know it a combine will run through an elementary school.

Ah, so you are afraid people that people who use and repair tractors, and can already break them in many ways that you don't understand (e.g. mechanically), will break them in a way you do understand (using software!), and so you would rather have those ways be illegal to keep you from worrying. Using your line of reasoning, we should close down repair shops altogether. How can we trust people without engineering deg…

Ad hominem attacks are frowned upon here

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#306

Post by aliswe »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #157
was_boring wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's what I thought, and then I fragged a Ferrari engine. Dunning-Kruger is not a river in Egypt...

Had to look this up. Denial, is a river in egypt. But thats just a meaningless pun. The Nile is a river in egypt. What do you mean by your saying?

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#307

Post by chrisweekly »

pgt wrote: post #292
mml wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Software Janitor" is my personal favorite. I should probably carry around a bag of pencil shavings on principle.

Yeah, I used to say CTO = main janitor of tech. Software mechanic says: I don't mind getting my hands dirty while doing intricate work (computers, who understands 'em?). Janitorial work seems to be regarded as lowly drudge work, even though being a good caretaker/warden means preventing problems from occurring in the first place, like watering the garden and keeping leaks in check. Everyone is trying to keep a cupboa…

In my enterprise dev mgr role in maintaining a legacy codebase while introducing new features I used to talk w/ my team in terms of "software gardening".

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#308

Post by MertsA »

mark-r wrote: post #262
MertsA wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>especially if you become dependent on it. Nobody is ever going to become dependent on locking up their brakes during normal driving. Power brakes would be dangerous if they failed because without them you get very substantially reduced braking but in no way would the lack of ABS be any more dangerous than driving a car without ABS to begin with.

An ABS failure could easily become fatal if it increased your stopping distance beyond what you'd achieve without it. After all it works by modulating the signal you send to the brakes.

That's irrelevant and it doesn't change the fact that no one drives with the intention to brake hard enough that ABS activates. There's zero chance of anyone becoming dependent on it.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#309

Post by Coincoin »

MertsA wrote: post #213
Coincoin wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ABS not working as intended could be a surprise to the driver and cause a crash, especially if you become dependent on it. It's just like that AF 447 crash, they stalled from 38,000 ft to the ground because they never expected the computer to let them stall the plane. But I mostly agree, the only software things I would see as absolutely life critical on a car would be drive-by-wire controls. All the rest will just e…

>especially if you become dependent on it. Nobody is ever going to become dependent on locking up their brakes during normal driving. Power brakes would be dangerous if they failed because without them you get very substantially reduced braking but in no way would the lack of ABS be any more dangerous than driving a car without ABS to begin with.

There is a lot of snow where I live and the ABS triggers all the time and yes some people just slam the brakes expecting their ABS to optimally slow down on ice.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#310

Post by cptskippy »

apatters wrote: post #253
cptskippy wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word ransom.

I think it's more accurate (certainly more charitable) to call his statement hyperbole. Calling it a ransom seems like an exaggeration but not really a lie. But if you accuse him of lying when he's not then you are lying :)

Ransom is when someone takes from you and only returns what they took when you meet their demands.

Tesla didn't take anything from the buyers of the car owners who paid for 60 kWh capacity. It gave them what they wanted, it just happened to delivery it in a vessel that could hold 75 kWh.

Rather, the car buyers were offered the option to purchase the exact same car at a reduced price because it was artificially limited to 60 kWh.

I'm not clear what people are upset about. Are they saying Tesla should have made 60 kWh packs or sold the 75 kWh packs at two prices and hoped most people would opt to pay more money?

In the former scenario an owner of a 60 kWh car would have to replace the entire battery to upgrade or trade in their car to a higher capacity if they found they needed it. In either case their costs would be higher than just paying to unlock the restricted capacity.

In the later scenario Tesla loses money because no one opts for pay them more money for the same product.

Post reply on HN