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

Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 564 posts

Re: Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters

#451

Post by b112 »

b112 wrote: post #450
a1369209993 wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, yes, I was talking about a catchment tank (before the main pump; so the pump has water to pump) for the low-pressure input water. The pressure tank can be whereever.

Hmm. So a catchment tank, then even a small pressure tank after, might give a very nice experience. And without power, the catchment tank would still be pressurized by the incoming water supply at 10psi, a nice fallback. Now we only need to obtain the contract. Profit!

Even better, during war, calamity, or zombies, the catchment tank can provide for emergency water!

Re: Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters

#454

Post by ChuckNorris89 »

forgotmypw17 wrote: post #132
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? Without the app store an iPhone becomes just an expensive cordless telephone.

The Web browser is built-in. I personally don't install almost any apps on my smartphones, because I don't need much beyond that. It is extremely useful without any additional apps. Not as much without a battery.

There's a difference between "almost any" and no apps at all.

Re: Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters

#455

Post by smcl »

yumraj wrote: post #442
greggman3 wrote: post #434

I had this type of issue with a Macbook Pro. The rubber/plastic foot came off the bottom. Asked at the Genius Bar how much to replace it. It looks like a part that should cost $0.02 and expected an "Apple" markup of say $5. They wanted $350. Said they had to replace the entire bottom of the computer to put on a new rubber foot.

I just put the rubber foot and put a tape on top of it. It’s been that way for a couple of years now. Genuinely curious why would you even go to Apple for that?

That's only an option if you actually still have the foot. If you didn't notice it coming off, you won't have it and you won't be able to reattach it with tape. At that point you can either:

1. hunt around on AliExpress or Amazon for a third-party replacement

2. see if Apple are able to give you a "real" one for a not unreasonable price

Re: Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters

#456

Post by vl »

yumraj wrote: post #442
greggman3 wrote: post #434

I had this type of issue with a Macbook Pro. The rubber/plastic foot came off the bottom. Asked at the Genius Bar how much to replace it. It looks like a part that should cost $0.02 and expected an "Apple" markup of say $5. They wanted $350. Said they had to replace the entire bottom of the computer to put on a new rubber foot.

I just put the rubber foot and put a tape on top of it. It’s been that way for a couple of years now. Genuinely curious why would you even go to Apple for that?

BTW, there are replacement rubber feet sold on Amazon.

Re: Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters

#459

Post by Fantosism »

cja wrote: post #449
dev_tty01 wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is the correct analogy. TSLA is unable to do a reasonable repair so they should bear the extra cost

You saved one keypress on the e but added at least two on the capital letters

Tesla and TSLA both require six keystrokes.

Re: Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters

#460

Post by otterley »

kube-system wrote: post #411
otterley wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Important words in contracts are usually defined in the contract itself. "Collision" is almost certainly defined in any automobile insurance contract you purchase. If you can read code, you can (and should!) read the contracts you sign, especially contracts that could pay you money. Relying on the dictionary alone can mislead you. Here's the pertinent definition from my policy (USAA specifically): "Collision" means t…

Whenever I see contract language like > bird or animal I want to know the background behind why some lawyer found that necessary. :)

My guess is that it happens so frequently that it wouldn't be profitable to cover damages caused by hitting animals.
Post reply on HN