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

Deere to allow farmers to repair their own equipment

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 229 posts

Re: Deere to allow farmers to repair their own equipment

#81

Post by causi »

aussieshibe wrote: post #65
alvah wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s the same verb but it raises a smile every single time. Yes I am a child in an adult’s body. Slightly OT, they pronounce router “rowter” over here, presumably to avoid the same issue.

Interestingly this seems to be one of those unusual cases where the US by and large uses the British pronunciation while Australia does its own thing. On the plus side for Australia, we never have to hear the classic form: > Rooter? I hardly even know 'er!

Depends on the region. I'm from the US and I've never heard somebody say "rooter"

Re: Deere to allow farmers to repair their own equipment

#82

Post by causi »

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #69
causi wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

changing the software on hardware you own is not illegal Not true. The DMCA makes it illegal to "circumvent" DRM schemes. It's also illegal to carrier-unlock your phone without your carrier's permission.

Only if the DRM protects a copyrighted work, and even then only if the "protection" goes beyond protecting the software from being executed/used. (Chamberlain v. Skylink)

Root allows the user to bypass DRM such as Widevine.

Re: Deere to allow farmers to repair their own equipment

#83

Post by andrewstuart »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #48
andrewstuart wrote: post #27

Amazing that there are businesses that do so well financially they can abuse their customers to the point of hatred, yet remain in business.

It's a pity that people are content to just quietly hate from home. If we had the gumption to get off our asses and sabotage our enemies I think the world would be a better place.

What do you mean?

Re: Deere to allow farmers to repair their own equipment

#84

Post by bryanrasmussen »

listenallyall wrote: post #62
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well arguments like these are of course all about the statistical tendency because outliers are, by definition, not that important. But I notice you didn't actually give an example of an outlier MBA that did not behave this way and contributed positively to the company they ran?

I assumed in 2023 we're beyond simply applying negative stereotypes to people based on perceptions of a group, but apparently you aren't

Is finding the theories that motivate MBA educational programs abhorrent a form of racism in your view?

Generally one is not supposed to stereotype groups based on characteristics outside their control.

on edit: added in abhorrent.

Re: Deere to allow farmers to repair their own equipment

#85

Post by BuckyBeaver »

boltzmann-brain wrote: post #75
mulmen wrote: post #13

Deere’s position on right to repair is heartbreaking to me. I paid for books (and beer) in college as a truck driver and mechanic for a custom harvest operation. We ran Deere 6602 combines from the 1970s, in the early 2000s. Deere’s tagline was “nothing runs like a Deere” but in my experience it was more like “nothing can be made to run like a Deere”. We spent a lot of time on maintenance but very little on repairs.…

Here's my analysis of what's going to happen if this goes through. First, quote from the MOU [1]: > AFBF agrees to encourage state Farm Bureau organizations to recognize the commitments made in this MOU and refrain from introducing, promoting, or supporting federal or state "Right to Repair" legislation that imposes obligations beyond the commitments in this MOU. In the event any state or federal legislation or regul…

Wow, this just heaps more disgrace on Deere. Despicable.

Re: Deere to allow farmers to repair their own equipment

#86

Post by robin_reala »

rand846633 wrote: post #77
robin_reala wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s already the case that you have to do this for certain groups of products in France under the AGEC laws. Take for example this dishwasher: https://www.ikea.com/fr/fr/p/diskad-lave-vaisselle-encastrab... . It has an “indice de répairabilité” of 7.4, generated from a bunch of different factors such as ease of disassembly, availability of spare parts and documentation, and the ability to factory-reset it. The data s…

Do you have any personal experience or opinion if this law/metric is helpful for consumers in praxis?

No: it’s fairly recent (and in fact only a part of the wider set of AGEC requirements that include labelling for recyclability, recycled status, consumption of rare earths and precious metals, origin of textiles, etc.) And then there’s the EU-wide Digital Product Passport[1] coming in the next few years that’ll up the game again. We’ll see over the coming years what customer perception is like.

[1] A report on this at https://www.corporateleadersgroup.com/files/cisl_digital_pro...

Re: Deere to allow farmers to repair their own equipment

#87

Post by themitigating »

29athrowaway wrote: post #31
rjzzleep wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Short term profit at the expense of everything else. At some point there will be a reckoning on all the damage this cult has done to society, but I don't expect it to happen any time soon.

The damage is already done. MBAs had no long-term vision, so in each company they infested, they made poor strategic decisions such as moving manufacturing overseas, which then forced other companies to move their manufacturing overseas. The countries they chose have zero respect for intellectual property. So now what's left are zombie companies milking their cash cows dry as international competitors arise and take…

The goal of any business is to make money, it's why they exist. Moving production overseas saves money. I don't see why this has anything to do with MBAs

Re: Deere to allow farmers to repair their own equipment

#89

Post by college_physics »

andrewstuart wrote: post #27

Amazing that there are businesses that do so well financially they can abuse their customers to the point of hatred, yet remain in business.

abuse of broader society (current and future generations) by narrow interests is now the norm. it is very seldom that there is something in the news that is uplifting and illustrative of a system that is actually working to increase broad-based welfare as opposed to opportunistically benefiting the shrewdest or most ruthless operators.

the way things have been organized economically and politically (especially under US late-state capitalism) once a business does well financially it can basically capture its political/regulatory context and control its own destiny by influencing all decisions that affect it. it is no longer a Milton Friedman style rule taker, it is a rule maker.

there are many channels that enable this, both on the incentive side that create the desires to act in such ways and the response side (regulation, laws) that define the corporate interface with society (e.g lack of liability for any externalities created, oligopoly status ("there is no alternative") or revolving door arrangements with regulators and politicians (people shamelessly cashing-in on relations and knowledge)

nothing intrinsically difficult to solve to get to a better place. it does not take a "revolution" to fix democratic, market based, economies. it "only" requires having a moral compass and the transparency and awareness that helps navigating according to its prescriptions. the rest would take care of itself. exorbitant profits, environmental destruction, astronomical wealth inequality etc. are not required for the system to work. they are the result of system that is degenerating in the hands of a particular set of people

Re: Deere to allow farmers to repair their own equipment

#90

Post by modo_mario »

listenallyall wrote: post #35
NetOpWibby wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what happens when you're a monopoly.

John Deere is a monopoly?

I believe they have something like 30% in the tractor market in the US but when it comes to specific types of tractors (especially the larger variants) it is much much higher.

Additionally the negative effects of a monopoly can also show in a duopoly or the like. It doesn't even need cartel like collusion.

Post reply on HN