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

My MacBook keyboard is broken and it's insanely expensive to fix

tobiasberg.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 554 posts

Re: My MacBook keyboard is broken and it's insanely expensive to fix

#511

Post by abc123abc123 »

actionfromafar wrote: post #238
abc123abc123 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. What the real effect has been is a waste of billions of billions that have gone into changing stuff that never needed changing. Future development has now been slowed down as well in the EU. All it takes to see that government regulation never works, is to look at how far behind the EU is in terms of GDP growth compared with the US and China who both have a significantly lighter touch when it comes to regulatio…

”Rrgulation never works”, is a very shallow take. It could mean anything. China is an autocratic system. Is that working? The US is going in that direction. On top of that, Europe isn’t a country. To have less regulation, you need more of it. Unifying regulations, or else you have dozens of completely different jurisdictions. To a large extent, you still do, even with the EU. You can’t sell to the general public in E…

"To have less regulation, you need more of it."

Can you actually see the words you are typing? War is peace?

Re: My MacBook keyboard is broken and it's insanely expensive to fix

#512

Post by vrganj »

abc123abc123 wrote: post #510
vrganj wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU is literally run by conservatives. Where are the scary socialists hiding?

Check average tax level in EU, compare with channel island and marvel. Please wake up, or the world will go to hell even faster.

Socialism has nothing to do with taxes, but with ownership of the means of production.

As far as I'm aware, that hasn't been socialized in the EU.

Re: My MacBook keyboard is broken and it's insanely expensive to fix

#513

Post by mittensc »

zapnuk wrote: post #443
mittensc wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can configure a 1400E framework 13 with a bring-my-own ssd + linux. I can drop it down to 1050E without the ram if i take ram from my older laptop. Upgrading or fixing this is very easy. RAM/SSD i can take with me over multiple generations of a laptop. I can't do that on a macbook, if anything breaks there (screen, ssd, ram, keyboard, battery bulging...) I might as well buy another. Then there's the issue of macos.…

Sure, a poweruser can bring their own ram/ssd. But again they pay almost as much and have a worse system performance wise. Normal users don't profit from anything you listed. They do have to buy a notebook with all components, and thus currently have to pay more for linux/windows hardware compared to Apple. Also, RAM isn't backwards compatiple. Literally had this problem with my old ddr4 not fitting in the newer ddr5…

> Normal users don't profit from anything you listed.

They can get their technical friends to set up a laptop for them and profit from what I mentioned.

> They do have to buy a notebook with all components

Sure, first time they do that, then they can reuse.

> and thus currently have to pay more for linux/windows hardware compared to Apple.

Sure, first time they do that. If they try framework, there are plenty of other cheaper options with pretty good specs.

> Also, RAM isn't backwards compatiple. Literally had this problem with my old ddr4 not fitting in the newer ddr5 slots when my ddr5 acted up.

Of course... but once you have something with ddr5 it should last you a long time, same as DDR4 did.

Now... you missed another point, some people just don't like or want MacOS, as nice as hardware might be, it's not acceptable software wise.

As for normal people, they'll just buy whatever is cheapest. If they even bother since phones/tables have already taken over.

I'm not sure laptops will have a market other then power users going forward...

Re: My MacBook keyboard is broken and it's insanely expensive to fix

#514

Post by wolvoleo »

Night_Thastus wrote: post #385
4fterd4rk wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The planned obsolescence conspiracy theories about the company whose products famously last longer and hold more value than their competitors ring a little hollow.

I've never seen any evidence that either of those are true. However, it's not planned obsolescence either. It's just math. Building things to be repairable costs more money and time. There is very little incentive to do so, because most customers simply do not care. Thus, Apple does not bother. Nothing conspiratorial about it.

Most people do care even though they won't do any repairs themselves. This very article explains how it makes a few broken keys a 700$ repair. Customers do care about that.

Re: My MacBook keyboard is broken and it's insanely expensive to fix

#515

Post by roryirvine »

jen20 wrote: post #491
Grisu_FTP wrote: post #308

While i think the usecase of a Macbook and a Framework are really different i will always be thankfull to framework for how easy they make it. Broke my keyboard, a few days later i had a new one that didnt even take a minute to swap. Wanted to upgrade my GPU twice, didnt even take 10 minutes. Biggest difficulty was swapping the motherboard, but even that was easy. The ports i need change all the time, and i can just…

> a few days later i had a new one This really sums up the reason I stuck with MacBook hardware even during the dark days of the end of the Intel era: I can have a new MacBook in basically any moderately developed city in the world inside an hour, and in fact did so twice when something catastrophic happened on work trips. Waiting a few days to fix something or get some custom-order-only laptop would not have been an…

That level of service is far from universal - Apple don't do onsite repairs at all in the UK, let alone inside 1 hour. It's all random third parties with crappy return-it-to-the-shop as a fallback.

Re: My MacBook keyboard is broken and it's insanely expensive to fix

#516

Post by piekvorst »

vrganj wrote: post #508
piekvorst wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's far from minor. To ban physical force from social relationships, people need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights. People's rights can only be violated by physical force. To prevent this, the government's only solution is to hold a legal monopoly on the use of physical force. If this vested power remains unchecked and unlimited, the government will violate the rights of its own citizen…

There's more to rights than just physical force. How do you account for the right to clean water and sanitation [0] without state infrastructure, just as an example? It feels like you care a lot about violence and force, at the expense of (imo) more important issues societies face. [0] https://www.unwater.org/water-facts/human-rights-water-and-s...

If people without an access to clean water want it, the proper route is to trade with those who do, not victimize them. There can be no right that involves sacrifices of one man to another.

Trying to wield sacrifices at the point of a gun (by an official or legislator) is the most important and disturbing modern issue. It paves the road to all actual social conflicts, unrest, and misunderstanding.

Re: My MacBook keyboard is broken and it's insanely expensive to fix

#517

Post by 1718627440 »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #452
1718627440 wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electing people for the things they hate is ignorance for politics as a serious field.

Again you call it ignorance instead of malevolence. How is electing Trump any different than George Wallace having a slogan of “Segregation Now! Segregation Tomorrow! Segregation Forever!”? There was no ignorance. Everyone knows that the government has a “monopoly on [legalized] violence”. If they can elect people who will turn that violence against people they don’t like, they are doing it with full knowledge.

Ignorance is a type of action, malevolence is a motivation. You can be ignorant out of malevolence and your ignorance can result in your actions being malicious.

Voting based on who the (to be) elected hate instead of on actual policy is ignorant towards the serious matter of the art of leading a state (politics). Being malevolent regarding politics would be to sabotage elections or trying to dissolve state organs.

Re: My MacBook keyboard is broken and it's insanely expensive to fix

#518

Post by vrganj »

piekvorst wrote: post #516
vrganj wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's more to rights than just physical force. How do you account for the right to clean water and sanitation [0] without state infrastructure, just as an example? It feels like you care a lot about violence and force, at the expense of (imo) more important issues societies face. [0] https://www.unwater.org/water-facts/human-rights-water-and-s...

If people without an access to clean water want it, the proper route is to trade with those who do, not victimize them. There can be no right that involves sacrifices of one man to another. Trying to wield sacrifices at the point of a gun (by an official or legislator) is the most important and disturbing modern issue. It paves the road to all actual social conflicts, unrest, and misunderstanding.

The people withholding the water in this scenario are the ones victimizing the ones without. That's where the state monopoly on violence has to come in as a corrective mechanism.

Re: My MacBook keyboard is broken and it's insanely expensive to fix

#519

Post by piekvorst »

eszed wrote: post #482
piekvorst wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do agree. In many places, governments are weak, captured, or corrupt. But those are mixed economies, in which state and corporate power fuse into one corrupt swamp: corporations lobby for regulations to crush rivals, officials sell favors. That's not evidence that economic power equals political power, it's evidence that abandoning the principle of a government limited to retaliatory force produces a cold civil war…

A government > standing in for many individuals who share a common injury. Sounds like a synonym for "public interest" to me! Is that a semantic difference, or do you think there's something substantive to it? I'd like to know how you'd handle the case of a new industrial plant (let's even say it's a brand new technology) that will exhaust lead into the atmosphere. Does the government have to wait until there's demon…

> Is that a semantic difference, or do you think there’s something substantive to it?

"Public interest" today implies a conflict with private interests: a new sports arena, "affordable" housing, protecting domestic jobs. So no, government-as-plaintiff doesn't count.

Personally, I'd define the public interest as interests common to all men: freedom, not sacrifices of some to others. But that's not the modern meaning of it.

> Does the government have to wait until there’s demonstrable harm

Anticipating harm is proper when the decision is irreversible. Example: nobody has a right to physically block a public entrance. That's a right violation you can prohibit in advance. Same with pollution: objective laws ("you may not emit substance X beyond concentration Y") set a clear boundary without dictatign production methods.

But there's no harm to anticipate in, say, Lightning vs. USB-C.

> your premise that The Courts are separate from The State

If you got it from the way I contrasted courts with regulatory agencies, I actually contrasted the way the state can wield force: retaliatory (proper) vs initiatory (improper). Other than that, the courts and state aren't separated.

Re: My MacBook keyboard is broken and it's insanely expensive to fix

#520

Post by piekvorst »

vrganj wrote: post #518
piekvorst wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people without an access to clean water want it, the proper route is to trade with those who do, not victimize them. There can be no right that involves sacrifices of one man to another. Trying to wield sacrifices at the point of a gun (by an official or legislator) is the most important and disturbing modern issue. It paves the road to all actual social conflicts, unrest, and misunderstanding.

The people withholding the water in this scenario are the ones victimizing the ones without. That's where the state monopoly on violence has to come in as a corrective mechanism.

If "withholding" means actively blocking someone from acessing water they already have a right to, you'd be correct. But that's not what's in your link. Passive possession, "I have water, I'm not giving it to you," is not initiation of force. It's simply not being someone else's servant.

And it's unjust to assume humanity wouldn't help unless forced to.

By calling upon sacrifices, the first target would be engineers, plumbers, and utility workers. Forcing the people who actually produce and deliver clean water isn't justice.

Post reply on HN