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

521–530 of 554 posts

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

#521

Post by cindyllm »

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.

[dead]

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

#522

Post by vrganj »

piekvorst wrote: post #520
vrganj wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

You're completely discounting the most perfidious type of violence: economic violence.

Punishing and preventing it is the core purpose of the state.

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

#523

Post by piekvorst »

ahf8Aithaex7Nai wrote: post #505
eszed wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Here is “that guy.” You won't convince them with practical examples, because this is a matter of principle. Freedom and independence from the state are more important to these people than a few people suffering from lead poisoning. From their perspective, living a free life and then dying of lead poisoning is still better than being subjugated by the Leviathan. > your second paragraph is at odds with your third Well,…

> You won't convince them with practical examples, because this is a matter of principle. . . . Libertarians recognize only the particular and reject any notion of the universal, because it negates all particularities.

You describe people who advocate freedom as both mystics indifferent to reality and pragmatists without principle. Which is it?

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

#524

Post by piekvorst »

vrganj wrote: post #522
piekvorst wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

You're completely discounting the most perfidious type of violence: economic violence. Punishing and preventing it is the core purpose of the state.

What exactly do you mean by "economic violence"? If you mean fraud or theft, we already agree those are crimes. If you mean something else, I'd like to know what.

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

#525

Post by piekvorst »

zackmorris wrote: post #417
MostlyStable wrote: post #42

>Here’s hoping governments regulate laptop manufacturers to actually make repairable machines in the future. No, this is a bad solution. If you want a repairable machine, buy one. They exist. Others have already mentioned Framework, but there are other options that aren't that far down the spectrum either. One of the things macbook users praise the most is "build quality", which often means the solidity of the device…

MostlyStable, are you a deregulation zealot? By extension, are you also an antitrust enforcement denier? Also by extension, do you understand the term late-stage capitalism? Because if you truly believe that regulation isn't necessary, then you are either ok with, or unaware that, unregulated capitalism ends in monopoly (or duopoly to keep up appearances). A free market only has a chance of existing under regulation,…

s/zealot/advocate/

s/denier/opponent/

s/late-stage capitalism/socialist propaganda/

If you're asking genuinely:

1. It's wrong to assume beforehand that the other party is irrational.

2. To refute the other side, you have to engage with their strongest argument.

This is an intellectual issue, and no intellectual issue could be resolved by dismissal.

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

#526

Post by StingyJelly »

throwaway85825 wrote: post #416
StingyJelly wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bar should be higher than "Better than glue". While repair is possible, the number of screws with many different screw types still make it needlessly time consuming / expensive.

The ease of repair only needs to be in proportion to the likelihood of needing repair and frequency of occurrence.

Yes and given that keyboard replacement is really common repair (probably most common repair on butterfly models but still quite common now), the ease of repair is extremely disproportional. In case of OP's Macbook Pro: the rivets, the number of screws, the need to disassemble everything, even having to lift the glued in battery - all just to get to the keyboard.

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

#527

Post by [deleted] »

piekvorst wrote: post #523
ahf8Aithaex7Nai wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is “that guy.” You won't convince them with practical examples, because this is a matter of principle. Freedom and independence from the state are more important to these people than a few people suffering from lead poisoning. From their perspective, living a free life and then dying of lead poisoning is still better than being subjugated by the Leviathan. > your second paragraph is at odds with your third Well,…

> You won't convince them with practical examples, because this is a matter of principle. . . . Libertarians recognize only the particular and reject any notion of the universal, because it negates all particularities. You describe people who advocate freedom as both mystics indifferent to reality and pragmatists without principle. Which is it?

[deleted]

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

#528

Post by ahf8Aithaex7Nai »

piekvorst wrote: post #523
ahf8Aithaex7Nai wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is “that guy.” You won't convince them with practical examples, because this is a matter of principle. Freedom and independence from the state are more important to these people than a few people suffering from lead poisoning. From their perspective, living a free life and then dying of lead poisoning is still better than being subjugated by the Leviathan. > your second paragraph is at odds with your third Well,…

> You won't convince them with practical examples, because this is a matter of principle. . . . Libertarians recognize only the particular and reject any notion of the universal, because it negates all particularities. You describe people who advocate freedom as both mystics indifferent to reality and pragmatists without principle. Which is it?

Where do I claim that libertarians are pragmatists? They do have principles—just the wrong ones. Incidentally, I don’t think they’re really concerned with freedom, at least not in the Kantian sense.

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

#529

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

1718627440 wrote: post #517
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You mean when thousands of yokels broke into the Capital to try to overturn an election in January of 2020?

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

#530

Post by piekvorst »

ahf8Aithaex7Nai wrote: post #528
piekvorst wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You won't convince them with practical examples, because this is a matter of principle. . . . Libertarians recognize only the particular and reject any notion of the universal, because it negates all particularities. You describe people who advocate freedom as both mystics indifferent to reality and pragmatists without principle. Which is it?

Where do I claim that libertarians are pragmatists? They do have principles—just the wrong ones. Incidentally, I don’t think they’re really concerned with freedom, at least not in the Kantian sense.

I don’t think that either libertarians or Kant are genuinely concerned with freedom. My position is closest to classical liberalism, with different philosophical foundations.
Post reply on HN