Words aren't enough. We need ACTION.

[hishnash]

21 minutes ago, asquirrel said:

I'm aware of has yet realized that they need to include a provision that full schematics/designs for chips no longer being manufactured must be published somewhere so that another company can begin manufacturing them again if needed.

There are lots of IP issues with this, in the tec industry you will find it very hard to find any chip (even a small power controller) that does not contain the IP of at least 5 other companies. These companies might well still be producing other products using that IP so will not want the internal schematics of their chips to be released even if they are no longer producing that chip. The reasons they are non making that old chip will be sales volumes, keeping a fab tooled up so that it can produce an old chip requires that there is a market for enough of them otherwise the part price will go up and up, and at some point it will likely become cheaper to produce sell you an FPGa (for $500) to act as a power controller rather than spend the needed $100,000 to retool a production line to make a small batch.

The best solution that could come out would be that they are required to document the interface that these chips use to talk to each other. In that situations when they are no-longer being made other people can come along and make alternative chips that can be swapped in to replace them. That means you can make those replacement chips on whatever is the current mass market node or even use an off the shelf part reproducing the chips function in software (this is not uncommon in the old games console repair market)

[CivBase]

2 hours ago, poochyena said:

I guess the framing is throwing me off, since the framing "right to repair" implies there is some sort of personal freedom we lack. Linus even starts it off as if its some sort of lack of personal freedom... but its not that at all. We have complete rights to repair our electronics.

Yeah, I think I lot of people are thrown off by the same things you are.  After all, many things still can be repaired with little in the way of barriers.  We sort of do currently have a right to repair... at least sort of.  The problem is that it's being whittled away.

 

Think of it kind of like the right free speech.  Let's say the government of Nationstan has no laws protecting free speech, but they don't outlaw any particular type of speech either.  The citizens have a right to free speech... sort of.  Now let's say the police decide they're fans of current pro-police group in charge of the government, so they start detaining citizens who openly criticize the government on suspicion of terrorism.  The citizens still have the freedom to talk about other subjects freely and can speak positively or neutrally about the group in charge.  In a sense, they still have a right to free speech... so long as it's not criticism about the group in charge.

 

That's kind of what's happening with our right to repair.  Organizations with enough power to challenge that right (large manufacturers) are making moves to stop people from being able to repair their products independently or through third parties.  Some are simply trying to monopolize the repair market for their products while others are trying to eliminate repair as an option altogether, forcing people to buy new products as replacements.

 

Here are some examples of things which Louis has pointed out Apple doing which right to repair legislation would seek to prevent:

• Apple contracts out manufacturing of some of their parts to third parties.  In some cases, Apple requires the third-party manufacturer to only sell the part to Apple in exchange for Apple's business.  That means consumers and third-party repair shops cannot purchase those parts.
• Apple only offers repair parts to members of the "Apple Authorized Service Provider" (AASP) program.  As part of that program, members are subject to random inspections from Apple.  Apple restricts what kind of repair services members can offer (for example, instead of replacing a $5 chip, they have to replace the whole board for hundreds of dollars).  Members cannot stock parts, which means their customer has to wait for the part to arrive in the mail before their device can be fixed.  Yeah, the parts are overpriced, but that's not what makes the AASP program so awful.
  More info: What does authorized repair do? Let's find out!
• Apple threatens to sue people who share schematics and other information used to repair their devices.  These schematics are not proprietary; they weren't stolen from Apple; they were developed by independent repair technicians who just want to repair Apple devices and help others repair theirs.
• Customs confiscate parts and products as "counterfeit" which so much as have an Apple logo on them.  This includes used Apple devices.  It doesn't matter if these are genuine Apple products which Apple manufactured and put the logo on themselves.  Even products that resemble Apple products are sometimes confiscated.
  More info: Customs messes with oneplus - IT'S ABOUT TIME!
• Apple serializes some of their parts (more and more with each generation), which basically means they give each part a unique ID and configure the machine so that it only works if that exact part with that exact ID is installed.  If you replace the part with an otherwise identical part made by Apple themselves, the device will refuse to work because the ID is different.  This means Apple is the only one who can replace the part because they are the only ones with the technology required to reconfigure the machine to accept the new part.

Of course, Apple is not alone and right to repair would not focus on them.  My best examples just come from Louis because of how openly he talks about issues he faces as an Apple repair technician.  And of course he talks mostly about issues with Apple because... well... he's an Apple repair technician.  It's what he does.

2 hours ago, poochyena said:

What I gather is being demanded is for companies to supply resources to make repairs easier. This is about regulating companies, not personal freedom or rights. Not against the meat of it all, just the framing of it all really puts me off.

"Right to repair" is a concept, not a concrete law.  There are various ways to implement it.  One solution could be to regulate companies and require them to supply parts and design products to be easy to repair.  However, that's not the approach I support and it's not what Louis talks about in his videos either.

 

For me, "right to repair" is not about requiring companies to do anything - it's about preventing them from going out of their way to screw over repair.  That means stopping them from making deals with third-parties to not sell parts.  That means not withholding the ability to purchase parts behind ridiculous membership programs.  That means not threatening legal action against independent technicians who are just repairing devices.  That means not implementing tech specifically designed to prevent genuine replacement parts from functioning.

 

Tangent: When talking about "right to repair", a lot of people jump to parts cost and availability.  In reality, that's a somewhat minor issue.  Repair technicians don't necessarily need to be able to buy parts since they can often cannibalize OEM parts from used devices.  The big problems show themselves when manufacturers go out of their way to stop them from even doing that.

[asquirrel]

4 minutes ago, hishnash said:

There are lots of IP issues with this, in the tec industry you will find it very hard to find any chip (even a small power controller) that does not contain the IP of at least 5 other companies. These companies might well still be producing other products using that IP so will not want the internal schematics of their chips to be released even if they are no longer producing that chip. The reasons they are non making that old chip will be sales volumes, keeping a fab tooled up so that it can produce an old chip requires that there is a market for enough of them otherwise the part price will go up and up, and at some point it will likely become cheaper to produce sell you an FPGa (for $500) to act as a power controller rather than spend the needed $100,000 to retool a production line to make a small batch.

The best solution that could come out would be that they are required to document the interface that these chips use to talk to each other. In that situations when they are no-longer being made other people can come along and make alternative chips that can be swapped in to replace them. That means you can make those replacement chips on whatever is the current mass market node or even use an off the shelf part reproducing the chips function in software (this is not uncommon in the old games console repair market)

So, with free market capitalism, the overall idea is "The best idea wins". In 2021, current IP law and many other business laws are setup to specifically prevent free market capitalism. Patents and copyrights existed because there is a recognition that thought has value, and not everyone with a good idea also has the means to capitalize on that idea through manufacture or print. Thus, patents and copyrights exist to ensure that the creator with an idea can reap the monetary rewards for having their idea.

 

Companies have perverted this process to say "We own this idea, and nobody can use it except us!" which is completely contradictory to the spirit of patents and copyrights. The law should say "by obtaining this patent or copyright, you release the IP into the public domain, but anyone who uses that IP owes you a fee for their use." And, the fee should be a percentage of the total manufacturing cost. So, for a book, the cost of the paper, ink, binding process, man-hours/labor cost, etc. The fee is a percentage and fixed for all types. This does create some winners and losers in the ideas space, but it's far easier for society to enforce fairly. "You printed 10 copies of this book for your local book club and it cost you $30 per book, the royalty rate is 1%, you how the creator $3!" "But I didn't sell them, I gave them away!" "You used a copyrighted work; pay up."

 

In the digital age, where books are PDFs and manufacturing costs are nearly free...well, you'd think that would mean authors make no money, but every tom-dick-and-harry who wants to make their own audiobook version now can, so long as they pay the author a chunk for every download based on hosting costs. And everyone who mirrors the PDF gives the owner a slice based on their hosting costs. It sounds dystopian, but it is a system that will both work, and be rife with corruption and piracy until society decides to stop being dicks to each other.

 

Such a model rewards economies of scale; the person or group that can manufacture a good for the lowest input cost wins. It also prevents IP hoarding, as any IP you want to keep secret must be like the Coca-Cola formula, and kept secret as a trade secret. But, a trade secret must be, well, secret. So if you have all your company IP as trade secrets, and someone posts a ZIP file of all of them online, well, you just lost all your IP in one day. That alone would discourage IP hoarding in trade secrets.

 

The overall goal is that knowledge is free for people to use, and the person with the idea is due their fair cut. But only if you actually use their idea. Newton and Leibniz probably came up with calculus independently; so neither would owe royalties to the other. But if you used calculus, would each get half the royalty, or would you get to pick who you thought was less of an asshole? *shrug* for society to decide, I think. 50/50 sounds fairer to me though, and less prone to popularity contests. In this way, someone who designs a new chip without using existing IP, does not owe money to the person who originally came up with the idea. You can't 'steal' what you never knew existed. It also gets around the problem of China literally stealing everything on earth and not paying for it; so we now have a way to get back at them for that.

 

I'm sure this plan has flaws, and needs some work, but I think the core argument, that the IP problems you point out, are best solved by admitting the current model is fundamentally broken and contrary to the original purpose, and going in a new direction.

[Luscious]

"Since manufacturers aren't penalized for the excess waste their mentality generates..."

 

Mother nature would like to have a word with you!!! You don't need to Google too hard to find the effects of industry on the environment, when fresh water rivers get diverted, deforestation occurs, atmosphere is polluted and man-made waste get ejected into the surrounding soil and is left unchecked. In the last 100 years humans have gained the ability to DESTROY THIS PLANET. Yet instead of saving it, we live with a "I don't give a shit" attitude oblivious to things like climate change and species extinction.

 

How Ironic is it in the land of freedom there is no freedom at all to talk about when money comes first. Those politicians raking in the cash with corporate fat cats like Bezos, Gates and Buffet patting them on the back have no business making decisions for the masses who then must suffer for their gross ignorance and comic incompetence. Who are we even voting for and why???

 

And no, the USA is not alone as a dirty culprit in all of this when it has chosen to using China as it's consumer goods factory. Why is it that blue skies are such a rare thing in Beijing? Why you see no birds flying in the city of Shenzen? And why the British were such pushovers giving Hong Kong back. China wants it all even if getting it all means destroying whoever and whatever tries to stop it.

 

Many people simply don't have the cash to buy new phones and tablets every year or even every two years. A lot of these issues could have been avoided by simply keeping removable batteries a thing. Nice aesthetics are one thing, but in Apple's argument it was clear they wanted batteries to not be user replaceable whatsoever. Even with recycling, the cost to recycle along with the energy required has a FAR GREATER impact on the environment versus keeping that gadget going just that little bit longer.

 

We may never get a right to repair legislation passed. Companies like Apple may continue to screw consumers over. The wealth gap between the poor and rich will become wider. And events like the fires in Australia and winter freeze in Texas will become a whole lot more common and kill many more people. When you've reached the point where you are just throwing money at freedom to keep freedom, it's really no different than life under communism where you had no money and no freedom. That's not a world I want to be living in.

[hishnash]

4 minutes ago, asquirrel said:

So, with free market capitalism, the overall idea is "The best idea wins". In 2021, current IP law and many other business laws are setup to specifically prevent free market capitalism. Patents and copyrights existed because there is a recognition that thought has value, and not everyone with a good idea also has the means to capitalize on that idea through manufacture or print. Thus, patents and copyrights exist to ensure that the creator with an idea can reap the monetary rewards for having their idea.

For sure but if you want some law to be passed for Right to Repair trying to also at the same time re-write IP and Copywrite law around the world that might take many many may more years to pass if ever. 
 

 

22 minutes ago, CivBase said:

The big problems show themselves when manufacturers go out of their way to stop them from even doing that.

Im not sure that many go out of their way (put extra work in) to make it harder, but rather they do not consider these things at all when building new products. Things like requiring that you calibrate the sensors when connecting them to the SoC, that is a valid thing to do, it saves on having calibration stored on the sensor making the sensor less complex, saving money and likely power. The issue is they do not think about the repair market and do not provide (or even document) tools/interfaces needed for others to do this same calibration.  

What is needed is some legislation that requires that all the interfaces between components is documented. That minimised the private IP that needs to be exposed, but still enables people to find/build solutions that can replace broken parts. And unlike demanding they sell repair parts it enables old devices to be repaired.

You can't really demand a manufacture sell spare parts (at the low volumes they will be) for 10+ years after they stop shipping a product as the cost of keeping production lines open for such low volume part production would be a massive risk. Much better if they are forced to provide the documentation that would let others (if there is demand) find/developer replacement chips of their own. maybe you could have a thing saying if your not able to provide the parts you need to provide this documentation but that risks companies going out of bis without every sharing that spec (think of all the homeAutomation east that is already out there due to startups that have flopped) 

 

30 minutes ago, CivBase said:

• Apple serializes some of their parts (more and more with each generation), which basically means they give each part a unique ID and configure the machine so that it only works if that exact part with that exact ID is installed.  If you replace the part with an otherwise identical part made by Apple themselves, the device will refuse to work because the ID is different.  This means Apple is the only one who can replace the part because they are the only ones with the technology required to reconfigure the machine to accept the new part.

 

The only part that apple does this with is the touch id and face id sensors and that is not a ID they are pinning but a public certificate for validating the encryption of the data it is sending ( the reason for this is complying with laws around apple pay, apple put in the extra dev work to rather just disable apple pay but that is putting in extra dev work so not likely to happen). Other parts (like the camera not working properly) are not due to ID issues but rather calibration issues, unlike older camera modules the cameras in the latest iPhones do not store their calibration information on the camera but it is instead stored in the SoC. Without this info you can `use` the camera but the raw bytes that a read from it are rather useless, not the camara api can be used but randomly crashes as soon as it hits data it can't interpret, this is clearly not an ID based check. What should happen is they should be forced to document this calibration process, so that someone else can build the tools needed or provide the software tools to let you do it yourselves. 

 

40 minutes ago, CivBase said:

That means stopping them from making deals with third-parties to not sell parts

It is not that they are making deals to not sell it is that they are not making deals to enable the sale. 

 

When you ask a factory to do a custom order you pay for tooling, design etc if the factory, you pay before they even start to make anything. If your a large vendor (like apple, Samsung etc) your tooling costs might be very large since the factory might need to tool up multiple concurrent production lines just for your order, the per unit cost after that work has been done is low. If the factory were to turn around after you have paid for them to build up all this tooling and just sold these chips to other people they would need to create an explicit contract with you to permit them to do this.

 

51 minutes ago, CivBase said:

That means not threatening legal action against independent technicians who are just repairing devices. 

Most vendors have really only done this when it involves claims of false representation, eg using third party parts but claiming they are original. I think under right to repair laws the punishment for doing this should be increased it should be explicitly mentioned in the laws that if you operate a repair service you must be transparent about the origin of the parts you are using. 

[md444]

The way I like to present right to repair is that it is the minimum required set of legislation that lets consumers treat their electronic devices as they do their vehicles today.

 

• Parts availability might be hit or miss (good luck getting parts for your Studebacker!) but there shouldn't be any artificial restrictions
• The essential documentation and tools are made available
• The above lets you do your own work or pay a professional to do it, who may or may not be associated with the manufacturer

With cars today, there are some limitations - such as paying a (usually reasonable) fee for wiring diagrams, and some work such as key coding or replacing the computer can require factory or more expensive aftermarket scan tools.  That said, it's your choice to do your own work, go to a third party mechanic, or the dealer.

 

The important bit with right to repair is that you have both the right to repair your device and the ability to execute that right.

[Arika]

imagine being against right to repair.....

[Jay427]

Pumped up and proud of Linus for directly addressing this issue on his channel.  Show your support

 

No matter what you make or can afford, anything you can contribute to help counts, and sends a message that you support Rossmann, and our environment!

 

[fredzfrog]

Hey, Aussie here, and I'd be happy to throw some dollerydoos at this 501c4, but as the fundraising is for *literally* a political campaign/laws, would my contribution thus affect the campaign's legitimacy due to 'international influences'. 

Is there any thing I should be worried about? Or RPGAF needs to be concerned with international financing?

[OhBoy]

14 minutes ago, fredzfrog said:

Hey, Aussie here, and I'd be happy to throw some dollerydoos at this 501c4, but as the fundraising is for *literally* a political campaign/laws, would my contribution thus affect the campaign's legitimacy due to 'international influences'. 

Is there any thing I should be worried about? Or RPGAF needs to be concerned with international financing?

According to Luis his lawyer said that it is fine. in fact you can find many people outside of the US of A donating in the page.

[Kilrah]

4 hours ago, poochyena said:

THOSE are what i'd call right to repair issues

And that's the whole point, it creeps up deeper and deeper every year, and with the Apple example every generation of iDevice and Mac introduces further software limitations to prevent you from repairing your device and actively prevents access to components (see Louis' videos about the charging chips in Macs that are a common failure, and that Apple goes out of their way to make impossible to source).

 

Anyway, here's Louis' "thank you":

 

 

[komar]

@poochyena just watch this  -

you will understand the problems after that.

 

 

 

 

[sengin]

Linus advocating for violence to enforce -- at the barrel of a gun -- his views on how others should conduct business is highly inappropriate on a channel viewed by many young, impressionable people. Worse -- he wants to use other people's money to enforce his views. Enforcement is not free.

 

More laws is not the answer. The answer is to be informed about what you are buying. If you feel strongly about informing the public, you can set up a service to rate the life-cycle repair-ability of certain popular goods. People who care, can consult your service. For example, I learned phones after the Galaxy S5 don't have user-replaceable batteries, so i don't buy them, because longevity is important to me.

 

Also, Linus is wrong about planned obsolescence being bad and causing more waste. Many simple thought experiments prove this. In essence, using more materials to create a more durable item uses more resources, and those resources are wasted if the product becomes obsolete before it's useful life is finished. So simple. It's in every engineering textbook. But Linus is not an engineer.

 

You may be mad about other people's waste, but that's what people want. Companies are in the business of providing what their customers want. And their customers want cheap sh!t.

 

[Kilrah]

27 minutes ago, sengin said:

For example, I learned phones after the Galaxy S5 don't have user-replaceable batteries, so i don't buy them, because longevity is important to me.

 

27 minutes ago, sengin said:

Companies are in the business of providing what their customers want. And their customers want cheap sh!t.

I.e. unless something at a higher level passes to force it, nobody's gonna make that phone with a user-replaceable battery that you want anymore at some point. 

[Taf the Ghost]

5 hours ago, poochyena said:

THOSE are what i'd call right to repair issues

 The short version is making the Electronics Industry like the Automotive Industry: OEM parts have to be available. We won't see the semi-standard 15 years of part availability, but, even currently, it is required that parts exist for products sold under replacement warranties. What's really going on is a fight about Access to the Parts and Software Locks. It's really more about the Software Locks, if we're being direct.

[Taf the Ghost]

51 minutes ago, sengin said:

Linus advocating for violence to enforce -- at the barrel of a gun -- his views on how others should conduct business is highly inappropriate on a channel viewed by many young, impressionable people. Worse -- he wants to use other people's money to enforce his views. Enforcement is not free.

 

More laws is not the answer. The answer is to be informed about what you are buying. If you feel strongly about informing the public, you can set up a service to rate the life-cycle repair-ability of certain popular goods. People who care, can consult your service. For example, I learned phones after the Galaxy S5 don't have user-replaceable batteries, so i don't buy them, because longevity is important to me.

 

Also, Linus is wrong about planned obsolescence being bad and causing more waste. Many simple thought experiments prove this. In essence, using more materials to create a more durable item uses more resources, and those resources are wasted if the product becomes obsolete before it's useful life is finished. So simple. It's in every engineering textbook. But Linus is not an engineer.

 

You may be mad about other people's waste, but that's what people want. Companies are in the business of providing what their customers want. And their customers want cheap sh!t.

 

And people complain when I point out bots show up to Nvidia/AMD/Intel threads. We even get them in these threads.

 

On the off chance it's a "live one", this isn't even good boilerplate Libertarian talking points. You're basically making the argument for the removal of consumer safety laws. That doesn't work and is, classically, one of the reasons a lot of Libertarians look like morons when they talk.

[akio123008]

Isn't GEEP the place Linus once tried to buy gaming PC parts without internet?

[maskmcgee]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqkgQdzmQBk&lc=UgyF5MwRCG5DLS53pGd4AaABAg

 

there it is 

[hishnash]

21 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

 The short version is making the Electronics Industry like the Automotive Industry: OEM parts have to be available. We won't see the semi-standard 15 years of part availability, but, even currently, it is required that parts exist for products sold under replacement warranties. What's really going on is a fight about Access to the Parts and Software Locks. It's really more about the Software Locks, if we're being direct.

The issue is not parts but what you define as a part, even in the Automotive industry some vendors will define large segments as parts so you need to fully a lot of the car when something failes with most devices these days bing soldered (and there is good reason to do this) do you define a part as an item that can be connected without solder (that is how the Automotive industry works) or do you define a part as something that can be replace on a board, what happens when you have an SoC package (like AMDs Zen cpus) does AMD need to provide chiplets or is it ok just to provide the entire premade package... were do you draw the line. And who provides these parts and at what price, is sony required to make a loss selling AMD SoC to people who want buy the and build their own computers?

 

[Arika]

1 hour ago, sengin said:

Linus advocating for violence to enforce -- at the barrel of a gun -- his views on how others should conduct business is highly inappropriate on a channel viewed by many young, impressionable people.

Did we watch the same video? what the hell are you on?

 

where did he advocate for violence to enforce his views?

[Taf the Ghost]

7 minutes ago, Arika S said:

Did we watch the same video? what the hell are you on?

 

where did he advocate for violence to enforce his views?

It's an "Influence bot". Not a great one, at that. Depending on who's paying & how much, you get somewhere on the spectrum from Obvious Spam Bot to Person at the Computer writing custom influence responses. I'm really attuned to this stuff because of the experience on a few blogs. There was two threads. One that always got angry responses from Google Searches to the title (not the full post) and one that, for some reason, scraping robots would find and randomly send various quality of influence agents to. It made for a very fascinating A:B comparison. The important bit is that Influence Agents are almost always better written, it's the efficiency of the relationship to the topic at hand that's the main "tell".

 

In this case, the "tell" was going to a set of really terrible Libertarian talking points that reek of "first week as a Libertarian" or "read it on Wikipedia". I would generally expect, from the post, that the current "buy" is to derail anything. It's a part of suppression campaigns, normally, but it can obviously be used to meet many objectives. 

 

You know you've hit a nerve with someone with deep pockets when you get 3+ agents in a thread arguing with each other. Saw that one a few times, but it wasn't confirmed until, one time, the agent flat forgot to use the VPN shifting between posting.

 

When things get dodgy to figure out is when people are in full r/HailCorporate mode. The line between Fanboy & Agent is extremely blurry. 

[Luscious]

1 hour ago, sengin said:

I learned phones after the Galaxy S5 don't have user-replaceable batteries

Wanna give me some of what you've been smoking? Because I just did a battery swap myself on a S6 edge+ using an iFixit guide. Actually, I was forced to because the pack became inflated and the phone was splitting in two like that guy's head when the alien creature comes out LOL. I had absolutely no desire for the thing to explode in my hand or in my pocket.

 

Truth be told it's issues like this that makes the argument for swappable batteries that much more relevant again if the quality of the components these shady manufacturers are putting inside are prone to such failure, never mind being an injury risk to the end user. Sure, I repaired it myself, but consider the less-screwdriver-savvy NOT able to get to a phone repair store either in time or there isn't one nearby. Any kind of accident raises a liability issue with the manufacturer - that's no different than brakes failing on a car requiring a recall. For a smartphone, being able to freely swap batteries can mitigate more than one problem (no longer charging, bad packs, extended running time) etc... Yeah, you can definitely sacrifice functionality for better aesthetics, as Apple and Samsung both are guilty of. and then your amazing device spectacularly fails.

[OhBoy]

Man just this forum alone really shows why Louis needs that 6mil.

I mean we saw both ill informed and uninformed people even though this is where most people would be aware of what state of repair rn. we can even see what I can only imagine bots spreading misinformation by using "flowery" language to make R2R sound like some radical movement that is out to take society as we know it.

 

So I can only imagine how much more money will be spent to dissuade people. Especially when the companies that will sponsor such attacks wont shy way from getting stern warning letter from whomever laws they will be breaking by out right lying.

 

sorry for rumbling@poochyenawas halve asleep when I was tying out my comments. here is one article that I recall about how bad things are with farmers and the iPhone repair:

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/farmers-using-hacked-firmware-to-bypass-john-deeres-software-stranglehold/

https://www.ifixit.com/News/33147/apple-is-discouraging-screen-repair-with-an-iphone-11-genuine-warning

 

many other such challenges exist as pointed out by many people here. the R2R is not just for phones nor that is made to make apple look bad. it is meant to ensure that you still own your device regardless of what it is. not just a really complex fancy ratio of processed materials to be paper weight.

 

 

Edited April 22, 2021 by OhBoy
spelling is hard.

[Quackers101]

11 hours ago, poochyena said:

I guess the framing is throwing me off, since the framing "right to repair" implies there is some sort of personal freedom we lack. Linus even starts it off as if its some sort of lack of personal freedom... but its not that at all. We have complete rights to repair our electronics. What I gather is being demanded is for companies to supply resources to make repairs easier. This is about regulating companies, not personal freedom or rights. Not against the meat of it all, just the framing of it all really puts me off.

A right to repair in multiple stages, not just for your own right. But the right to others that might fix other stuff for you, or perhaps you can do more repairs.

As certain repairs you very well need the right component. It is about freedom and rights, since E-WASTE is a GLOBAL issue and this NOT being THEIR parts, some parts they just RESTRICT others to get ACCESS to. When it comes to american focused companies they SHOULD be more regulated, as we see some of them don't care as much about everyone else than profit, and the social structure or acceptingness being so different compared to like the EU.

 

Also like others pointed out, or Louis Rossmann has done before. Is that this is not the sole restriction they put in place and goes against repair, it's also software, numbering parts so the same camera modules won't work on the same phone if switched, something that shouldn't mess some of the software although maybe a little but not in this way. So soon your washing machine or car won't be fixed, since the software is locking you out and so on. Some software can be for protections sake, but other times it's just there to prevent repairs. At times it can be compared with DRM for games, at some point it's going to be cracked if people really want to, but making it a pain for so many others.

[MadAnt250]

16 hours ago, sengin said:

Linus advocating for violence to enforce -- at the barrel of a gun -- his views on how others should conduct business is highly inappropriate on a channel viewed by many young, impressionable people. Worse -- he wants to use other people's money to enforce his views. Enforcement is not free.

 

More laws is not the answer. The answer is to be informed about what you are buying. If you feel strongly about informing the public, you can set up a service to rate the life-cycle repair-ability of certain popular goods. People who care, can consult your service. For example, I learned phones after the Galaxy S5 don't have user-replaceable batteries, so i don't buy them, because longevity is important to me.

 

Also, Linus is wrong about planned obsolescence being bad and causing more waste. Many simple thought experiments prove this. In essence, using more materials to create a more durable item uses more resources, and those resources are wasted if the product becomes obsolete before it's useful life is finished. So simple. It's in every engineering textbook. But Linus is not an engineer.

 

You may be mad about other people's waste, but that's what people want. Companies are in the business of providing what their customers want. And their customers want cheap sh!t.

You have the right to your own opinion, but the statement in your first paragraph leaves me to believe that you are one of them getting paid by the companies who are against and do not support the right to repair or consumer freedom. You state false information without any sources to back it up, It is one thing to have a different opinion or be misinformed, BUT DON'T MAKE UP KNOWINGLY FALSE CLAIMS. 

 

Edit:

I may have responded to a bot.