45453836 · HackerTrans

To be fair the mobile device iteration of the repairability movement has always been laden with irony. It's a user empowerment movement solving a problem users didn't care about or want to deal with, championed mainly by middle and upper income individuals in tandem with politicians looking for easy karma (bonus points if they're European because it makes them look tough against the big corporate Americans plus Samsung), all under the guise of helping users who want to save money (poor people) even though this category lacks the skills and the interest to repair their devices anyway outside of a rare few exceptions. At this point a model being easily repairable is like "GMO Free" labels on food, a thing you advertise because it'll bring in money from the activists while every other consumer ignores it and focuses on a combination of performamce and price. In short, as long as the device can be advertised based on its repairability I don't think the company cares much since the objective is already complete.

45453836

3 anni fadiscuss

Imo there's two factors at play only one of which seems to get much attention. There's the legality (and burden of compliance even when abiding the law) of leaving your children unsupervised but there's also the complete lack of penalty for being wrong. A person reporting abuse incorrectly is for all intents and purposes, an attacker. Why is attacking someone else with only a brief observation of the situation cost free? Sure there's a balance to be maintained so that people still report actual abuse but why is there no burden upon the attacker to be correct or defensibly confused when the stakes are so high for the defender? If this was a game the imbalance would be an obvious point of dialogue.

comments