I think people sometimes forget that tests are made of code too. If it's possible to write bad code, it's certainly possible to write bad tests. And writing bad tests first (as in `test-driven`) won't make them any better. At some point, people see bad tests _and_ bad code together and instead of blaming it on the "bad" part, they blame it either on the tests, or on the fact that the tests were written first.
I think there are two main factors that are different (not necessarily in order):
* companies can much more easily weaponize their services and tailor them to get individuals addicted, than individual video games ever could. And the feedback loop happens much faster.
* it was easier to moderate video games, because they had a single purpose: entertainment. since you can be in a device for any number of reasons: gaming, studying, catching up, reading,... and _everyone_ is on their devices _all the time_ (both kids and parents), it's much harder to establish good boundaries.
> Everything the free market does is voluntary by definition. Every "intervention" is by definition not.
In some ideal world, where both parties of an exchange hold equal bargaining power, the "free" market might be "voluntary".
This is certainly not the current state of affairs, though. Being able to "choose" between a crappy option and a horrible option is anything but voluntary: "you can choose to work for me for little to no money... or you can choose to starve to death. it's your 'free' choice."
The very premise of what would make a free market efficient in the real world simply doesn't exist, but we keep trying to convince ourselves that it does because we don't know or aren't used to anything different.
Being able to choose between horrible options is exactly the definition of freedom. Believe it or not many people would choose free destitution over pampered slavery. It is exactly the ability to make this choice, at the most extreme level, that should be respected. To take an maximal example: you should be able to sell your kidneys to fuel your heroin habit, for no other reason than because no one can claim more ownership over them than you.
To protect people, against their will, from the consequences of their own misfortune or inadequacy is fundamentally paternalistic. The goal isn't efficiency, but the primacy of agency and consent.
If the two horrible options were free from context, sure. But that's hardly (if ever) the case. It is very convenient to start from a place where A has power over B, then say "B is free to choose whatever crappy options A offers, because... freedom".
Surely by it. I would struggle to find a precedent where children are considered equal to adults, and not subject to their authority. In fact my whole point is we shouldn't treat adults the same way we do children.
Why is it authoritarian and condescending for a government to provide service and address societal problems, but no less authoritarian or condescending for a government to be in the business of protecting the rights that any self-respecting freeholder should be ready and willing to do so?
Because that self same freeholder should be ready and willing to negotiate with others to provide whatever goods and services he needs. He shouldn't need a third party to intervene on his behalf, and, knowing that depriving anyone of freedom deprives him as well, should be loathe to apply force to compel the other free party he is negotiating with to meet his terms.
Sounds like then the truly moral position would be to cut out the government entirely. If the freeholder is ready to take on the grave responsibility of ensuring every single interaction, both large and small, are secure, then they should also be responsible for guaranteeing their own rights from all threats large and small, and not abdicate that in favor of a shadowy government.
Believe it or not, in the moment, you can use any sort of force required to defend yourself from violence. This is especially true in places that have castle doctrines and stand-your-ground laws. The government is there mostly to sort it out afterwards, and to discourage aggression by providing an alternative (due process) and punishing transgressors. The punishment of crime is what the government monopolizes, not self defence, since the alternative is generations-long blood feuds.
It also works in this case, too: at some point the connection does close (if it doesn't, just hit escape) and you can save the image as usual, now from the cache.
Even if Framework goes out of business, most crucial parts that are likely to fail are standard (hard drive, memory, battery), so you'd still be able to replace them yourself. And even for the ones that aren't (like the modular ports), the schematics are available [1], so anyone would be able to make new ones.
You technically can, in 66 easy steps and about 1-3 hours [1], all the while risking damaging your laptop. Compare that with 3-6 minutes [2] for the actually replaceable battery on the Framework.
Replacing batteries for MBAs and MBPs are completely different experiences.
I did the same with an MBA, replacing its battery in less than an hour by virtue of the battery not being glued to the case, nor having to worry about hidden clips built into the case, nor having to carefully dig out the guts of the system and putting them back together.
The MBP is in a totally different class -- as iFixit shows, you don't start removing the battery until step 51! And they're not kidding: to get to the battery, you have to do things like remove the trackpad assembly and pry out the logic board assembly.
Sure, you can amortize the 1-3 hours of labor over years of device ownership, but at every step, you're dealing with delicate parts, putting you in danger of turning your expensive, trusty daily driver into a brick.
Batteries are a wear item, guaranteed to have to be replaced. Apple's managers, designers, and engineers could show more empathy for their customers by making it easier and less risky to replace their wear items.
The thing is, I don't even know if you're paying Apple 100-200 bucks to replace the battery, or if you're paying them that much to replace the entire top case assembly, along with the battery, since it's so damn difficult to replace just the battery, I don't know if they even try. This is at least what they used to do.[1] I tried to research and find if this is still their practice but it was proving difficult. Very wasteful if so, and all likely just to make it difficult for the user to repair their own machine. (For what it's worth, recent MacBook Airs reportedly have Apple-replaceable batteries.)
Whatever else, I can guarantee you that they are not doing it on purpose in order to make it harder to repair them. They have just been prioritizing thinness.
> or if you're paying them that much to replace the entire top case assembly
The link says that "previous" MBAs had replacable batteries, and I know that 2012-2014 had it, so I don't think it was ever the case.
> For comparison, the previous-generation MacBook Air has a screwed-down battery that can be removed and replaced by Apple and its service providers without a top case replacement, in line with other non-Retina notebooks.
Also, this article was written in November 2018, and here's what it says:
> the battery can be individually replaced in the new MacBook Air [...] In all other MacBook and MacBook Pro models with a Retina display released since 2012, when a customer has required a battery replacement, Apple has replaced the entire top case enclosure, including the keyboard and trackpad.
This implies that, at least from 2016-2019, they were replacing the entire top case assembly in MBP. I have no reason to doubt they still are. The article is mainly about the MBA so it is a little confusing, to be fair.
One final thing I'd like to add is that you can have a slim computer with a replaceable battery. You probably typed this comment from one [1]. I don't see why they couldn't adopt this adhesive strip approach for the MBP. Perhaps it would create a teeny less room for the battery, shaving off 30 seconds of battery life on a laptop that already has significantly better life (when new) than most? I don't think this """trade-off""" (if it even exists) is worth it. There are also plenty of non-Apple examples of laptops with replaceable batteries and a MacBook-level slim design. The XPS 13 apparently beats it: 15.35 mm vs 15.6 mm. The Framework Laptop is not far off at 15.85mm.
Of course, having the ability to replace everything else is great, but the battery should be a given. None of the other components are "consumable", though they might still fail eventually, or you might want to upgrade them.
Consider also that anything that Apple does to make their product less repairable by the end-user also makes it less repairable by independent repair shops. I'm not sure why anyone would waste their time and money taking their Framework Laptop to a repair shop just to have them replace the battery when they could do it themselves in a few minutes (and you don't need to "live on HN" to follow basic instructions), but it's still an option. Whereas this is usually not an option with MacBooks.
I don't know if this was directed at me, but I'm not saying it isn't easier and cheaper to replace a Framework battery. My point is that almost nobody cares. You replace your battery at most once, after like 4 years. 100 dollars every 4 years is insignificant for almost all laptop owners.
I agree that they don't care. Perhaps they should, though? It's just unnecessarily wasteful (assuming they replace the entire top case assembly, which they probably still do) and expensive. By the way, it is currently $200 [1], but it could change. I don't think it's too unrealistic to imagine that Apple does this intentionally in order to get you to buy the latest model. Why keep investing in an old, dying laptop rather than just get a new one? It makes sense to invest in the Framework Laptop because everything is replaceable, including the mobo/CPU. But it doesn't make sense to invest in an old MacBook that might have other unforeseen, unfixable issues (unless by Apple for a fortune) in the future, even after a battery replacement.
If MacBook users could either replace the battery themselves (or take it to any repair shop if they somehow don't have a few minutes to spare), they wouldn't have to face the "repair or upgrade" dilemma until much later in the laptop's life. For Framework users, it isn't a problem at all.
It also goes a little bit beyond that: if one of your ports stops working (e.g. rust, water damage, etc), you can just buy a replacement port and you're back on track, as opposed to "welp, I guess I'll have to do without it..."
It's great that we can use this as reference for what it used to be. Presumably, this is what competition should bring in: "traditional retail sucked, so amazon comes in and takes over it by offering something better."
The same thing would still apply now too: "if sellers are able to offer their goods elsewhere for cheaper, they should be able to", instead of being forced to raise prices everywhere.
Languages are not inherently easy or hard. It all depends on where you're coming from: if you happen to already speak languages that are similar, then it can be said English will be easy to learn, otherwise, it's a language like any other. Just ask any Japanese or Chinese speaker how easy/hard it was to learn English.
The reason English got so popular is purely because of the power and wealth English speaking nations have amassed in the recent history.
