Nostr Web Client

Thank you for your expanded response. I think in most part we fight in the same direction. You and me want to have fully opensource, easy to repair, endurable high end products.

My point is mostly, that I am against maximalist claims. I do disagree quiet strongly, with opinions, which use words as "everything", "nothing", "always", "never" and so on for practicle reasons.

Since when the claim would be true that it is only getting worse, this includes the message that there is nothing we could do to make it better. Specific cases of particularly good examples or particularly bad examples I see as more practicle, since they give room of opportunity. When there is no room of opportunity, then a discussion is without practical sense. And therefore to me without any sense.

So Probably I was disagreeing mostly due to my allergy against these (in my opinion) non-words, since they close any discussion, when they would be true.

ChipTuner 2mo ago

Social media is a place for opinions, it's also a place for those to challenge them. I don't really care about either, I just want people to make actually honest arguments. I often speak in anecdote because I think there is a real sentiment that can be argued. Imo, rarely does simply refuting a statement on "related fact" change ones opinions. Showing statistics and suggesting causation is just as egregious imo. That said I tend to agree, however empty, over-optimistic refutations bother me too. They often go for the ad hominem of "you're just black pilled". I'm just against the idea that you refuse to acknowledge that X thing is objectively worse than it _was_ which is _why_ we have the alternative in the first place. But the other part is, there is a reason the alternative has 80 stars on GitHub and is updated once a year. Because it's not good... I just get the impression that often those who suggest "the alternative is good" literally haven't used it.

World view and framing I suppose.

> My point is mostly, that I am against maximalist claims. I do disagree quiet strongly, with opinions, which use words as "everything", "nothing", "always", "never" and so on for practice reasons.

I would suggest that maybe you were looking for something that wasn't there. Specifically in the washing machine and refrigerator statement.

Again I say this as someone who worked on computers for diesel engine management, I think computers managing engines _can_ be good, but it shouldn't be so difficult. And given the option, I would rather go back in time. We can have the quiet interior, and mostly safe braking, crash resistance, and steering, completely mechanically... because we did! Have a look at and VAG car from the early 2000s. Yes they were mechanically complex, but many (if not most) mechanical failures are less catastrophic. Think suspension wear, steering wear, brakes etc. They are physically redundant, not my car won't turn on, could it be the telematics?, the radio (yes actually)? the GPS? the gauge cluster? the abs or brake control module? The interior module? Oh the front bumber sensor cluster? This isn't hyperbole either btw, everything I just listed is true depending on the failure mode.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

freemymind 🇨🇭 2mo ago 💬 1

Yes defnitly complexity is growing. I can understand, that many people, that could repair almost everything on their own some years ago are frustrated about the level of complexity.

This complexity may just has also its legitimation in the amount of comfort and features every new tool has to deliver.

I mean when there would be more need for easy to repair then "high end and every feature imaginable has to be included" then probably companies which do produce such products would be where Samsung is today.

I am also a developer for electronic devices. And devices with more features usually sell better, since every costumer thinks: Rather I pay a little more, for the case I need the better Camera, an AI-Chip or so.

ChipTuner 2mo ago

> I am also a developer for electronic devices. And devices with more features usually sell better, since every costumer thinks: Rather I pay a little more, for the case I need the better Camera, an AI-Chip or so.

I think this is a good point too. I think myself and others are not oblivious that the normie user "doesn't care" about repair-ability, they'd rather have the shiny new features. However Id suggest this is not exactly true. If you told the user at the time of purchase: "You can have the shiny new feature set BUT, it's probably going to become unusable in 2 years and you'll have to throw it away and spend another $1000 to do this again" I'd be willing to be those statistics would be lower. I could be totally wrong on that, and I'd be quite depressed if that was true.

So what I'm suggesting is that, modern uses trust that a convenience given to them in the past, will remain (because they didn't know they had it) with the new device, and they simply have the bonus of better features. They say "I'll take that risk" because it's realized not up front. I'm suggesting it's due to conditioning of selling higher quality products that didn't harvest user data. Now the cost of privacy, for example, is unrealized.