> You're against your own Strawman.
reply> The proposal is: batteries must be removable using commercially available tools
That's exactly what he's against, plus the premise "Making batteries removable prevents them from being waterproof, dustproof, and collision resistant". Which may be true or false, but not a straw man.
Thanks, and yes, exactly this. As I acknowledged in my comment, maybe phones can be made waterproof, dustproof, and dropproof while also being user serviceable. If there is a tradeoff, I'll take waterproof over user-battery-replaceable. Apparently conditionals make me a strawman...
replyIt absolutely is a Strawman. There's no basis in fact for why using commercial tools instead of specialist tools would result in worse "waterproof, dustproof, or collision resistance." It is completely fictional claim invented whole cloth.
replyAgain, multiple phones have already become compliant with this law and didn't lose or compromise any of those things.
So you OR they, will need to explain the basis for the claim, otherwise it is just a Strawman you're poking baselessly.
I guess the headline is what sets up the straw man -- I didn't think we were arguing about the narrower claim "all phones with replaceable batteries should be removable using commercial tools", just whether they should be replaceable at all. I still think it's reasonable to expect that mandating phones be openable would have tradeoffs in waterproofing, so your disagreement should be factual/historical, not about good faith.
reply