upvote

points

by ashdksnndck13 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby jazzyjackson12 hours ago|
next
[-]
Just that the default reality is the hardware you buy belonging to someone else, who only really sold you a license to use the hardware on limited terms until the manufacturer drops support
reply
upvoteby ashdksnndck12 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
This generalizes to “good news is bad news because things must be bad by default for good things to be news”
reply
upvoteby petterroea12 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
as other has said, it is sad that it took that a CTO had fun to open it up, and not the rest of the public discourse about things like this.

I'm happy he had fun and all for him making decisions based on it. But it shouldn't have taken this.

reply
upvoteby saagarjha13 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Why didn’t it occur to someone that this would be fun to do within the CTO having to realize this
reply
upvoteby l23k412 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Why didn't it occur to someone without occurring to someone first?
reply
upvoteby Shish2k7 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
People within Meta have been campaigning for this for _years_; even people as high up as John Carmack were pushing for open bootloaders on deprecated hardware (and he achieved that on the Go headset, but not as a general policy)
reply
upvoteby saagarjha12 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Because the idea that something this obvious occurred to the CTO first is very, very unlikely. What is more probable was that leadership ignored people who disagreed until the CTO convinced himself it was a good idea and went ahead with it.
reply
upvoteby Forgeties7912 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Because it could’ve just as easily never happened despite how simple of a feature it is to enable. That happens all the time. Tons of “useless” tech out there that can be made useful with 5min of effort but the incentives aren’t there, so they end up in landfills.

The default position should be trying to make devices useful as long as possible, even if they want to qualify it with “so long as it’s sufficiently reasonable to do so.”

reply
upvoteby mock-possum12 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
It shouldn’t be left to the whim of a C-suite denizen.
reply
upvoteby gnfargbl12 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
If the leadership of a company aren't the right people to make decisions about what that company does, who is?

Are you advocating for legislation? How would that work?

reply
upvoteby sham111 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Ideally the workers. But failing that, legislation would probably be a good thing to at least try to reduce e-waste from closed, discarded devices. Like, if a device line is at its end of line from the company, then they might as well make it open for the community. They're not supporting it anymore, after all, but someone might want to.

Would such legislation be perfect for dealing with these kinds of things? Of course not, but it would be better.

reply
upvoteby signatoremo5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Who are these workers? Who should be listened to if there are opposite views?

What if recycle these devices causes more waste elsewhere? says the devices have to be heavier, using more materials. Also, more legislation mean more bureaucracy, less efficiency in general. Who is to say there is no waste in that?

I'm not against legislation when it makes sense. But "..Of course not, but it would be better"? It's always easy to speak from the comfort of HN.

reply