22 ms·

If the solution to theft is "remotely brick parts that work perfectly," it is a shitty solution that doesn't deserve consideration. Doubly so when Apple's worka

If the solution to theft is "remotely brick parts that work perfectly," it is a shitty solution that doesn't deserve consideration. Doubly so when Apple's workaround for that is "pay us even more money to double the e-waste by having us send you another perfectly working part, but ~verified~!"

paulmd 3y ago
[flagged]
- dang 3y ago
  Can you please not post in the flamewar style to HN? We're trying for something different here, and we've had ask you this many times before—that's not cool. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
  - paulmd 3y ago
    It’s a shame you don’t have rules against advocating for violent criminal conduct! One would really hope that would be addressed before tone-policing the criticisms of that.
    - dang 3y ago
      If a post is unambiguously "advocating for violent criminal conduct" that's one thing, but I don't think your interpretation is something most people would call obvious. In fact, one could argue that it's another way in which you broke the site guidelines, which include: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html It's not actually in your interest to argue aggressively or abusively, because it undermines the point you're trying to make. I know it's frustrating when people don't get the truth of your points and/or repeat false claims, but the proper way to deal with that is to make better arguments and/or communicate more clearly, not to fulminate against the community or throw your weight around. For example, it sounds like you have a great point in your GP comment: the parts are known to be stolen because the lockout was sent. But this information gets eclipsed by the putdowns, snark, etc., which made up the majority of your post.
      - skeaker 3y ago
        I appreciate the way you put this, dang. You're right that I was misinterpreted: I am advocating for a way to unlock the (perfectly good and fully functional) parts that doesn't involve throwing them away and buying new ones. I'm upset that Apple has gone the route of remote bricking with no recourse but to throw them away, not complaining that Apple is making theft harder. Painting me as a "violent criminal" for that is certainly the least generous interpretation of my post. As for why this misinterpretation happened, I think the other poster here assumes that parts that throw this error were stolen. TFA states that this is not the case, but that any part swap at all will trigger it, such as moving parts from your old phone with a broken screen to your new phone.
        paulmd 3y ago
        If you wanted to talk about erroneous lockout signals, you could have mentioned literally anything about that topic in your post. This is your entire comment, italicised portion is the one I quoted, which should have made it pretty clear what part I was responding to. > If the solution to theft is "remotely brick parts that work perfectly," it is a shitty solution that doesn't deserve consideration. Doubly so when Apple's workaround for that is "pay us even more money to double the e-waste by having us send you another perfectly working part, but ~verified~!" Which portion of this is discussing erroneous lockout signals, or can be inferred to be referring to such? Specific quotation please. Seems pretty straightforward that "lockout results in usable parts becoming unusable after a theft" which yeah, that's the point! Regardless though, "I don't care about the people on this page who were choked into unconsciousness at knife-point because of extremely-occasional erroneous lockout signals" (has this ever happened to you or anyone you know?) is not much better than "I don't care about people on this page who were choked into unconsciousness at knife-point because I get cheaper parts and repairs". And I know it's uncouth to point that out here, but it doesn't change it. Even the way you intended it was callous. You're just willfully ignoring the consequences of your actions because of extreme edge-cases, and ignoring the actual physical edge-case here. People get mugged every day, how often have any of your devices or anyone you know received an erroneous lock-out signal? For me that answer is zero. Could it happen? Maybe, I guess, not really a real problem that I've ever seen or heard. Why do you think this is a problem worth putting life at risk over?

paulmd 3y ago

[flagged]

dang 3y ago
Can you please not post in the flamewar style to HN? We're trying for something different here, and we've had ask you this many times before—that's not cool. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- paulmd 3y ago
  It’s a shame you don’t have rules against advocating for violent criminal conduct! One would really hope that would be addressed before tone-policing the criticisms of that.
  - dang 3y ago
    If a post is unambiguously "advocating for violent criminal conduct" that's one thing, but I don't think your interpretation is something most people would call obvious. In fact, one could argue that it's another way in which you broke the site guidelines, which include: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html It's not actually in your interest to argue aggressively or abusively, because it undermines the point you're trying to make. I know it's frustrating when people don't get the truth of your points and/or repeat false claims, but the proper way to deal with that is to make better arguments and/or communicate more clearly, not to fulminate against the community or throw your weight around. For example, it sounds like you have a great point in your GP comment: the parts are known to be stolen because the lockout was sent. But this information gets eclipsed by the putdowns, snark, etc., which made up the majority of your post.
    - skeaker 3y ago
      I appreciate the way you put this, dang. You're right that I was misinterpreted: I am advocating for a way to unlock the (perfectly good and fully functional) parts that doesn't involve throwing them away and buying new ones. I'm upset that Apple has gone the route of remote bricking with no recourse but to throw them away, not complaining that Apple is making theft harder. Painting me as a "violent criminal" for that is certainly the least generous interpretation of my post. As for why this misinterpretation happened, I think the other poster here assumes that parts that throw this error were stolen. TFA states that this is not the case, but that any part swap at all will trigger it, such as moving parts from your old phone with a broken screen to your new phone.
      - paulmd 3y ago
        If you wanted to talk about erroneous lockout signals, you could have mentioned literally anything about that topic in your post. This is your entire comment, italicised portion is the one I quoted, which should have made it pretty clear what part I was responding to. > If the solution to theft is "remotely brick parts that work perfectly," it is a shitty solution that doesn't deserve consideration. Doubly so when Apple's workaround for that is "pay us even more money to double the e-waste by having us send you another perfectly working part, but ~verified~!" Which portion of this is discussing erroneous lockout signals, or can be inferred to be referring to such? Specific quotation please. Seems pretty straightforward that "lockout results in usable parts becoming unusable after a theft" which yeah, that's the point! Regardless though, "I don't care about the people on this page who were choked into unconsciousness at knife-point because of extremely-occasional erroneous lockout signals" (has this ever happened to you or anyone you know?) is not much better than "I don't care about people on this page who were choked into unconsciousness at knife-point because I get cheaper parts and repairs". And I know it's uncouth to point that out here, but it doesn't change it. Even the way you intended it was callous. You're just willfully ignoring the consequences of your actions because of extreme edge-cases, and ignoring the actual physical edge-case here. People get mugged every day, how often have any of your devices or anyone you know received an erroneous lock-out signal? For me that answer is zero. Could it happen? Maybe, I guess, not really a real problem that I've ever seen or heard. Why do you think this is a problem worth putting life at risk over?