4 ms·

And there should be no law against enabling the heated seats in the car you own without interacting with the manufacturer.

alexvitkov 1y ago
Too bad there is one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A...
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  Laws can be interpreted in such a way that invites robber barons to pound sand, or repealed.
  - bayindirh 1y ago
    Considering the same law is used to strike a 3 hour GPU documentary over a ~30 second clip, I think it serves to corporate pretty well. GamersNexus' 3 hour documentary about GPU smuggling (which is way more than a vlog as HN commenters like to portray) is struck down by Bloomberg because they didn't want their 30 second clip, which is squarely fair use BTW, of POTUS speaking to be in that. GamersNexus repealed successfully, but Bloomberg tried to bully them [0]. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUnRWh4xOCY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUnRWh4xOCY
    - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
      I don't understand why people think this is something corporations desperately want. It's something they'll abuse if you leave it sitting around for that, but that's just the argument for getting rid of it. How does the ability to be a petulant grouch benefit them? It has negligible monetary value and causes PR damage. It's a footgun that nobody needs and only fools want. And if they're actually the cartoon villains it would imply, rather than just banal petty autocrats carelessly fooling around with a toy they deserve to have taken away from them, then we should maybe less be saying "it makes sense that they would want it this way" and more be sticking their heads in a guillotine so we can show the children the proper way to resolve a dispute with a tyrant. In neither case should a law like that remain on the books.
      - bayindirh 1y ago
        Looks like it's complicated. The video has some theories. - Bloomberg has a similar investigation which is deeply undercut by GamersNexus video. GN seen the labs, Bloomberg got their access revoked, so theirs is an empty video, and they want the views. - The video holds no punches back about anyone, and Bloomberg has an NVIDIA sponsored section dedicated to them. - There's no other source which recorded POTUS' words, and maybe they don't want these words to be widely available, video argues. - Lastly, they wanted a licensing fee for that 30 seconds to leave their videos alone. So, when you're a beancounting billionaire corporation, you can have the reasons to go after a bearded guy who manages to do a better job and make you look bad. Because, monies.
        AnthonyMouse 1y ago
        That's precisely the "petty autocrats carelessly abusing a footgun" scenario. They've made themselves look bad for negligible benefit while harming innocent people. It's the argument for taking it away from them.
gf000 1y ago
The heated seat is an edge case, but there is also the entirely valid argument that you shouldn't be able to arbitrarily modify your car (e.g. replace the breaks with some home-grown solution), as it can put yourself and others in danger, and I see no evil in that being enforced by the government. A more IT-related example might be what radio frequencies can we use - if anyone could spam the whole spectrum, we would lose more than from the "freedom" of being able to do that. So it's actually far from trivial to draw a line.
- GeoAtreides 1y ago
  > there is also the entirely valid argument that you shouldn't be able to arbitrarily modify your car In at least two european countries that I know of (but probably in all of them) cars need to pass periodic technical inspection to be allowed on the road. Breaks are tested, among other things.
  - jonasdegendt 1y ago
    Technical inspections are mandatory across the board in all of the European Union, although the rules (such as the interval between inspections), may differ between countries. The minimum is every two years, some countries do yearly. This is actually governed by a European mandate.
    - swiftcoder 1y ago
      In much of the EU you are also required to request an additional technical inspection if you have made major changes to the car - for example, I had to take mine in when I had a tow hitch installed, and a friend had to take their camper in when they installed an additional seat.
  - darkwater 1y ago
    On top of that, you totally can modify your car (even the brakes) provided that you use some certified part that's good enough for your type of car. And you should pass the inspection that tests everything. I understand that GP point was about home-made brakes (like the software counterpart), but software on a smartphone is not (yet) deadly for others if it doesn't work as expected.

alexvitkov 1y ago

Too bad there is one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A...

AnthonyMouse 1y ago
Laws can be interpreted in such a way that invites robber barons to pound sand, or repealed.
- bayindirh 1y ago
  Considering the same law is used to strike a 3 hour GPU documentary over a ~30 second clip, I think it serves to corporate pretty well. GamersNexus' 3 hour documentary about GPU smuggling (which is way more than a vlog as HN commenters like to portray) is struck down by Bloomberg because they didn't want their 30 second clip, which is squarely fair use BTW, of POTUS speaking to be in that. GamersNexus repealed successfully, but Bloomberg tried to bully them [0]. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUnRWh4xOCY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUnRWh4xOCY
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    I don't understand why people think this is something corporations desperately want. It's something they'll abuse if you leave it sitting around for that, but that's just the argument for getting rid of it. How does the ability to be a petulant grouch benefit them? It has negligible monetary value and causes PR damage. It's a footgun that nobody needs and only fools want. And if they're actually the cartoon villains it would imply, rather than just banal petty autocrats carelessly fooling around with a toy they deserve to have taken away from them, then we should maybe less be saying "it makes sense that they would want it this way" and more be sticking their heads in a guillotine so we can show the children the proper way to resolve a dispute with a tyrant. In neither case should a law like that remain on the books.
    - bayindirh 1y ago
      Looks like it's complicated. The video has some theories. - Bloomberg has a similar investigation which is deeply undercut by GamersNexus video. GN seen the labs, Bloomberg got their access revoked, so theirs is an empty video, and they want the views. - The video holds no punches back about anyone, and Bloomberg has an NVIDIA sponsored section dedicated to them. - There's no other source which recorded POTUS' words, and maybe they don't want these words to be widely available, video argues. - Lastly, they wanted a licensing fee for that 30 seconds to leave their videos alone. So, when you're a beancounting billionaire corporation, you can have the reasons to go after a bearded guy who manages to do a better job and make you look bad. Because, monies.
      - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
        That's precisely the "petty autocrats carelessly abusing a footgun" scenario. They've made themselves look bad for negligible benefit while harming innocent people. It's the argument for taking it away from them.

gf000 1y ago

The heated seat is an edge case, but there is also the entirely valid argument that you shouldn't be able to arbitrarily modify your car (e.g. replace the breaks with some home-grown solution), as it can put yourself and others in danger, and I see no evil in that being enforced by the government. A more IT-related example might be what radio frequencies can we use - if anyone could spam the whole spectrum, we would lose more than from the "freedom" of being able to do that. So it's actually far from trivial to draw a line.

GeoAtreides 1y ago
> there is also the entirely valid argument that you shouldn't be able to arbitrarily modify your car In at least two european countries that I know of (but probably in all of them) cars need to pass periodic technical inspection to be allowed on the road. Breaks are tested, among other things.
- jonasdegendt 1y ago
  Technical inspections are mandatory across the board in all of the European Union, although the rules (such as the interval between inspections), may differ between countries. The minimum is every two years, some countries do yearly. This is actually governed by a European mandate.
  - swiftcoder 1y ago
    In much of the EU you are also required to request an additional technical inspection if you have made major changes to the car - for example, I had to take mine in when I had a tow hitch installed, and a friend had to take their camper in when they installed an additional seat.
- darkwater 1y ago
  On top of that, you totally can modify your car (even the brakes) provided that you use some certified part that's good enough for your type of car. And you should pass the inspection that tests everything. I understand that GP point was about home-made brakes (like the software counterpart), but software on a smartphone is not (yet) deadly for others if it doesn't work as expected.