4 ms·

Car safety is a bad counterexample because the risk is otherwise often externalized i.e. your car can easily hurt a total stranger whereas the consequences of y

by bloppe 7mo ago

Car safety is a bad counterexample because the risk is otherwise often externalized i.e. your car can easily hurt a total stranger whereas the consequences of your choice in laptop are strictly personal. And as GP stated, regulating this sort of thing would definitely force a particular trade-off on everyone. A lot of people would be pissed to have MacBooks with worse "build quality" even if they were more reparable. Having a choice is better.

gambiting 7mo ago
>> your car can easily hurt a total stranger whereas the consequences of your choice in laptop are strictly personal. You know that safety for pedestrians is also a very tightly regulated car safety category, right? Obviously, there's not much that can be done if you get hit by a car going 70mph, but the fact that most people should survive a 30mph impact with a modern car is mostly thanks to regulations requiring crumple zones specifically designed to protect pedestrians in a collision. And yeah, there are huge trade offs - I imagine people would generally prefer a car that doesn't need incredibly expensive repairs after a minor collision because everything at the front just crumpled, but then they would be guaranteed to cut off legs of any person hit - it's a trade off.
- bucephalos 7mo ago
  Not in the US. Specific pedestrian safety features are not included in cars sold there due to lack of regulation. FMVSS was planning a regulation modelled after ECE R127, then the administration changed and no progress since...
  - gambiting 7mo ago
    Well yes, which is why most American cars are not approved for sale over here.
  - 1718627440 7mo ago
    Lack of regulation resulting in worse outcomes is also a data point for regulation being able to solve problems.
- lotsofpulp 7mo ago
  It would be trivial to limit a car’s speeds in residential and urban areas based on GPS, and that would dramatically decrease risk to people outside of cars. Or mandate in car cameras that record the driver to a blackbox to determine if the driver’s negligence caused others to be damaged. Also a cheap implementation that would immediately make drivers be more attentive.
  - gambiting 7mo ago
    >>It would be trivial to limit a car’s speeds in residential and urban areas based on GPS, and that would dramatically decrease risk to people outside of cars. Only partialy agree. As in - yes I agree in principle, but I don't agree it would be trivial. My sister had insurance with a black box policy, where everything she did in the car was recorded. And on her drive to work, she would always get a threatening email saying "we've recorded you going 70mph in a 20mph zone, if this continues we will cancel your policy". We had to ring them up and demand the GPS trace, and guess what - at one point she was going on the motorway above a 20mph road, but the system probably just did "what is the speed limit at X/Y coordinates" and was getting 20mph for the nearest road. We've had to do this several times when she had the policy. My own Volvo XC60 frequently tells me I'm going over the speed limit as it thinks the road I'm on has a 50mph limit when in fact it's 70, and in another place it thinks it's 30 when in fact it's also 70. Not to mention that the speeds entered on Google Maps are often just wrong and take forever to update. And it's funny when people like Harry Metcalf say that every new car he tests insists that his own private drive has a 20mph limit when obviously there is none. Imagine if you couldn't turn that off! So yeah, very easy to implement(and it's a great idea!) but in practice it's one of these "looks easy on paper, but in reality it's super hard to do reliably".
wvenable 7mo ago
I disagree. The lack of repairability has external costs not born by the purchaser or the manufacturer -- more toxic trash unnecessarily added to the environment. Forcing a particular trade-off on everyone is entirely the point. It's the point of car safety, it's also the point of minimum warranties, electrical emission regulations, safety standards, etc.
- VogonPoetry 7mo ago
  Does this also mean only using "standard" parts? Or does the manufacturer have to over-produce the parts for, lets say 7 years, and then warehouse and ship those parts, probably multiple times. Or keep a low rate production line running for 7 years? What happens to the parts that don't get used? Are they scrapped? That "what if" cost is going to be built into the cost of the laptop. Repairability doesn't always keep the cost low. The purchaser will definitely have to foot the cost otherwise it isn't sustainable.
  - wvenable 7mo ago
    Repairability definitely doesn't keep the costs low. If it was cheaper and easier, it wouldn't have to be regulated. As for supply chain management, companies that get that equation correct are going to benefit. Which is exactly how it should be. We define the rules of the game and companies that can best implement those rules will succeed. That is capitalism.
    - Gigachad 7mo ago
      It won’t self resolve because consumers don’t fully factor in every detail while buying, and they often don’t get such granular choice anyway. It’s easier and more profitable for companies to make a product that catastrophically fails around about when the new model is out. So that’s what they do. Until just now when the EU is reeling them back in line.
  - lelanthran 7mo ago
    > Does this also mean only using "standard" parts? Or does the manufacturer have to over-produce the parts for, lets say 7 years, and then warehouse and ship those parts, probably multiple times. Or keep a low rate production line running for 7 years? What happens to the parts that don't get used? Are they scrapped? None of that is relevant in this context: The parts are available, but the laptop is designed and built such that the alone keyboard cannot be replaced.[1] [1] Not sure if this is possible on that specific laptop, but with a steady hand, a tiny drill, maybe a magnifiying glass too, you can maybe drill out the rivets, then replace the keyboard, then either re-rivet it back again or tap very tiny thread into the laptop and use screws.
lelanthran 7mo ago
> A lot of people would be pissed to have MacBooks with worse "build quality" even if they were more reparable. It is not a given that being repairable results in worse build quality.
- lotsofpulp 7mo ago
  It is a given if someone could have made a superior product in the last 15 years, i.e. more repairable laptop with higher build quality, they would have.
  - swiftcoder 7mo ago
    > It is a given if someone could have made a superior product in the last 15 years, i.e. more repairable laptop with higher build quality, they would have. Most of the PC competitors of the last 15 years have struggled to even come close to achieving similar build quality. I'm not sure who this mythical competitor could be, who is supposed to not only match unibody aluminium MacBook build quality, but also solve repairability, and come in with a final product that is cheaper?
  - dwaltrip 7mo ago
    It kind of sounds like you are saying it is impossible to improve on the current state of the world. That if it was possible to improve things, someone would have already done it. And they haven’t, so it must not be possible. That feels a bit extreme… Maybe I’m misunderstanding?
    - lotsofpulp 7mo ago
      No, it is certainly possible to come up with an innovation that allows progress. But the tone I get from discussions about repairability and performance is that it would be trivial to make the device, if only businesses wanted to. However, given the fact that it hasn’t happened yet from a variety of alternative manufacturers, the probability seems very low that the ideal device is possible with current technology at a price that is viable. Basically, it is a competitive market (or was), and what won out was what was possible. Barring some leap in technology, it is unrealistic to assume we can do better without suffering tradeoffs.
throwaway85825 7mo ago
A lot of the recent car safety features are cameras and ADAS which make it safer for pedestrians. The problem is it makes the car so expensive no one can afford to buy it or to repair it. There needs to be some standards to drive down the cost.
- swiftcoder 7mo ago
  Do you have a source for the cameras and ADAS driving up the cost of the cars dramatically? The €14k Dacia Sandero ships with camera-assisted emergency braking and lane assist. By the time you get up to a €24k MG 4, you get full level 2 driving. These don't seem like very high price thresholds
  - throwaway85825 7mo ago
    https://www.kbb.com/car-news/whats-making-car-repair-so-expensive-sensors/ https://www.kbb.com/car-news/whats-making-car-repair-so-expe... Cars have much longer lifecycles that the repurposed consumer technology in the ADAS. A camera module is cheap, but a camera model for this particular make/model/year is outrageously expensive if not unobtanium 10 years later. Theres the famous f150 story where the tail light housing with blind spot monitoring cost $5k.

by bloppe 7mo ago

gambiting 7mo ago

>> your car can easily hurt a total stranger whereas the consequences of your choice in laptop are strictly personal. You know that safety for pedestrians is also a very tightly regulated car safety category, right? Obviously, there's not much that can be done if you get hit by a car going 70mph, but the fact that most people should survive a 30mph impact with a modern car is mostly thanks to regulations requiring crumple zones specifically designed to protect pedestrians in a collision. And yeah, there are huge trade offs - I imagine people would generally prefer a car that doesn't need incredibly expensive repairs after a minor collision because everything at the front just crumpled, but then they would be guaranteed to cut off legs of any person hit - it's a trade off.

bucephalos 7mo ago
Not in the US. Specific pedestrian safety features are not included in cars sold there due to lack of regulation. FMVSS was planning a regulation modelled after ECE R127, then the administration changed and no progress since...
- gambiting 7mo ago
  Well yes, which is why most American cars are not approved for sale over here.
- 1718627440 7mo ago
  Lack of regulation resulting in worse outcomes is also a data point for regulation being able to solve problems.
lotsofpulp 7mo ago
It would be trivial to limit a car’s speeds in residential and urban areas based on GPS, and that would dramatically decrease risk to people outside of cars. Or mandate in car cameras that record the driver to a blackbox to determine if the driver’s negligence caused others to be damaged. Also a cheap implementation that would immediately make drivers be more attentive.
- gambiting 7mo ago
  >>It would be trivial to limit a car’s speeds in residential and urban areas based on GPS, and that would dramatically decrease risk to people outside of cars. Only partialy agree. As in - yes I agree in principle, but I don't agree it would be trivial. My sister had insurance with a black box policy, where everything she did in the car was recorded. And on her drive to work, she would always get a threatening email saying "we've recorded you going 70mph in a 20mph zone, if this continues we will cancel your policy". We had to ring them up and demand the GPS trace, and guess what - at one point she was going on the motorway above a 20mph road, but the system probably just did "what is the speed limit at X/Y coordinates" and was getting 20mph for the nearest road. We've had to do this several times when she had the policy. My own Volvo XC60 frequently tells me I'm going over the speed limit as it thinks the road I'm on has a 50mph limit when in fact it's 70, and in another place it thinks it's 30 when in fact it's also 70. Not to mention that the speeds entered on Google Maps are often just wrong and take forever to update. And it's funny when people like Harry Metcalf say that every new car he tests insists that his own private drive has a 20mph limit when obviously there is none. Imagine if you couldn't turn that off! So yeah, very easy to implement(and it's a great idea!) but in practice it's one of these "looks easy on paper, but in reality it's super hard to do reliably".

wvenable 7mo ago

I disagree. The lack of repairability has external costs not born by the purchaser or the manufacturer -- more toxic trash unnecessarily added to the environment. Forcing a particular trade-off on everyone is entirely the point. It's the point of car safety, it's also the point of minimum warranties, electrical emission regulations, safety standards, etc.

VogonPoetry 7mo ago
Does this also mean only using "standard" parts? Or does the manufacturer have to over-produce the parts for, lets say 7 years, and then warehouse and ship those parts, probably multiple times. Or keep a low rate production line running for 7 years? What happens to the parts that don't get used? Are they scrapped? That "what if" cost is going to be built into the cost of the laptop. Repairability doesn't always keep the cost low. The purchaser will definitely have to foot the cost otherwise it isn't sustainable.
- wvenable 7mo ago
  Repairability definitely doesn't keep the costs low. If it was cheaper and easier, it wouldn't have to be regulated. As for supply chain management, companies that get that equation correct are going to benefit. Which is exactly how it should be. We define the rules of the game and companies that can best implement those rules will succeed. That is capitalism.
  - Gigachad 7mo ago
    It won’t self resolve because consumers don’t fully factor in every detail while buying, and they often don’t get such granular choice anyway. It’s easier and more profitable for companies to make a product that catastrophically fails around about when the new model is out. So that’s what they do. Until just now when the EU is reeling them back in line.
- lelanthran 7mo ago
  > Does this also mean only using "standard" parts? Or does the manufacturer have to over-produce the parts for, lets say 7 years, and then warehouse and ship those parts, probably multiple times. Or keep a low rate production line running for 7 years? What happens to the parts that don't get used? Are they scrapped? None of that is relevant in this context: The parts are available, but the laptop is designed and built such that the alone keyboard cannot be replaced.[1] [1] Not sure if this is possible on that specific laptop, but with a steady hand, a tiny drill, maybe a magnifiying glass too, you can maybe drill out the rivets, then replace the keyboard, then either re-rivet it back again or tap very tiny thread into the laptop and use screws.

lelanthran 7mo ago

> A lot of people would be pissed to have MacBooks with worse "build quality" even if they were more reparable. It is not a given that being repairable results in worse build quality.

lotsofpulp 7mo ago
It is a given if someone could have made a superior product in the last 15 years, i.e. more repairable laptop with higher build quality, they would have.
- swiftcoder 7mo ago
  > It is a given if someone could have made a superior product in the last 15 years, i.e. more repairable laptop with higher build quality, they would have. Most of the PC competitors of the last 15 years have struggled to even come close to achieving similar build quality. I'm not sure who this mythical competitor could be, who is supposed to not only match unibody aluminium MacBook build quality, but also solve repairability, and come in with a final product that is cheaper?
- dwaltrip 7mo ago
  It kind of sounds like you are saying it is impossible to improve on the current state of the world. That if it was possible to improve things, someone would have already done it. And they haven’t, so it must not be possible. That feels a bit extreme… Maybe I’m misunderstanding?
  - lotsofpulp 7mo ago
    No, it is certainly possible to come up with an innovation that allows progress. But the tone I get from discussions about repairability and performance is that it would be trivial to make the device, if only businesses wanted to. However, given the fact that it hasn’t happened yet from a variety of alternative manufacturers, the probability seems very low that the ideal device is possible with current technology at a price that is viable. Basically, it is a competitive market (or was), and what won out was what was possible. Barring some leap in technology, it is unrealistic to assume we can do better without suffering tradeoffs.

throwaway85825 7mo ago

A lot of the recent car safety features are cameras and ADAS which make it safer for pedestrians. The problem is it makes the car so expensive no one can afford to buy it or to repair it. There needs to be some standards to drive down the cost.

swiftcoder 7mo ago
Do you have a source for the cameras and ADAS driving up the cost of the cars dramatically? The €14k Dacia Sandero ships with camera-assisted emergency braking and lane assist. By the time you get up to a €24k MG 4, you get full level 2 driving. These don't seem like very high price thresholds
- throwaway85825 7mo ago
  https://www.kbb.com/car-news/whats-making-car-repair-so-expensive-sensors/ https://www.kbb.com/car-news/whats-making-car-repair-so-expe... Cars have much longer lifecycles that the repurposed consumer technology in the ADAS. A camera module is cheap, but a camera model for this particular make/model/year is outrageously expensive if not unobtanium 10 years later. Theres the famous f150 story where the tail light housing with blind spot monitoring cost $5k.