4 ms·
Right to repair doesn't change any of that. Farmers were adjusting that screw anyways, that was the entire point. I'm not mad at farmers for doing it, I'm mad a
by hatsix 3mo ago
Right to repair doesn't change any of that. Farmers were adjusting that screw anyways, that was the entire point. I'm not mad at farmers for doing it, I'm mad at John Deere at cheating the system.
- mothballed 3mo agoIt's not John Deere that was doing that, just some Korean companies exploring the opportunity and importing to the US. John Deere is located in the US and too afraid of the whimsical interpretations of regulators to try something like that, I think. There was no "screw" for the commercial John Deere tractors with emissions controls, that I know of, as that was locked down to prevent "repair."
- javawizard 3mo agoLot of armchair quarterbacking going on, on both sides. I'd love to hear an actual farmer weigh in on this. Anyone in the room care to volunteer?
- mothballed 3mo agotractorbynet is one of the better forums for info on opinions on tractors by people that use them regularly
- bumby 3mo agoI did talk to a corn/soybean farmer on this recently and they weren’t nearly as concerned as I would have thought. They said they pay JD to maintain their equipment anyway. The equipment is apparently so expensive and sophisticated that people are wrenching on it much themselves (similar to the trend in road vehicles).
- Manuel_D 3mo agoThe point is that when the firmware was locked down, it was vastly more difficult to bypass emissions restrictions. I'm not sure what you mean when you say John Deere was cheating the system. Arguably they were taking compliance more strictly before this ruling.
- moffkalast 3mo agoThe emissions restrictions were meant to get the likes of Deere to design and use smaller, more efficient engines, not to keep doing whatever they were with a slightly more restricted fuel hose.
- gbacon 3mo ago“The purpose of a system is what it does.”
- throwaway27448 3mo agoSure, if you completely ignore the meaning of "purpose". What an asinine sentiment.
- Timon3 3mo agoWhile I'm not sure I agree that the quote is applicable here, it is generally an incredibly useful way to analyze systems. Reality doesn't care what you're hoping to achieve with a system, the outcome won't change based on thoughts and ideas. Since reality tends to be fairly complicated, we usually won't design perfect systems on the first try - instead we have to analyze the outcome, and make changes to nudge the results into the direction we want. But what if we don't do that? What if we stick with the initial approach even after we measure that the outcome doesn't align with our initial intentions, maybe even introduces unwanted side effects? It would be fair to say "well, we tried our best" if nobody was able to have hidden intentions, but that's not the world we live in. People can be very, very happy about our systems not aligning with our intentions & introducing unwanted side effects because this misalignment advantages them in some way. These people can then block changes to the system to keep these advantages alive. I believe a small fraction of decision makers is enough to keep most systems fixed in such a misaligned state, and we'd never do anything about it if we followed your logic.
- throwaway27448 3mo ago