Yes, because when you run systems like that, you use the AI, and you have the people as a fallback for when the AI fails.
It was primarily watched by people in India because the AI was failing the vast majority of the time.
So yeah, the state of the art AI is… Failing at its job 70% of the time. Instead of the hoped goal of 5%.
That’s more “device” pairing than “parts” pairing. The thermostat to HVAC communication is a standard. Sure, if someone started forcing that, that’d be bad. But that’s more akin to Apple’s “iOS only works with MacBooks” type shit with Airdrop and such than it is to their “you can’t replace the camera in your phone unless it’s from us”. They’re both problems, but the one you’re describing is both not happening and a different issue. I’m not saying it won’t happen but it’s a different topic.
What… The… Fuck?
If your thermostat could cause a fire or gas leak, your HVAC system is flawed. This is entirely a fabricated concern. If anything, I’d chalk it up as reasons why maybe right to repair the HVAC isn’t a great idea. A properly setup HVAC wont let anything tell it to do that.
Firstly, I said this one was iffy to me.
Second, the subtopic was HVAC and thermostats are like, the electronics that control the HVAC which I wouldn’t even really necessarily bucket into HVAC. It’s like HVAC adjacent.
Third, this whole topic is about right to repair, not right to replace. So the on topic argument is “you want to be able to repair the same thermostat with off brand parts”, to which I say, yes? Probably? I don’t see how that’s a problem.
And fourth, who the fuck would buy an Amazon thermostat, lmao.
Yeah that’s totally valid. Agreed.
But I also wouldn’t really trust third party parts for the appliance itself. I think once you do, that immediately becomes a possible problem. If it was in my house, I’d only buy from the manufacturer for something like that.
But on the other hand, Idk that it’s necessarily wrong to legislate forcing these companies to allow it. I generally believe consumers should have the option on their own, but some things are too dangerous. I’d pretty much be against medical devices but HVAC is a little more uncertain to me.
I mean, I don’t want the thing supplying the air I’m breathing to accidentally not burn all the gas and lead to carbon monoxide poisoning etc… Things like the ductwork and shit, for sure, but not like, a burner.
I could see an argument about medical devices, HVAC, and vehicles… But I don’t think I’d agree with them. Except maybe medical.
Consoles and toothbrushes though? What the fuck?
This seems like a detour around right to repair.
That’s because it is. That’s all Apple does. Every time they get brought to court around shit, like the app store stuff in EU that just happened, they make it intentionally as difficult as could possibly be while still technically following the request. It’s malicious compliance at every step of the way even when they get caught. They’re so anti-consumer it’s not even funny.
Yeah, it’s in the name is “security”. As if a third party camera or back cover is going to break into the OS, harvest super important user data, and then somehow find some way to transmit it back to headquarters.
You know, or they just want to make money off of selling parts at 200% profit instead of Apples 500%.
The idea that this is somehow a security risk is a giant steamy pile of bullshit to keep people buying their garbage.
Yes, but Chromebooks are far from “newcomers” these days. They’ve been out a while. Many people who grew up using them in schools are now making their own purchasing decisions, etc.
Like he said as the second sentence of his comment…
You’ve never worked in enterprise then.
These solutions are skipping the majority of the core problems he mentioned. And even the problem you’re trying to solve here isn’t even fully solved by this solution. You’re taking a narrow sliver of one point in his argument and arguing about that and just tossing out the rest. Even if we accepted your proposal, Linux still isn’t enough of an answer here.
While I don’t really disagree, look at the market share of Chromebooks. If “most people” only needed internet access, “most people” would be on Chromebooks by now. It’s not like they’re unknown anymore.
Yeah, and it’s likely way less costly to the company to just buy a new win 11 computer than it is to pay an employee to train on new software. Not to mention the cost of paying someone to find someone to do a Linux conversion, paying the person doing the conversion, and the loss of productivity as the person learns. Not to mention the cost of changing IT infrastructure, hiring new IT people to manage those machines, etc.
There’s a reason companies don’t just switch at the drop of the hat. There’s too much commitment and institutional knowledge already and moving is not a simple change.
I can’t agree with this more. People like to sell Linux as a magic bullet, but it does not and will not everything everyone needs without maintenance and people really like to hand wave or downplay that need.
Sure, you could find a solution for what they’re using now. What happens when they need something else and they’re so tech illiterate that they don’t even know what you did to their machine? They wouldn’t even know how to install new software, and if they did, they wouldn’t know they need to click the Linux version, etc. It’s not always about feasibility and available options, it’s often about the fact that people just won’t fucking know what to do. Even if you assume there are enough options available, they won’t know how to do so.
And every step Microsoft takes to shoot themselves in the foot, and every step Linux takes to make this easier, everyone comes screaming about how much this could change things.
But until Linux has a HUGE market share - like in the 30-70 percent range - developers are not going to take it seriously and alleviate this process. Even with how well MacOS does, this is not even a solved problem entirely there - there are still hang ups and still software that doesn’t get released for mac. Linux would have to pass where Apple is today for this to become remotely accessible to an every day person.
And even THEN there’s the question of different Linux distros.
And coincidentally YouTube, Spotify, and Amazon Music, all of Apple Musics competition, just all happened to not implement this? All of Apples competition just decided to not add a pretty critical function to the people of that ecosystem? When they all do it in Google’s?
Yeah, I don’t buy that. At all. Sure the API might be there, but you know who gatekeeps those APIs? Apple. This smells a lot more like Apples fued with Google over turn by turn directions bullshit. Especially when we can see how blatantly hostile to Spotify Apple is willing to be.
It seems a lot more likely that Apple is holding that API over their heads and refusing to allow access to it, than it does that all their Apple Music competition just happens to have all conveniently forgotten to implement a pretty core feature in Apple’s ecosystem, while remembering to do it in Googles.
It’s very much not on Spotify. It supports services apple decided aren’t competing with Apple Music. Look at all the things missing, as your article points out.
It’s crazy how much bullshit Apple can pull, and even semi educated people will come to their defense blaming other people for apples failings.
Yeah, that’s really really fucking stupid.
Wait, you still can’t use HomePod/Siri to control Spotify? How the fuck does this company continue to exist? Why do people put up with their fucking garbage?
Yeah, because that’s basically irrelevant. Their problem is about where payment is made and how ridiculous it is to have users have to set up subscriptions on the web. Having them sign up there doesn’t help that problem at all. It’s just Apple fishing for more sympathy.
Nah, this problem is actually too hard to solve with LLMs. They don’t have any structure or understanding of what they’re saying so there’s no way to write better guardrails… Unless you build some other system that tries to make sense of what the LLM says, but that approaches the difficulty of just building an intelligent agent in the first place.
So no, if this law came into effect, people would just stop using AI. It’s too cavalier. And imo, they probably should stop for cases like this unless it has direct human oversight of everything coming out of it. Which also, probably just wouldn’t happen.