[HN Gopher] Microsoft quietly supported legislation to make it e...
___________________________________________________________________
Microsoft quietly supported legislation to make it easier to fix
devices
Author : toomuchtodo
Score : 506 points
Date : 2023-04-30 01:14 UTC (21 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (grist.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (grist.org)
| bandrami wrote:
| It's weird how Microsoft has aged from "evil tyrant" to "affable
| curmudgeonly uncle" in the past couple of decades
| Zetice wrote:
| On one hand, I would avoid personifying corporations, they're
| going to do what makes the most money.
|
| On the other hand, I do think the current leadership at
| Microsoft has correctly realized there are huge long term
| benefits to improving the industry you operate in for the
| consumer.
| Oddskar wrote:
| Super weird. Almost like not having ruthless a-holes as the CEO
| makes a difference.
| qwery wrote:
| It's a business strategy, not a natural (of "nature") process.
| Leadership and market changes prompted business changes.
| vrglvrglvrgl wrote:
| [dead]
| brap wrote:
| "Microsoft quietly supported legislation to make it more
| difficult for Apple and Google to do business" seems like a
| better title
| dimal wrote:
| Exactly. They're supporting their interests. But whatever, if
| that's what it takes, fine.
| lizardking wrote:
| Trolling for a good cause
| PoignardAzur wrote:
| Something something capitalists, something something selling
| the rope to hang them with.
| ergocoder wrote:
| Something something. If it is a win win, it is bad.
| radhad wrote:
| [dead]
| BirAdam wrote:
| This does some good, but Microsoft's ever-increasing Windows
| system requirements is creating quite a bit of eWaste anyway. If
| Microsoft really gives a shit, they should slim down and optimize
| Windows rather than adding more telemetry, more ads, and random
| features no one wants or asked for.
|
| Unrelated: They should also rejuvenate offline Office and bring
| back Works.
|
| Unrelated, one other area where MS could make a big splash is
| hobbyist boards. An x86 SoC with BASIC would probably sell like
| crazy right about now with nostalgia cycle being where it is.
| hermannj314 wrote:
| I tried to create a local user account the other day and it was
| so unnecessarily obfuscated to me.
|
| I had to say I was creating a guest account and I didn't know
| their email - that is apparently what a "local" account is now
| in Windows, if either of those things aren't true you need to
| use Authenticator or Live or Passport or whatever it is called.
|
| And if my internet is spotty, I get a 10 second delay logging
| into my computer because my login screen needs to show me a
| picture/ad. I finally cancelled my annual 365 membership
| because the invasiveness had gotten to be too much and they
| don't deserve my money.
|
| I am sure if I upgraded to Windows Business Professional Home
| edition, I could pay for a Microsoft certification course to
| learn how to disable all these features, but I'd rather just
| switch to Linux.
| qwery wrote:
| I find the shock / surprise / "but isn't this the same Microsoft
| that ..." reactions quite interesting. It happens with lots of
| topics, but Microsoft doing ~anything is a very reliable trigger.
|
| Yes, it's the same company. No, this isn't obviously part of
| their <insert classic Microsoft internal email subject> strategy.
| Yes, they can take actions that align with your interests. No,
| they're not "good now".
|
| I guess I read the headline as "Business did business activity to
| further goal of doing business".
| ismokedoinks wrote:
| I mean clearly they failed to beat Apple in mobile markets for
| decades and could also do to have less new Macs purchased while
| not having much skin in the game with computer hardware. I'm
| not sure right to repair would be more challenging to any tech
| company's business model than Apple--seems like a
| straightforward strategy for Microsoft?
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| It's contrary to their 'recent' actions though -- Win 10
| obsoleted millions of computers. Win 11 looks to be doing the
| same. That looks strange if the same company then says "hey
| we're against unnecessarily making e-waste". You've got to
| admit that lack of consistency suggests a subtext?
| smoldesu wrote:
| Windows 10 is still officially supported by Microsoft for
| another year or two, it hasn't "obsoleted" anything. When
| those computers _do_ lose support, you can continue using
| Windows 10 on them or switch to Linux for modern security
| updates. These machines are fine, and if the Windows 11
| upgrade was offered for free then I struggle to see what you
| 're mad about here.
|
| Microsoft indeed sucks, but it's silly to pretend that these
| devices are instant e-waste because they aren't officially
| supported by Windows 11. The majority can run it, but aren't
| allowed to by-default because of the new security policy.
| Whether Microsoft is using security as an excuse to promote
| perverse incentives is up to you.
| dev_tty01 wrote:
| So, Microsoft should never allow their OS to evolve beyond
| existing hardware? Doesn't seem a realistic expectation. The
| hardware is still usable with an older OS or Linux/BSD. No
| one is being forced to throw out old computers.
| circuit10 wrote:
| The limitation does seem quite artificial (at least
| currently while they're not making use of the features),
| and the cutoff is a bit too recent as well (I'd understand
| if it was 10 or 20 year old hardware but it wasn't)
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Pre-win 10, windows said my dad's computer couldn't
| upgrade. That it needed replacing. This was relatively
| common IME. As it happened, I managed to install it anyway
| and it ran at least as well as the previous Win 7 did. (Two
| other family computers were the same; a couple of computers
| at my dad's work I saved from the dump too [just by
| upgrading them, they continued to use them]).
|
| Now they say he can't upgrade [that 'last ever version'
| thing didn't last, huh] ... I've not found a way around the
| current restrictions yet?
|
| It's quite good at the moment, there are a flood of good
| second hand systems from businesses who are upgrading.
|
| There's no problem with MS developing beyond their current
| systems. Indeed it feels like they go too far with backward
| compatibility. But lying (or putting in false requirements)
| in order to get hardware scrapped is just wrong -- do home
| users really need TPM2, seems more like a nice to have to
| me.
|
| The reality is that most people will not repurpose a
| computer, they throw them out. Rarely (in UK) the device
| might make it to a computer recycling place. Heck, I've
| seen people throw out computers because the "you're low on
| disk space" warning came up.
| blobbers wrote:
| ... because they're trying to stick it to Apple.
|
| Right to repair is getting silly. Do you have the right to repair
| a CPU? The manufacturing on the flex connectors inside most
| iPhones today are incredibly delicate!
| DoctorOW wrote:
| > Do you have the right to repair a CPU?
|
| Of course I do. I'll probably fuck it up, but I still have the
| right to try.
|
| Good idea for all != Right for all
| sofixa wrote:
| > because they're trying to stick it to Apple
|
| Apple need sticking to. Their monopolistic (yes, they don't
| have a monopoly, only a near one) practices are abhorrent on
| many levels and seeing that they're incapable of regulating
| themselves, they need a slap down. They are getting more and
| more egregious for even very basic stuff - do you know that you
| can't even upgrade the few remaining non-glued parts on Mac
| Studios and Minis like SSDs? That replacing stuff like the
| screen of the iPhone doesn't work without them blessing it?
| Outside of the meticulous efforts put into making even the
| opening of Apple hardware harder than it needs to be.
|
| And Apple need even sticking to if they use ex-execs of theirs
| in blatant conflict of interest to sabotage laws that impact
| Apple.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| So they should make connectors that don't suck.
| solarkraft wrote:
| > The manufacturing on the flex connectors inside most iPhones
| today are incredibly delicate!
|
| ... so?
| walrus01 wrote:
| > Microsoft supported legislation to make it easier to fix
| devices
|
| Is this the same company that manufactures permanently glued shut
| Surface tablets and "surface books"? One end of the company is
| clearly not talking to the other.
|
| Go look at ifixit teardowns for any Microsoft surface product.
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| It's nice to rail against them in theory. But i use a surface
| book and i think it's brilliant as a casual user.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| Being a nice machine is largely separate from whether it's
| repairable (until one day it suddenly _really isn 't_);
| what's your point?
| RajT88 wrote:
| > One end of the company is clearly not talking to the other.
|
| They've been like that for a long time. To be honest, most big
| companies I've worked at/work/for have had that going on to
| some extent or another.
|
| I'm just happy _someone_ at Microsoft is at least advocating
| for Right to Repair.
|
| > Go look at ifixit teardowns for any Microsoft surface
| product.
|
| Newer ones are better. And even old surface machines were
| mostly awesome, premium devices. (My main gripe was an
| unacknowledged design flaw, which was well known among users,
| but not the designers - I hope I complained enough that it
| finally found its way on someone's radar. Haven't heard the
| same issue in newer surfaces - but I had the issue across 3
| different Surface Book 2's)
| mock-possum wrote:
| No, this is a shot at apple.
| qwery wrote:
| Yep, that's the same company. The same Microsoft is partnering
| with ifixit to sell (and control the sale of) parts and tools.
| solarkraft wrote:
| > Go look at ifixit teardowns for any Microsoft surface
| product.
|
| They've become pretty okay, actually!
| psychopomp wrote:
| The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
| justinclift wrote:
| Alternatively (perhaps additionally), if you want to pin a
| false flag operation on someone they're probably your top
| choice.
| majestic5762 wrote:
| Exactly
| skipkey wrote:
| The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. Nothing more,
| nothing less.
|
| - Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary
| [deleted]
| teddyh wrote:
| Maxim 29: https://www.ovalkwiki.com/index.php?title=The_Seven
| ty_Maxims...
| [deleted]
| RadixDLT wrote:
| why quietly? were they hoping apple is not going to find out?
| 1letterunixname wrote:
| It's not their competitors, it would be the anger of their
| partners.
|
| ODMs and OEMs may not like Microsoft "trespassing" on their
| property.
| 666satanhimself wrote:
| [dead]
| pabs3 wrote:
| Wonder if they would support a right to repair for software too.
| isodev wrote:
| Only if you sing in with your Microsoft account and enable Bing
| rewards, and share every page you visit with Bing. /s
| cylemons wrote:
| Isn't repairing software free? One doesn't really need 'spare
| parts' for software.
| eastbound wrote:
| We just need the software to be open-source.
|
| Honestly, given the necessity to get security upgrades, I
| think companies would still buy an OSS windows with
| connections to repositories.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Title exceeded HN limit. Original title "Microsoft quietly
| supported legislation to make it easier to fix devices. Here's
| why that's a big deal."
| Dalewyn wrote:
| Shorter title here is better because less clickbaity.
| 1MachineElf wrote:
| While also funding CompTIA, who had lobbyists doing everything
| they could to stop right to repair.
|
| Any fortune 100 company can be expected to hedge their bets and
| secure plausible deniability.
| kneebonian wrote:
| This seems like poor reasoning. "They gave money to and worked
| with a different organization that happens to oppose right to
| repair therefore they are against right to repair." CompTIA
| does lots of things that aren't lobbying.
| tourmalinetaco wrote:
| I really don't see how its difficult to believe a multi-
| billion dollar company wouldn't support both sides of an
| issue, then claim they were on the "right side" when the
| smoke clears. In fact that's a standard strategy amongst
| political paypigs. Openly support one set of candidates then
| sneak equal funds to the other side, so regardless of what
| happens your interests are secured.
| vvpan wrote:
| Content marketing?
| ametrau wrote:
| Exactly. They're primarily content not hardware focused. It
| makes sense for them to support this.
| MBCook wrote:
| Plus who would this affect most in the computer space?
| Probably Apple. Maybe a few high end laptop OEMs, which is
| the space the Surface competes in.
|
| Bog standard cheap or business desktops and high-end gamer
| boxes are already very reparable.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > Like other consumer tech giants, Microsoft has historically
| fought right-to-repair bills while restricting access to spare
| parts, tools, and repair documentation to its network of
| "authorized" repair partners. In 2019, the company even helped
| kill a repair bill in Washington state. But in recent years the
| company has started changing its tune on the issue.
|
| This surprises me. Microsoft legendarily succeeded on the back of
| "IBM PC compatible" copycat hardware. Their whole concept is that
| you run their software on whatever machine you have. What were
| they trying to protect?
| AraceliHarker wrote:
| It is truly an "embrace, extend, and extinguish" strategy.
| dataflow wrote:
| Hard to believe they really care about right to repair when they
| added random CPU requirements to Windows 11 just to make existing
| CPUs obsolete and keep Intel in business.
| throwaway70701 wrote:
| Yeah well I was like "if I have to buy a computer anyways it's
| going to be a Mac". Thanks Windows 11 for finally pushing me!
| nirvdrum wrote:
| If you want a Mac, go for it. But if your opposition is to
| Microsoft requiring newer model CPUs, that seems like a weird
| turn to take. You can't even upgrade RAM or storage on any of
| the Mac laptops; you're supposed to just go buy a new
| machine.
| katbyte wrote:
| For most users getting 24/32gb is all they will ever need.
| nirvdrum wrote:
| Neither 24 GB nor 32 GB are base model specs; they're
| fairly expensive upgrades that you have to decide in
| advance because you can't modify the machine afterwards.
| You really need to know what your usage is going to be,
| otherwise you overpay for hardware you don't need or have
| to replace a machine because it's insufficient. If you
| have the money and inclination, max out the specs and be
| done with it. But, doing that because you're upset you're
| going to have to buy a new CPU doesn't make sense to me.
| rwalle wrote:
| No point with arguing with these people.
|
| I have noticed that people _love_ their operating systems,
| especially in the Mac camp, even if switching to a
| different operating system would make almost no actual day-
| to-day difference in experience to them because they would
| be using the same applications /visiting the same websites
| anyway. And they like to make false claims about the other
| operating systems that they don't use.
| crossroadsguy wrote:
| There is a section of Apple users/fanbase that, if one
| day Cook instructs someone at Apple to run a remote
| command and wipe every single piece of data on their
| devices and nuke backups in iCloud as well, they will
| find a way to feel grateful about that and advocate and
| defend Apple in hordes even before Apple had the time to
| speak about it.
|
| From the top of my mind it seems they would start with "I
| was struggling to get into the zen mode, disconnect, and
| seeing Apple failed to do with with ScreenTime their
| latest effort helped me perfectly. It just works!".
| mickelsen wrote:
| You can still find those people right in the Apple
| community forums. When I switched to Mac many years ago I
| was so surprised at the attitude longtime users there had
| with technical questions, just turning them over to the
| user asking why would they even need that change.
| Anything that deviated from the standard "expected"
| experience, even if it was an evident bug, was just
| treated with hubris by them. Many of those answers are
| still voted as best answer.
| crossroadsguy wrote:
| Yes. Whenever someone says 4chan is a bad forum etc, and
| 4chan is bad in many ways imho, then I remember
| https://discussions.apple.com - the Mariana Trench of
| intellectual decadence. So much that it seems a necessary
| requirement to be a member and user there is to dislodge
| your brain and store safely in the fridge before going
| there.
|
| I mean that forum is hard to believe to be real - in
| short and politer terms.
| oblio wrote:
| Don't try to reason with people in these circumstances.
|
| "I hate big cars and they increased the size of my favorite
| midrange SUV. I wanted to buy the latest generation but
| because it's too big I instead bought a Ford F150".
|
| You wouldn't believe how often an equivalent scenario
| happens with laptops, phones, Linux distributions.
|
| It's largely emotional aka spite. Plus an excuse of sorts
| for a guilty pleasure.
| throwaway70701 wrote:
| It is spite! I hate Microsoft putting ads into the OS,
| and pushing me to throw away a perfectly fine i7/32GB RAM
| computer. So a Mac it is. My first one btw. But it's not
| really a guilty pleasure - it's the best
| money/performance you can get now, especially if you do
| ML (thanks to Unified RAM).
| oblio wrote:
| While I think the Apple performance part is probably
| valid, you're still proving my point.
|
| You absolutely did not have to throw anything away now,
| you wanted a new toy.
|
| Windows 10 is still supported until November 2025, 2 and
| a half years from now.
| rvba wrote:
| Rather: I have a perfrctly gine computer but cannot
| upgrade it to Windows 11 for free, because Microsoft came
| up with random requirements. They want me to buy a new
| computer and pay for Windows again.
|
| Also "security" is not a real excuse. If someone can
| physically grab my computer they will be able to break
| into it few days after Windows 11 is life since there
| will be some exploit like there always are.
| crossroadsguy wrote:
| So I will move to a platform that's literally more
| restrictive in every other way (in)humanely possible?
| Right!
| throwaway70701 wrote:
| Is it? I haven't seen any ads or a requirement to sign in
| with Microsoft/Apple account in macOS, there's no Pre-
| installed TikTok nor Angry Birds returning on every
| update and I haven't seen Apple discontinuing support for
| 6 years old computers.
|
| It might be restrictive in all the ways I don't care
| about, but oh well.
| retrobox wrote:
| > and I haven't seen Apple discontinuing support for 6
| years old computers.
|
| You mean the way macOS Ventura is only for their hardware
| released in the last six years? [1]
|
| Apple's absolutely do discontinue support for older
| hardware all the time when they release new macOS and iOS
| versions.
|
| You can keep running the older operating system but it
| will stop receiving updates. It doesn't seem hugely
| different to having to stay on Windows 10 instead of
| Windows 11.
|
| 1. https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT213264
| 1letterunixname wrote:
| Not entirely surprising. It harms their frenemies and doesn't
| really hurt them because it's not a large fraction of their
| business (Xbox and Surface notwithstanding). If one can make
| things more expensive for other companies and win points with
| customers, it adds to brand goodwill. I don't believe it's
| entirely realpolitik and there were likely legitimately
| interested Microsoft personnel who wanted to push some sensible
| change.
| matrix_overload wrote:
| IIRC, it was due to spectre/meltdown [0], where a rather
| obscure design flaw in Intel CPUs of the time made it possible
| to slowly read the kernel memory space from an arbitrary
| process.
|
| Microsoft added software mitigations for it to Windows 10, but
| they came with a price of a ~20% slowdown.
|
| By the time of Windows 11, Intel fixed the issue in the newer
| processors, so instead of supporting both old CPUs (with
| slowdown) and new CPUs, Microsoft just scrapped the mitigations
| altogether and limited Windows 11 to new CPUs only.
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltdown_(security_vulnerabili...
| Hawxy wrote:
| It's a whole list of reasons, not just this. I was finally
| able to find the interview with David Weston that goes over
| all of the requirements:
|
| https://www.techrepublic.com/article/windows-11-understandin.
| ..
| pgeorgi wrote:
| Would have been a fun exercise to get Intel and AMD to
| replace (or properly fix) their defective product, instead of
| just shrugging their shoulders and telling people to buy new
| cruft.
|
| Especially with win11 claiming to be eco-friendly in various
| places ("reduce CO2 footprint") it's somewhat annoying to
| force a hardware refresh cycle like that.
| tinus_hn wrote:
| Specter and meltdown are part of a class of problems that
| exists in all processors Intel and AMD have in their lineup
| and the fixes are just papering over the published
| exploits.
|
| These problems can't be fixed without large sacrifices in
| performance, perhaps it'll happen in specialized products
| but it hasn't happened yet.
| nearbuy wrote:
| "Defective" seems harsh here in that every product will
| always have issues of this degree no matter how hard one
| tries to make a perfect product. We're talking about a very
| subtle side channel attack. I promise you every computer
| system today still has some undiscovered side channel
| vulnerabilities. Meltdown-like vulnerabilities most likely
| existed since speculative execution was invented, likely
| decades before researchers discovered it. To my knowledge,
| Meltdown has never been exploited in the wild.
|
| Lawmakers could make chip designers replace all the chips
| but,
|
| 1) that's not very environmental either
|
| 2) it would be pretty disastrous for everyone when Intel
| and AMD go under because they can't actually afford to
| replace every chip they had in existence at the time
|
| 3) assuming this was somehow done in a way they could
| afford, the costs for these replacements ultimately get
| passed on to customers. For replacements that were never
| necessary to begin with. It's just kind of wasteful.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| When the intel FDIV bug happened they were forced to
| recall the processors. I don't see why this should be any
| different.
| pgeorgi wrote:
| It seems defective and in need of replacement enough that
| Microsoft decided to not support these products in their
| operating system that would otherwise be well-enough
| supported by those chips.
|
| Right now, that argument seems to be simultaneously "It's
| critical enough for Microsoft to explicitly deny running
| Windows 11 on it" and "It's not critical enough that
| Intel and AMD should do something about it, except to
| sell more stuff."
|
| What kind of incentives does that create?
| Drakim wrote:
| It's the "too big to fail" scenario all over again.
|
| Just like with too big to fail companies and banks, only
| half of the equation is being applied:
|
| CPU industry wants to start using risky design techniques
| to get an edge on the competition? Who are we to tell
| them no? it's a free market.
|
| CPU industry can't afford to replace the defects that
| came about from their risky choices? They are too big and
| important to be held accountable.
| nearbuy wrote:
| You're going to have to go back to the 1990s if you want
| to undo the "risky design technique" of speculative
| execution.
|
| You're ignoring half the equation too here. There are
| benefits to having faster and more efficient computers
| for the past couple decades that could execute more
| instructions per clock cycle.
|
| These vulnerabilities are subtle, hard to predict, and
| can take years or decades to discover. Anything that
| makes computers faster is a risky design technique. If
| you want safe chips, you'd better say goodbye to caches,
| multithreading, and hyperthreading as well. You'll be
| left with a slow, inefficient chip. Non-American
| companies that aren't forced to take zero risks would
| take over the market and be miles ahead.
| nearbuy wrote:
| > Right now, that argument seems to be simultaneously
| "It's critical enough for Microsoft to explicitly deny
| running Windows 11 on it" and "It's not critical enough
| that Intel and AMD should do something about it, except
| to sell more stuff."
|
| The first part of that isn't right. Microsoft decided it
| wasn't worth it for them to support 6 year old chips on
| their new OS. People with older hardware can continue to
| run Windows 10. The two operating systems are almost the
| same anyway.
|
| Microsoft's decision is not an indicator that you're in
| much danger from Meltdown.
| eru wrote:
| > Would have been a fun exercise to get Intel and AMD to
| replace (or properly fix) their defective product, instead
| of just shrugging their shoulders and telling people to buy
| new cruft.
|
| If people want extensive warranties like that on their
| electronics, they can already buy extensive warranties on
| their electronics.
|
| Why force everyone to pay for these things?
| dislikedtom2 wrote:
| Because this planned obsolete stuff is slowly killing us
| and yielding would probably only make it worse?
| eru wrote:
| If you don't like it, don't buy it.
|
| Or do you just want to control what other people are
| doing?
| rablackburn wrote:
| Not put words in OPs mouth, but saying they "just want to
| control people" is perhaps not what they're going for.
|
| Since you raised the valid point of "why make everyone
| pay", it seems they (OP) are concerned that currently
| _everyone_ is paying for the externalities of shitty
| electronics and the associated ewaste.
|
| Of course these kinds of externalities are impossible (or
| just really hard?) to rectify at the individual-action
| level, its a collective action problem.
|
| So they raised the interesting point why not target the
| specific companies who manufactured this faulty product
| and require them to clean-up the problem they've created.
|
| If nothing else, it's a useful conversation to have?
| eru wrote:
| Sure, it can be a useful conversation.
|
| Assume for the sake of argument, that I agree that there
| are externalities and that we should do something about
| them.
|
| The economics textbook tells you the simple solution: tax
| the externalities. In our case, you might want to tax
| e-waste (or directly tax whatever is bad about e-waste,
| like heavy metals or so.)
|
| Then let the market figure out how to deal with it.
| Perhaps offering extended warranties is the way to go?
| Perhaps developing compostable computers is the way to
| go? Perhaps using fewer computers is the way to go?
| Perhaps just sucking it up, doing nothing and paying for
| the externalities is the way to go?
|
| It's not at all obvious to me which of these (if any) is
| the best solution. And I don't have high hopes than any
| government would figure out the best solution either.
|
| Different people might even have different answers, and
| suppliers can provide for this diversity.
|
| This simple tax avoids a lot of regulatory complexity.
| Remember, that regulatory complexity leads to loopholes
| and regulatory capture and endless lobbying.
| aziaziazi wrote:
| The tax you propose is not as simple as you suggest :
|
| Do you tax on material weight ? But bigger sized systems
| tends to be easier to repair/recycle than nano
| electronics. They also often last longer.
|
| Do you tax on raw materials ? That would exclude all the
| junk made abroad. Or on components ? That would make a
| gigantic and perpetually changing list to maintain,
| creating an incentive to always create alternatives only
| needed to game this tax.
|
| Hope does that address the externality " _not infinite
| material_ rarefaction" ? Making thinks more expensive
| just make them less affordable for a part of the
| population while the other part can not care much
| especially for cheap disposable(!) small devices.
|
| I don't have the perfect solution but IMHO we need
| regulations, not tax. Creating an obligatory (long)
| warranty would push the society in the sustainability
| direction. I don't need 2$ led lamp, an even slimmer
| keyboard or a 120hz screen, just want it to last way more
| (or being able to _make_ repair) that 2 /3 product cycle
| time frame defined by the corp business team. Who want to
| say to their children "enjoy this tech while there's
| still some rare earth left" ?
| eru wrote:
| > Do you tax on raw materials ? That would exclude all
| the junk made abroad.
|
| You can adapt the tax to fix that problem. See how VAT
| systems handle imports and exports. If your stuff needs
| eg lead, you either prove that you dispose of it
| properly, or you pay the tax.
|
| > I don't have the perfect solution but IMHO we need
| regulations, not tax.
|
| Why? Wouldn't your argument also work for a 'good enough'
| tax?
|
| I agree that a tax also needs some careful thinking about
| what the exactly the externalities are that you want to
| tax. But it still leaves more flexibility to consumers
| and suppliers than a blanket regulation like 'mandatory
| long warranty, whether you want it or not'.
|
| > Making thinks more expensive just make them less
| affordable for a part of the population while the other
| part can not care much especially for cheap disposable(!)
| small devices.
|
| I don't understand this objection. Could you please
| explain?
|
| Obligatory long warranties also raise the price of goods.
|
| > Who want to say to their children "enjoy this tech
| while there's still some rare earth left" ?
|
| Are you suggesting we are going to run out of rare earth
| elements? Fat chance. We are sitting on a giant ball of
| matter, we are not going to run out of any elements. We
| might be running out of easily mine-able deposits of
| something, but either the price will go up a bit or
| someone will invent a new technique. (The former often
| leads to the latter.)
|
| > I don't need 2$ led lamp, an even slimmer keyboard or a
| 120hz screen, just want it to last way more (or being
| able to make repair) that 2/3 product cycle time frame
| defined by the corp business team.
|
| That's a valid preference, and I suggest you put your
| money where your mouth is.
| aziaziazi wrote:
| > See how VAT systems handle imports and exports. If your
| stuff needs eg lead, [...]
|
| It is way harder for a customs officier to distinguish if
| a package contains some trace of lead, gold, bore,
| cobalt, disprosium, neodyme... in some micro chip than
| classifying in "raw material, "alcool", "processed food",
| "weapon" etc.
|
| Making thinks more expensive to prevent usage is
| pointless and that's why countries put speed _limits_ in
| place. Speed is dangerous (see ek=1 /2mv2) and a "speed
| tax" would only reduce a road accidents to the
| proportional inverse of its users wallets. As the e-waste
| and elements rarefaction have impacts that last way
| longer than a road accidents, we need to absolute
| regulations to avoid those externalities. Relatives
| regulations (taxes) are good to balance some parts of the
| economy, not to prevent problems.
|
| Of course I would stand for tax it can do a "good enough"
| job.
|
| > We might be running out of easily mine-able deposits of
| something, but either the price will go up a bit or
| someone will invent a new technique.
|
| What makes you suppose the price will go up only _a bit_
| ? What makes you expect a material price will stay bellow
| the economical threshold of its extraction ? I dream too
| of new clean techniques but the history showed us those
| inventions relies on way more energy and /or also have
| externalities on resources and environnement. I'm sure
| you'll find plenty in battery material alternatives and
| oil replacement/new extraction techniques. Fracking [0]
| is my Favorite one.
|
| 0 https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive
| /us/D...
| eru wrote:
| Many countries effectively have a speed tax at least for
| small amounts of going over the speed limit.
|
| I'm not sure why you keep harping on about people's
| wallets? Yes, rich people can afford more stuff. What
| else is new?
|
| The economic theory of taxing externalities does not rely
| on all people having the same size wallet.
|
| Have a look at eg London's congestion charge: it's not a
| problem for that system, that some people are richer than
| others.
|
| You can also look at Singapore's congestion charge or
| Singapore's Certificate of Entitlement system. Or look at
| the very successful US sulphur dioxide cap and trade
| programme: it's not a problem that rich people can in
| theory just pay to emit more sulphur dioxide, the system
| still works.
|
| > What makes you suppose the price will go up only a bit?
|
| In the long run, the same reasoning that made Simon win
| his wager:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager
|
| > What makes you expect a material price will stay bellow
| the economical threshold of its extraction ?
|
| Sorry, I don't understand. The price will generally be
| above that threshold, otherwise why would anyone bother
| extracting the stuff?
|
| > Fracking [0] is my Favorite one.
|
| Fracking is great, yes, I agree. One my favourites as
| well:
|
| The extra natural gas that the US got from fracking
| allowed them to reduce their carbon emissions in the
| 2010s, despite lack of political support for such a goal!
| Holier than thou Europe meanwhile increased their carbon
| emissions, because fracking is verboten over there, so
| they burned more coal and oil instead.
| atoav wrote:
| Gotcha, so you are also against electrical regulations
| like requirements to use tested insulators etc?
|
| Because _some_ regulation is actually useful in a world
| where consumers cannot be expected to know everything and
| be able to test everything.
|
| And some _assumptions_ about a product should hold true
| as well. E.g. the assumption should be that if I buy a
| desktop CPU today I should be able to use it for at least
| n years. Because how would you know this beforehand?
|
| If Intel made an optimization that turns out to be a
| security flaw, that is totally their fault and they
| should cover it. This is nothing any consumer could have
| known (and rherefore avoided buying) beforehand. This is
| the cost of taking risks in business.
|
| It seems to be a popular stance these days to shill for
| corporations and protect them from ever having their
| risks realized. But that makes the products and the world
| we live in worse for everybody and gives you nothing at
| all.
| eru wrote:
| > And some assumptions about a product should hold true
| as well. E.g. the assumption should be that if I buy a
| desktop CPU today I should be able to use it for at least
| n years. Because how would you know this beforehand?
|
| You ask the manufacturer, duh? If they lie, that's fraud.
| If you don't like the answer, you don't buy.
|
| > If Intel made an optimization that turns out to be a
| security flaw, that is totally their fault and they
| should cover it. This is nothing any consumer could have
| known (and therefore avoided buying) beforehand. This is
| the cost of taking risks in business.
|
| Customers and suppliers should be able to allocate such
| risks between themselves however they like.
|
| You can fiddle with what the default should be, in case
| they haven't negotiated anything.
|
| But if both customer and supplier agree, the customer
| should be allowed to bear such a risk.
|
| > It seems to be a popular stance these days to shill for
| corporations and protect them from ever having their
| risks realized.
|
| Why? I have nothing against any particular allocation of
| the risks, as long as all involved parties agree.
| (Otherwise, they just don't make a deal.)
|
| > Gotcha, so you are also against electrical regulations
| like requirements to use tested insulators etc?
|
| If you claim they are tested, you better not lie.
| Otherwise it's fraud and you should be held liable.
|
| If a customer wants to buy untested insulators, who am I
| to keep them?
|
| I mean, in the most extreme case, a customer can buy
| bread and try to use it as an insulator, if they really
| want to. There's nothing the supplier can do about that.
| dannyw wrote:
| There is a huge difference between electrical safety
| regulations, and a side channel attack that has never
| been seen to be exploited in the wild.
| atoav wrote:
| If that sidechannel attack that has not been seen in the
| wild leads to me having to throw my CPU/computer into the
| bin because it is unsopported on a up to date OS for
| _that_ reason, there isn 't.
|
| How should I, as a consumer, have voted against this with
| my wallet, before it happened?
|
| We can argue whether this is the fault of the hardware
| manufacturer or the software company that sells the OS,
| but I am 100% sure that no consumer should take the blame
| for "not doing their research".
| eru wrote:
| > How should I, as a consumer, have voted against this
| with my wallet, before it happened?
|
| That's what long term reputation is for.
| atoav wrote:
| So which desktop processor manufacturer other than the
| mentioned two do you recommend? ARM?
| [deleted]
| Gigachad wrote:
| Having a warranty on CPUs wouldn't have saved the
| environment. It probably would have made things worse as
| every user returned their computers for a new one.
| contravariant wrote:
| Protection against being sold a defective product is
| considered ' _extensive_ warranty ' now? You're free to
| argue that this isn't a big enough defect to make the
| transaction fraudulent, but don't try to argue you need
| to pay more money to get the most basic protection. I
| mean, if you're not even getting the most basic
| protection than what on earth are you paying taxes for?
| eru wrote:
| What do taxes have to do with anything here?
|
| If someone promises you that the product will do
| something or eg 'not be defective', they should stick to
| that promise or face prosecution for fraud or false
| advertising or similar.
|
| I pay my taxes to eg fund national defense or make sure
| that poor people get some welfare. I don't pay my taxes
| so that the government can decide how much warranty I
| need. (They do some of that anyway. But I'd rather they
| don't.)
| nstart wrote:
| Speculation: Windows 10 end of life's in 2025. It's entirely
| possible that by the time that year rolls around, they throw
| in some backwards compatibility with some asterisks around
| performance.
|
| Right now, Microsoft is not officially supporting the older
| processors but Windows 11 runs on 7th gen intel processors
| without any real issues except that it's a little slower than
| how it would run with Windows 10. But no work stopping issues
| at all if you were to run it yourself. I believe Microsoft
| even has a published way to do it if I'm not mistaken. It's
| manual and a little messy for now, with some asterisks around
| risks for automated updates, but it works.
|
| Given all of this and MS's outlook towards backward
| compatibility I can see them eventually allowing older
| generations to upgrade after agreeing to some
| risks/performance degradation.
| alerighi wrote:
| Spectre and Meltdown are two vulnerabilities unlikely to
| affect the normal home usage of a computer. Are surely a
| concern for computers that are employed in companies or where
| you have to manage sensitive data, but surely for the desktop
| user is not a concern. We are talking of very elaborate
| attacks that are not something you find everyday. It's
| something to the level that a government agency could do, not
| the random attaccker that only wants to encrypt your data and
| ask you for a payment.
|
| Beside that in most desktop settings is even useless, you
| don't even care about elevating privileges with a
| vulnerability, since most users work with the administrator
| account anyway (yes there is UAC to ask for privileges but
| let's face it, 99% of users always click yes because they are
| used like this).
|
| I usually disable mitigations on my personal computers and
| I'm not concerned about it.
| andylynch wrote:
| I saw some big fights about Infra guys insisting on
| enabling their mitigations for every device, including the
| most latency sensitive ones running only in-house software.
| Gigachad wrote:
| >Spectre and Meltdown are two vulnerabilities unlikely to
| affect the normal home usage of a computer.
|
| It was found to be exploitable via a website in your
| browser. This would have been dire for any kind of user
| unless they literally only used the computer for gaming and
| did no web browsing.
| temac wrote:
| That was absolutely not the rational they provided. Which was
| more a meaningless thing like: we got telemetry measures that
| show that modern computers are faster and crash less, so we
| are randomly requiring them.
| MikusR wrote:
| Whiskey lake (8th gen) is affected by spectre/meltdown, but
| is is fully supported by Windows 11. There are also a couple
| 7th gen cpus supported, that by pure coincidence are the ones
| used, in at that time latest, surface studio. There are also
| many unsupported cpus that even with ~20% slowdown are twice
| as fast as the supported ones.
| andai wrote:
| >they came with a price of a ~20% slowdown.
|
| Would be nice if upgrading to a new version of Windows came
| with such a mild penalty!
| BirAdam wrote:
| Thank you for this info. I had no idea. Makes sense.
| Hawxy wrote:
| > just to make existing CPUs obsolete and keep Intel in
| business.
|
| Bizarre take. It's not random, it's specifically CPUs that
| support modern hardware security mitigations + features.
|
| There's a pretty great talk from Bluehat a few days ago that
| goes into why Microsoft is doing this:
|
| https://youtu.be/8T6ClX-y2AE
| dataflow wrote:
| See the last paragraph. At _best_ it 's half-plausible
| deniability. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/08/why-
| windows-11-has-s...
| Hawxy wrote:
| The last paragraph is a little strange as Microsoft
| explained its reasoning the day before:
|
| https://blogs.windows.com/windows-
| insider/2021/08/27/update-...
|
| It only added 7th gen processors that have DCH driver
| support, which is the absolute minimum baseline for W11
| support.
| dataflow wrote:
| I find it quite interesting how they whitelisted their
| own Surface devices but not, say, Thinkpads, despite them
| having the same CPUs. [1] Surely there's no conflict of
| interest here.
|
| Could you explain in what way "DCH driver support" is a
| "hardware security mitigation" as you wrote?
|
| Moreover, doesn't basing this on "DCH driver support"
| basically let the hardware vendors decide which
| otherwise-capable CPUs they'd like to make obsolete
| through software updates?
|
| And furthermore, note that the OS isn't even turning on
| the CPU features they require by default, as the article
| also mentions.
|
| (I'm probably going to just leave it at this, but suffice
| it to say the evidence doesn't seem in their favor.)
|
| [1] https://forums.lenovo.com/t5/ThinkPad-T400-T500-and-
| newer-T-...
| coder543 wrote:
| > I find it quite interesting how they whitelisted their
| own Surface devices but not, say, Thinkpads, despite them
| having the same CPUs. [1] Surely there's no conflict of
| interest here.
|
| That statement seems misleading at best. According to
| Microsoft's page[0] on that processor, the Dell Precision
| 5520 is supported as well, which means this support is
| _clearly not_ limited to Microsoft 's own hardware.
|
| Depending on how Lenovo configured the BIOS, it is
| entirely possible that they disabled certain features
| that Microsoft deemed critical later on with Windows 11.
| Vendors do plenty of weird things with BIOSes, which can
| have far reaching impacts on what an operating system is
| able to do with the hardware. Or Lenovo didn't provide a
| necessary driver, or whatever the actual problem was
| here. Dell managed to meet the requirements just fine,
| apparently.
|
| Yes, obsoleting a bunch of hardware sucks, but your claim
| that this was to help Intel sell more chips is
| _extremely_ dubious. Your claim that Microsoft isn 't
| doing this for security reasons because they're exempting
| only their own hardware doesn't mesh with the reality of
| that Dell laptop. None of the evidence here supports some
| grand conspiracy here, as far as I can tell.
|
| I also found a forum thread[1] where at least one person
| was struggling to update their Surface Studio 2 to
| Windows 11, so even that hardly seems cut and dry.
|
| [0]: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-
| hardware/design/mi...
|
| [1]: https://answers.microsoft.com/en-
| us/surface/forum/all/window...
| dataflow wrote:
| Any responses to the other things I listed? Like how DCH
| driver packaging is a hardware security mitigation?
|
| > Depending on BIOS settings, it is entirely possible
|
| "Entirely possible" is quite a big umbrella that covers
| planned obsolescence quite well, too. It's not like using
| software to make hardware obsolete is lacking in
| historical precedent.
|
| > There isn't some grand conspiracy here, as far as I can
| tell.
|
| Well, it's "entirely possible", as far as I can tell.
| Though I'm not even claiming there is one - there isn't a
| particular need for a conspiracy here.
|
| > I also found an entire forum thread[1] of people
| struggling to update a Surface Studio 2 to Windows 11, so
| even that hardly seems cut and dry.
|
| All of those comments were posted in the span of the
| first 4 days Windows 11 was officially released. If you
| dig a bit more you see people have succeeded afterward.
| [1] So that was most likely just a bug on their side,
| which isn't surprising given their own device was an edge
| case they were trying to make an exception for.
|
| [1] https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/windows-11/win
| dows-11...
| coder543 wrote:
| > Any responses to the other things I listed? Like how
| DCH driver packaging is a hardware security mitigation?
|
| No, someone else responded to that. I was just here to
| look at a specific claim and see what your evidence
| showed. If that claim had been supported by the evidence,
| it would have been scandalous, but it wasn't. I'm not an
| expert in the Windows security model, so I don't claim to
| know anything about DCH drivers.
|
| If you're going to complain about people not responding
| to every single thing in your comments, then why didn't
| you respond to the main point I was making? The Dell
| laptop was supported as well. Clearly Dell put in the
| effort, where Lenovo did not.
|
| > Though I'm not even claiming there is one - there isn't
| a particular need for a conspiracy here.
|
| Your previous comments absolutely are making claims that
| there were large conspiracies at play. You claimed that
| Microsoft did this to help Intel sell more chips, which
| would be a huge conspiracy between Microsoft and Intel.
| Claiming that Microsoft lied about their reasons for
| obsoleting old processors by trying to present evidence
| that Microsoft wasn't following their own stated reasons
| naturally also requires the existence of a significant
| conspiracy within Microsoft. Perhaps you didn't mean to
| claim those things?
| Hawxy wrote:
| > I find it quite interesting how they whitelisted their
| own Surface devices but not, say, Thinkpads, despite them
| having the same CPUs
|
| Because Lenovo did not bother writing DCH drivers, given
| DCH drivers are the baseline requirement.
|
| > Could you explain in what way "DCH driver support" is a
| "hardware security mitigation" as you wrote?
|
| I was recalling a 2 year old blog post in my head, but
| the point is still that much of the requirement is around
| baseline security. If you watch the video I linked, the
| speaker does go over all of this.
|
| > basically let hardware vendors decide which otherwise-
| capable CPUs they'd like to make obsolete through
| software updates?
|
| I'm not sure what you're getting at. DCH drivers were
| already the default for current-gen hardware _before_ W11
| even came out, W11 just made it a requirement. Vendors
| clearly aren't going to go write some greenfield drivers
| for a years-old 6th gen intel product just to support
| W11, as those devices will be 10 years old by the time
| W10 support ends.
|
| > note that the OS isn't even turning on the CPU features
| they require by default
|
| Note that you're still referencing a blog post from 2021.
| W11 22H2 enables core isolation by default for new
| installations, and HVCI is enabled by default when using
| the Windows Enterprise security baseline.
|
| https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/microsoft-
| security-ba...
| dataflow wrote:
| > If you watch the video I linked
|
| I have in fact. It's a nice talk about security in
| Windows 11, but I haven't seen anything in it answering
| _these_ issues. He says absolutely nothing about DCH and
| doesn 't give any explanation for the minimum hardware
| requirements. The closest I recall was he was mentioned
| of integrating Pluton on chip and making its firmware
| directly updatable, but I don't believe for example that
| the 7820HQ and the 7700HQ are any different with regards
| to Pluton.
|
| > I'm not sure what you're getting at. DCH drivers were
| already the default for current-gen hardware _before_ W11
| even came out, W11 just made it a requirement.
|
| No, they didn't even make DCH a requirement; Windows 11
| runs with standard drivers too. [1] And, again, DCH
| doesn't imply anything about hardware security
| mitigations, which was purportedly their reason for this.
|
| > Note that you're still referencing a blog post from
| 2021. W11 22H2 enables core isolation by default for new
| installations, and HVCI is enabled by default when using
| the Windows Enterprise security baseline.
|
| Because the situation is fundamentally the same since
| 2021. Core isolation support is not a distinguishing
| feature between (say) the 7700HQ and 7820HQ, as far as I
| know. And the Windows Enterprise security baseline seems
| kind of irrelevant for the millions of average consumer
| devices out there. A company that cares about consumers
| or the environment is telling consumers across the planet
| to turn perfectly good devices into electronic trash
| _now_ because they _might_ add something that helps
| security _years later_?
|
| I'm going to let my comments rest here; people draw their
| own conclusions.
|
| [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Windows11/comments/pr4kmr/wh
| y_is_wi...
| Hawxy wrote:
| Just to follow up if anyone reads this far down, an
| interview with David Weston from Windows 11s release also
| validates what I've said in this comment chain:
|
| https://www.techrepublic.com/article/windows-11-understan
| din...
| Hawxy wrote:
| > He says absolutely nothing about DCH and doesn't give
| any explanation for the minimum hardware requirements
|
| The hardware security baseline is one of the first topics
| he covers as part of Windows 11 security strategy, with
| mention given to features that require hardware support
| and how they intend to enable these by default going
| forward as not doing so was a failure of the Windows 10
| strategy. He even mentions "virtualization extensions"
| aka HVCI-related features which would be non-performant
| to enable by default in older hardware.
|
| How exactly would a strategy of enabled-by-default work
| if the hardware wasn't there to support it? You seem to
| be looking for some hard "gotcha" statement to refute
| your argument instead of considering all of the
| information available in front of you.
|
| > No, they didn't even make DCH a requirement;
|
| By setting the minimium CPU requirement to systems that
| use DCH drivers, they effectively did.
|
| > Core isolation support is not a distinguishing feature
| between (say) the 7700HQ and 7820HQ, as far as I know.
|
| That's not the issue here. The 7700HQ lacks Trusted
| Execution support (aka TPM), whilst it's included in the
| 7820HQ, thus it does not meet the minimum requirements.
|
| > electronic trash now because they might add something
| that helps security years later?
|
| No, it's giving people the heads up that Windows 11
| security strategy requires these features and gives
| people & companies time to adapt. For example,
| motherboards now ship with TPM 2.0 enabled by default, so
| as Windows 11 rolls out more features that require it
| (some aspects of Windows Hello already do), users aren't
| stuck with a system that needs a BIOS update or are
| unable to use the new features. Windows 12 will very
| likely make these requirements hard-enforced rather than
| soft-enforced and thus it'll make the 11-to-12 upgrade a
| smoother experience.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Is it time to bring up the old "TPM is a good thing for
| you only if you're holding the keys - which almost nobody
| on the non-enterprise level is, so it's actually bad for
| you" discussion?
|
| > _How exactly would a strategy of enabled-by-default
| work if the hardware wasn 't there to support it? You
| seem to be looking for some hard "gotcha" statement to
| refute your argument instead of considering all of the
| information available in front of you._
|
| I'd say the core issue here is of priorities. Microsoft
| may be treating aggressive enabled-by-default approach to
| security as a good thing. A lot of other people don't. If
| you don't, then the high-level summary of the issue is,
| essentially, "By making some relatively recent hardware
| features a requirement for Win11 in the name of
| _sekhurity_ , while also aggressively pushing users to
| upgrade and actively preventing them from continuing to
| use Win10, they're forcing people to destroy perfectly
| good machines for bullshit reasons".
|
| I'm having hard time seeing fault in this view.
| ablob wrote:
| DCH Drivers apparently consist of the following things
| [https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-
| hardware/drivers/d...]: Declarative:
| Install the driver by using only declarative INF
| directives. Don't include co-installers or
| RegisterDll functions. Componentized:
| Edition-specific, OEM-specific, and optional
| customizations to the driver are separate from the base
| driver package. As a result, the base
| driver, which provides only core device functionality,
| can be targeted, flighted, and serviced independently
| from the customizations. Hardware-support-app:
| Any user interface (UI) component associated with a
| Windows Driver must be packaged as a Hardware Support App
| (HSA) or preinstalled on the OEM device.
|
| The D and C parts of the description appear to be what
| you're looking for here. No special hooks or
| modifications of the system paired with independent
| modules.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > It only added 7th gen processors that have DCH driver
| support, which is the absolute minimum baseline for W11
| support.
|
| I'm typing this on a T430 with an i7-3632QM running Win
| 11. The stupid thing is I never wanted Win 11 on it. MS
| suckered me into installing Windows 10 update ver 22000
| (just after ver 19043) which didn't mention anything
| about Win 11.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| >Windows 10 update ver 22000 (just after ver 19043) which
| didn't mention anything about Win 11.
|
| That's because those are NT kernel version numbers, not
| Windows marketing version numbers.
|
| Windows 10 and 11 both identify internally as NT10.0.X.Y
| where the X and Y are the specific build numbers.
| Kwpolska wrote:
| Windows updates aren't advertised by the build number, at
| least if you're using release versions (no idea about the
| insider program).
| NayamAmarshe wrote:
| No amount of reasoning is enough to justify that on
| consumer PCs, where the users don't know any better, TPM
| and other software side requirements were this necessary
| and not optional.
|
| So suddenly, all the Windows 10 computers are insecure or
| what?
|
| A normal person looking at "Windows 11 is not supported
| on your device" WILL think that their hardware is not
| good enough to run the authoritative OS.
|
| This is less about security and more about planning a
| strategy to sell more devices. Anybody denying this
| possibility is just ignoring on purpose.
|
| Here, I am not actually arguing against the addition of
| TPM or anything. I am arguing against them being a fixed
| requirement to run the OS that would otherwise run
| without any issues because it quite literally is a
| Windows 10 reskin, nothing more.
|
| This is proven by the fact that they broke their own
| requirements on their own surface devices. Which tells me
| that this is less about them being serious about security
| and more about declaring most fairly recent hardware
| obsolete.
|
| It's anti-consumer at best and deceitful attempt to sell
| more computers to non-tech folks at worst.
| MikusR wrote:
| https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/
| 000...
|
| "Intel(r) 6th Generation Core Processors or Newer
| Processors are supported by Windows DCH Drivers."
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| It's a neat little mitigation but it's ridiculous to label it
| necessary for a consumer OS and obsolete hundreds of millions
| of computers.
| charcircuit wrote:
| It's pointless for a consumer OS unless most users support
| it. There will need to be a version that requires it sooner
| or later.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Having most users support it is largely just a matter of
| time. Screwing over a ton of people people because you
| want to make "most" happen a year sooner is not a good
| thing. Tens of millions of people are going to be forced
| out of perfectly good hardware years before they would
| have normally switched. Or left without necessary
| patches.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| Intel Coffee Lake and AMD Zen+ came out around 2017/2018,
| that's _5 to 6 years ago_. I 'm not even getting into
| processors that precede them.
|
| I'm well aware computing power for practical use cases
| has plateaued since around 2011, but those Coffee Lake
| and Zen+ systems (let alone older) are coming due for
| replacement/upgrade soon for anyone inside of a lifecycle
| cadence whether Windows 11 demanded it or not.
|
| For anyone who isn't who cares about hanging on to old
| hardware, it's perfectly fine to just keep running
| Windows 10. All those guys saying "yOuR sYStEM iS
| iNSeCurE!!1!1!1" are snake oil merchants wanting to sell
| you something.
| dataflow wrote:
| > Intel Coffee Lake and AMD Zen+ came out around
| 2017/2018, that's _5 to 6 years ago_.
|
| You're (probably unintentionally) exaggerating, but
| that's not how it works. When a new CPU comes out, all
| the machines on the market don't magically replace their
| CPUs with that one on day 1. The machine I'm typing this
| comment on right now was a pretty high-end one I got
| _after_ those CPUs came out, and its CPU is from an older
| generation. In fact, I don 't even recall having seen
| machines with newer CPUs on the market (at least not with
| the minimum specs I was looking at) until quite a few
| months later, though my memory might be hazy here.
| Sometimes the price points are also a factor here too.
|
| > those Coffee Lake and Zen+ systems (let alone older)
| are coming due for replacement/upgrade soon for anyone
| inside of a lifecycle cadence whether Windows 11 demanded
| it or not.
|
| That's by no means universally true; there are plenty of
| good machines out there that work just fine and that
| people want to keep using. Again, speaking from personal
| experience, I know my machine is perfectly good and I
| hope to keep using it for several more years. An older
| one I had from several years before that, which I gave
| away for unrelated reasons, was also great, and I would
| still use it if I had it and my current one somehow
| broke. There's been literally no reason for me to throw
| these away anytime soon other than Microsoft forcing me
| to. Lots of people are being forced to throw away
| perfectly good hardware because
| Microsoft/Google/Apple/etc. force them to, often via
| software.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| I have a Sandy Bridge machine still serving me dutifully
| as a sub computer to my main computer, so I know all
| about old hardware never really dying from impracticality
| especially since 2011 onwards. Hell, I still have a
| Pentium 4 machine running XP for the stuff that
| needs/wants that too.
|
| As I already said, if you want to keep running Windows 10
| (or 7, or XP) it's perfectly fine. Tell everyone who
| screams "SECURITY!" at you to screw off, they all want to
| sell you something.
|
| Even if you do upgrade to a new machine, why does someone
| have to throw away their old one? Keep it as a sub
| computer, or give it a new role in your life. Windows 11
| mandates TPM2 and SecureBoot, but it doesn't mandate
| throwing your old machine in the trash.
| dataflow wrote:
| I think we're mostly in agreement (?) but (1) XP isn't
| really practical nowadays, and (2) as to "why does
| someone have to throw away their old one" - well you
| don't _have_ to, but having your files haphazardly spread
| /duplicated across N machines is quite a pain for most
| people.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| >I think we're mostly in agreement
|
| We are indeed!
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _For anyone who isn 't who cares about hanging on to
| old hardware, it's perfectly fine to just keep running
| Windows 10._
|
| Increasingly hard to get this days, especially through
| official channels. Currently, Microsoft _actively
| prevents you_ from getting a Win10 installer /image, by
| redirecting all the relevant links to Windows 11 pages.
|
| > _All those guys saying "yOuR sYStEM iS iNSeCurE!!1!1!1"
| are snake oil merchants wanting to sell you something._
|
| You mean like Microsoft? Saying that the new system is
| more secure is equivalent to saying your old system is
| insecure, given everyone's insistence that you either are
| fully secured or not at all.
| herbstein wrote:
| > Increasingly hard to get this days, especially through
| official channels. Currently, Microsoft actively prevents
| you from getting a Win10 installer/image, by redirecting
| all the relevant links to Windows 11 pages.
|
| Really? I used this just a few weeks ago and definitely
| got a Windows 10 ISO.
|
| https://www.microsoft.com/software-download/windows10ISO
|
| For reference, I searched the following on Google
|
| > windows 10 iso
| JamisonM wrote:
| Does making all those computers still run Windows 10 make
| them obsolete?
| ryukafalz wrote:
| When Windows 10 stops getting security patches in a few
| years, yes.
| isodev wrote:
| Wouldn't it be nice if a somewhat "positive" thing "leaks" just
| to give the people something to talk about? All that chatter
| about antitrust, sucking personal data without permission etc
| doesn't give a very positive image. Right to repair on the
| other hand... oh that fixes everything.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| >just to make existing CPUs obsolete and keep Intel in
| business.
|
| AMD also "benefits" with their minimum being Zen+ (aka Ryzen
| 2000 series and certain 1000 series processors) to Intel's
| Coffee Lake (8th gen) and certain Kaby Lake (7th gen)
| processors.
| flangola7 wrote:
| >just to make existing CPUs obsolete and keep Intel in
| business.
|
| This isn't the main reason, I'm not even sure why they would do
| that, Microsoft will cheerfully build for whatever hardware is
| available. They're not indebted to Intel.
|
| The real reason is to finally close the circle of every
| mainstream OS supporting hardware-backed remote attestation.
| Once that is in place digital controls ala DRM become extremely
| reliable and virtually impossible to crack. Pirating locally-
| ran software will be as difficult as extracting the private key
| from a Trezor or YubiKey.
| rvba wrote:
| They want us to buy new computers. With a new computer you
| cannot upgrade for free - you need to pay for windows again.
| usernew wrote:
| They do not. What they do care about is making it less
| profitable for their competitors, by attacking in spaces they
| no longer compete.
|
| They lost the phone business, they've just now pulled out of
| making mice and keyboards. Their MS Surface line is not
| something people buy - it's something companies buy, with a
| support contract. Since their consumer hardware business is
| gone, they now can at least use that to hurt companies that
| still have a consumer hardware business.
|
| But for selfish reasons and anti-competitive self-interest,
| they are doing something good for us against a greater evil.
| It's pretty much the DePanties/Disney thing where we cheer for
| a large evil corporation.
| kenjackson wrote:
| This is the case for almost all companies. When something is
| in their best interest, but that interest aligned with yours
| then the company is good.
|
| See Google. Do no evil was easy for them when their business
| model made that look easy. Once privacy became a big deal
| then they became evil. But really its just interests we're no
| longer aligned.
| usernew wrote:
| Oh of course, and there's nothing wrong with that. What is
| wrong is articles spinning anti-competitive scammy
| behavior, as "Microsoft is good now."
| bwat48 wrote:
| The CPU requirements are because they wanted to enable
| virtualization based security by default and have it be
| performant.
| temac wrote:
| I doubt it was more about Intel than about themselves. Of
| course, the environment being the huge collateral damage.
|
| They also make unreparable devices, so their pretend support
| has no weight.
| the__alchemist wrote:
| You don't need this if doing a clean install; only reqs it from
| upgrade.
| dataflow wrote:
| I assume you do realize more people would be interested in
| upgrading from older CPUs than new ones?
| anaganisk wrote:
| I assume you do realize you can still do a clean install
| (on old CPUs, instead of hitting upgrade, because that's
| what OP meant.
| dataflow wrote:
| Somehow both of you are _strongly validating_ my point
| without realizing it, and it 's rather perplexing why
| you're making it sound like a rebuttal.
|
| When you deny ordinary people the easy path of an upgrade
| and force them to do a clean install (because
| "security"), you induce the vast majority of them to
| avoid the migration pain and just buy new hardware, with
| the new OS preinstalled. If this isn't a way to force
| people to buy new hardware via software, I don't know
| what is.
| nubinetwork wrote:
| Strange that you complain about that, but not the massive hell
| that is repairing the Microsoft Surface.
| dataflow wrote:
| Strange? There are orders of magnitude more people with non-
| Surface machines than Surfaces.
| nubinetwork wrote:
| So what? Surface is what Microsoft manufactures and
| sells...
|
| If they were just an OS company, they can support whatever
| hardware legislation they want... but to sell a locked down
| turd on one hand while crying about openness with the other
| really takes the cake.
| cosmojg wrote:
| For anyone else in this predicament, I was able to get around
| this by editing some registry keys and installing from a
| lightly modified ISO on the one Windows machine in my fleet.
| dataflow wrote:
| For anyone else in this predicament (or not), I recommend not
| getting around this and just sticking with Windows 10.
| ipaddr wrote:
| What is your plan for when Windows 10 becomes not supported
| dataflow wrote:
| Cry, probably. (Only half joking.)
| katbyte wrote:
| Hope there's windows 12 and it's better?
| tourmalinetaco wrote:
| Linux, as should be most sensible people's solution.
| Especially since 80% of PC users just use their operating
| system as bootloaders into a browser. 80% of that
| remaining 20% use PCs for gaming, and that is only
| getting better on Linux. Not to mention more adoption =
| better native ports. The final 4% of users are people who
| understand enough to choose their OS with a purpose in
| mind and/or use a specific OS for work purposes.
| dawidpotocki wrote:
| Or you can use Rufus for flashing the ISO to the USB stick
| which will do it for you.
| krelian wrote:
| By all accounts windows 11 is a hot pile of excrement so they
| really did us a favor.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| Windows 11 brings support for Intel Thread Director (perhaps
| not relevant/important to the AMD fanbois here), better
| support for variable refresh rate and high refresh rates in
| general, and tons of other kernel and system improvements in
| the backend that Windows 10 will not get.
|
| The frontend UI still sucks, but it's overall better than the
| nonsense known as Metro and regardless it's all nothing that
| can't be addressed with sufficient will.
| aardvarkr wrote:
| The only people who say this are the ones who HAVEN'T tried
| it. Tbh it's just like every other boring windows OS.
| Slapping a new coat of paint on it barely qualifies as "hot
| pile of excrement".
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| Been using it at work, "hot pile of excrement" applies.
|
| Using fucking Corp licenced Win11 Pro and still getting
| ads/spamcontent in my OS?
| hakfoo wrote:
| They've already lost the conversation though.
|
| There were Windows products people were genuinely excited
| for. 95 being the obvious one, but WinXP did really deliver
| the promise of modern, NT-based windows for the home
| desktop, and Win7 felt like we finally broke free of the
| stagnation of XP (worsened by the bad press Vista got).
|
| I willingly went out and acquired a legit copy of Windows
| Vista (at the time, the pre-pre-predecessor to Bing Rewards
| let you grind some crummy games for a few weekends to earn
| enough tokens for a copy) but even being told Win11 is free
| and will be delivered directly to my desktop, I just go in
| and slide the TPM option to "off" in the BIOS to make sure
| it doesn't prompt it.
| GordonS wrote:
| I have tried it, and while it's not "shit", it's not good,
| and certainly worse than Windows 10. It basically _is_
| Windows 10, but with more ads and a much worse UI. And it
| 's full of stupid, niggling things, like burrying context
| menu options in Explorer.
|
| I'm staying on Windows 10 until EoL in 2025. If Windows 12
| is out by then, I may switch, otherwise, I'm moving to the
| long-term support version of Windows 10.
| windowsrookie wrote:
| I have tried it. And it feels like windows 10 with more
| advertisements. I really dislike ads and avoid them by
| paying for ad-free services and/or using Adblock
| applications. In windows 11 it is seemingly impossible to
| remove the advertisements, so I will be choosing not to use
| it.
| [deleted]
| Semaphor wrote:
| While I don't agree at all with "hot pile of excrement",
| W11 requires more 3rd party tools to make it usable than
| before. One to remove the telemetry and ads (OO Shutup),
| one to put the taskbar in a sane position (StartAllBack).
| bitwize wrote:
| Windows 11 is like _Ghostbusters_ (2016 film). It wasn 't
| _as_ bad as I was expecting it to be, not by a long shot,
| but that doesn 't make it good or something I want to
| subject myself to again.
|
| But my perspective is unusual. The friction increase for
| Windows 11 over its predecessor is, for me, slight; but
| I've used so many WMs and DEs that adjusting to a new one
| is hardly noticeable. To a normie, Windows 11's pebble-in-
| shoe UI changes -- the start menu location change, the
| right-click menu change, the emphasis on connecting you to
| Microsoft and third-party apps and services rather than
| getting things done -- would be sources of profound
| aggravation.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| Anyone's first experience with Windows 11 is clicking on
| the start menu and discovering their virgin install is
| fully leaden with crapware - ala 1999 Packard Bell.
|
| That sells you on Windows the same way stepping in cat
| barf sells you on your new pet.
| firecall wrote:
| That really is a big issue, for me, with Windows 11 and
| Edge.
|
| The entire experience is cheapened.
|
| MS Edge, for instance, actually has an excellent base UI.
| But the UX is destroyed by plastering horrible tabloid
| news and ads all over the first launch experience.
|
| The engineers are MS are obviously very good at what they
| do. But it feels like the rest of the product and
| marketing departments get ahold of things and jam in
| trashware and ruin it.
|
| Windows 11 is fine. It's fine. The graphical changes to
| the UI are in improvement to my eyes, and they are slowly
| adding back utility. Such as right-clicking on the task
| bar and being able to launch the activity monitor!
|
| They even have tabbed explorer windows now!
|
| Still, MS did such a bad job of launching W11 that my two
| gamer teenager kids and their friends have sworn off it
| for as long as they can!
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Yeah I am forced to do a real upgrade now to GNU/Linux
| pierat wrote:
| The bright side is that Linux is NOT a roach motel. And your
| data is your own.
|
| And being a 'pierat' I've already seen Sony institute 'dont
| play torrented content on PlayStations'. And that was the
| PS3.
|
| I completely expect similar with Windows and Mac. We already
| see keygens and patches marked as "malware" when the only
| mal- is for the publishers.
|
| It may end up that the best play-anything-anywhere will be
| Linux.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| The only thing keeping me on Windows is the sharing a PC
| with family kind of thing but now we have enough devices I
| might just reformat my laptop.
| anarchy79 wrote:
| I am thinking this does more damage to their competitors than
| to themselves.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| CPU requirements hurt their competitors? How?
| ishan28mkip wrote:
| It would be amazing if microsoft goes public with this support
| ishan-flek wrote:
| That is unlikely to happen
| c22 wrote:
| Ever try to open up a surface?
| coder543 wrote:
| Surface Pro 9 received a 7/10, and iFixit apparently plans to
| increase this score if Microsoft makes parts and manuals
| available.
|
| https://www.ifixit.com/News/68671/does-the-surface-pro-9-mar...
| generalizations wrote:
| Long as the only way in is by ungluing the screen, I don't
| consider it repairable. Unfortunately, most DIYers will
| probably not have a great track record ungluing fragile
| touchscreens. I feel like the only reason this got a 7/10 is
| because ifixit has experience doing that, and maybe
| discounted the liklihood that someone inexperienced would
| have success.
| cosmojg wrote:
| Glued screens are a big part of why we get to enjoy the
| level of water resistance we have today, and while I agree
| it's tricky, I can tell you I've successfully changed the
| batteries on two different phones with nothing but a
| hairdryer and a suction cup scavenged from a bathroom
| mirror.
|
| Sure, like repairing a car, you won't be able to fix or
| maintain certain things without the right tools, but being
| able to use the right tools without voiding your warranty
| is a huuuge step in the right direction. I mean, imagine if
| your car insurance company refused to cover you in an
| accident because you changed your own oil once!
| user_7832 wrote:
| > Glued screens are a big part of why we get to enjoy the
| level of water resistance we have today
|
| Sure glue helps, but is it really necessary? I haven't
| designed any product but I would expect that rubber seals
| with screws to be good enough for consumers goods.
| PinkRidingHood wrote:
| That doesn't sound very plausible for a laptop though, in
| terms of aesthetic design, space, and heating.
| avianlyric wrote:
| The glue isn't used for water resistance, it's primarily
| role is to bond the screen to the chassis, so the entire
| bonded unit forms a box structure . Which is an extremely
| strong and rigid structure, requiring very little
| material (hence the reason they're used in construction
| all the time).
|
| But getting that strong structure only works if you have
| good, continuous, bond between all sides of the box
| structure. Hence the use of glue. Replacing it with
| screws would require either a huge number of screws to
| achieve the same quality of bond as glue, or
| substantially thicker walls to make up for the poor bond
| between screen and chassis. Each screw then becomes giant
| stress riser, focusing all the forces applied to the
| device into the material around the screws.
|
| You really get to have devices like a surface that very
| thin, with huge screens, without glue the screen to
| chassis, because the screen and its bond are crucial
| structural elements.
| me-vs-cat wrote:
| Easily-repairable-by-the-inexperienced is quite different
| from only-repairable-through-manufacturer-authorization.
|
| Would you say a car is not repairable because it takes
| experience and several hundred dollars worth of equipment
| just to get to the affected part?
| vkou wrote:
| Depends. If changing a tire required taking my car into
| the dealership that sold it, I'd call it unrepairable.
|
| If something like that were required for dealing with a
| broken transmission, that would be something else.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| ...I mean yeah, kinda? Reparability is a spectrum.
| generalizations wrote:
| > Easily-repairable-by-the-inexperienced is quite
| different from only-repairable-through-manufacturer-
| authorization.
|
| Yep. And a 7/10 score (IIRC) used to indicate easily-
| repairable-by-the-inexperienced.
| steve_mcdougall wrote:
| [dead]
| bobsmooth wrote:
| Part of the review is pointing out that this glued screen
| was particularly easy to remove.
| the__alchemist wrote:
| My thought too!
|
| I love my Surface pro. (In context of my use cases, which
| involve a mix of programming/CAD etc on the go, and writing
| with a pen).
|
| Its biggest downside is lack of repairability, including
| battery replacement.
| c22 wrote:
| The cynic in me is worried this is just a move to saddle
| smaller competitors with onerous requirements while scoring
| some PR points.
| grapesurgeon wrote:
| [dead]
| vxNsr wrote:
| The newer ms laptops were better.
|
| Obviously there's room for improvement, I think they just
| didn't have a lot of hardware experience initially and were
| using a lot of outside design firms who didn't have a ton of
| direction.
| kalium-xyz wrote:
| "Quietly" surely that's a joke when it's in the title of an
| article promoting the act?
| bitwize wrote:
| Commoditize your complement.
|
| Though I wager they'll find a way to carve out exceptions for
| Surfaces and Xboxen.
| dawidpotocki wrote:
| > Later that year, though, the right-to-repair movement scored
| some big wins. [...] The very next day, New York's legislature
| passed the bill that would later become the nation's first
| electronics right-to-repair law.
|
| It's hard to call it a "win". It has been sabotaged by the
| governor Kathy Hochul at the last minute, a year after it passed
| with supermajority. She was waiting a whole year to sign the bill
| and at the end decided add loopholes which made the bill worse
| than useless. People now think that the problem is solved when in
| reality nothing has been done.
| cgb223 wrote:
| How does a governor unilaterally add loopholes to a bill?
|
| Isn't that the role of the legislative branch?
| int_19h wrote:
| It is, but the governor can basically hold the bill hostage
| by refusing to sign unless specific amendments are made,
| which is what happened here.
| LegitShady wrote:
| In NY if the governor doesn't sign it becomes law by
| default.
|
| https://www.nysenate.gov/how-bill-becomes-law-1
|
| >While the Legislature is in session, the Governor has 10
| days (not counting Sundays) to sign or veto bills passed by
| both houses. Signed bills become law; vetoed bills do not.
| However, the Governor's failure to sign or veto a bill
| within the 10-day period means that it becomes law
| automatically.
| nier wrote:
| > She was waiting a whole year to sign the bill and at
| the end decided add loopholes which made the bill worse
| than useless.
|
| So what's with this 10 day timeframe? I'm confused. So,
| technically, they haven't been waiting a year and vetoed
| the bill right away?
| LegitShady wrote:
| most likely there was some shenanigans within the
| legislature to hide exactly who did what, which shouldn't
| be possible given freedom of information rules, but if it
| was vetoed that would leave a record that doesn't exist.
| Most likely it was never officially submitted until after
| changes occurred.
| LegitShady wrote:
| https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlHtbaRWAAEdwdv?format=jpg&name=.
| ..
|
| > "The legislation as drafted included technical issues that
| could put safety and security at risk, as well as heighten
| the risk of injury from physical repair projects, and I am
| pleased to have reached an agreement with the legislature to
| address these issues."
|
| The whole bill was altered by the legislature and governor
| such that assemblies satisfy the requirement to have parts
| available. So if Samsung glues the battery to the screen and
| sells it to you as a $300 part, that satisfies the
| requirement of having the battery available. So the whole
| bill was sabotaged and used a press release by the government
| to pretend they were doing something for the people when in
| fact they were neutering the bill.
| bombcar wrote:
| I had an iPhone repaired under warranty; it was the logic
| board but the Apple Store dude was proud to let me know
| that the display and camera would move over, but everything
| else was part of the logic board (including the battery). I
| guess a phone with three parts is better than one with one
| part.
| aziaziazi wrote:
| What model was it ? Does Apple solder their iPhones
| batteries now ?
| bombcar wrote:
| it was an iPhone 13; I don't know if the battery is
| "really" connected or it's just how they do the repair;
| he just mentioned that the back cover and battery would
| be part of the logic board replacement.
|
| (I still am not quite certain why they didn't just give
| me a refurbished phone and later repair mine as a refurb,
| but whatever)
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| No, and in the newest iPhone, 14, it was made easier to
| replace the battery:
|
| https://www.ifixit.com/News/64865/iphone-14-teardown
|
| I think X to 13 models had particularly difficult battery
| replacements.
| amelius wrote:
| Ok, forget about the bill. We should have a right to repair our
| democracy!
| newswasboring wrote:
| > She was waiting a whole year to sign the bill and at the end
| decided add loopholes which made the bill worse than useless.
|
| Pardon my ignorance on this, I'm not American, but how can the
| governer do this? How can the governer change the laws the
| legislature made? Or does it mean it was sent back to the
| legislature and they were forced to make changes as the
| governer was not signing? But it passed with super majority,
| the governor cannot fight a supermajority, right?
| hahamrfunnyguy wrote:
| Well, one way is the line item veto:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-
| item_veto_in_the_United_S....
|
| In this case, I believe subtle changes were made to this bill
| just before the NYS legislature was going to be on recess and
| it passed and signed into law.
| newswasboring wrote:
| But the bill had a supermajority, how can the governor veto
| it at all? Is there no way for the legislature to force the
| governor to sign the bill? What if 100% of the legislature
| voted yes on something, can the governor still block it?
| Karunamon wrote:
| Because the ability to veto is a separate step in the
| workflow, not a precondition of how the vote to pass
| breaks down. If the hypothetical 100% of the legislature
| voted yes, the governor could still say no, and then it
| is upon the legislature to formally override with another
| vote.
| newswasboring wrote:
| So the legislature amended it, not the governor. Why is
| the governor getting the blame then? The governor could
| say whatever they want, the legislature could have just
| sent it back as is with the override of the veto. It is
| mind boggling that the legislature changed anything in a
| bill with a super majority.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| That would explain why the bill not-yet-amended to the
| governor's preferences could not become law without
| another vote.
|
| But it doesn't explain how the amended-to-the-
| governor's-preferences version became law.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| Yeah this aspect of the story never made sense to me.
|
| Wouldn't the legislature have had to vote on the 'subtly
| changed' bill again for it to become law?
|
| If they don't need to, yet it still somehow can become
| law in amended form, isn't it bypassing the powers of the
| legislature?
| iglio wrote:
| Great video from Louis Rossmann on this situation:
| https://youtu.be/7xGBB-717AI
| tzs wrote:
| > She was waiting a whole year to sign the bill and at the end
| decided add loopholes which made the bill worse than useless.
|
| The changes made it so it would not cover agricultural
| equipment and big appliances like washing machines and
| refrigerators.
|
| It still covers electronic devices purchased at retail after it
| goes into effect (2023-07-1) such as computers, phones, and
| tablets.
|
| Hew is that "worse than useless"?
| hanselot wrote:
| https://thehustle.co/02162023-john-deere/
|
| https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9205919/Fridges-
| was...
|
| It's difficult to imagine someone could be so unaware of the
| battles waged around them.
| ishan28mkip wrote:
| I don't understand how a governor can single handedly add
| loopholes to a bill that has supermajority.
| rychco wrote:
| Lobbyists butchered this legislation. Many of the suggested
| edits[1] by lobbyists to weaken the original - made it into the
| bill verbatim [2]. How do New Yorkers feel about unelected
| parties writing their laws?
|
| [1] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23599780-technets-
| pr... [2]
| https://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=S01320&ter...
| [deleted]
| kyrra wrote:
| Most lawmakers are lawyers. Meaning most of the time when
| they are writing laws in things, they are not th experts on
| such things. That the purpose of public comment periods,
| Publix hearings, and lobbyists being able to help craft laws.
|
| Now, this seems to be a failure where there were not protests
| raised to this amendments or the lawmakers ignored such
| things. Either way, the point of lobbyists is to allow
| industry experts to provide input. If there is nothing wrong
| with their suggestions, I don't see a problem with verbatim
| including of their wording.
|
| (I disagree with how the NY law was changed, but there are
| reasons lobbying exists).
| bordercases wrote:
| How would you approach thinking about this in a way which
| makes the lawyers culpable rather than an acceptable part
| of the status quo?
| bawolff wrote:
| Are you really asking someone how they would rephrase
| their statement so it expresses a different point of
| view?
|
| Traditionally in an debate, it is your responsibility to
| convince the other side of your view. You can't just get
| the other side to make your argument for you.
| RugnirViking wrote:
| > the point of lobbyists
|
| ??? There is no "point" to lobbyists, its literally a guy
| paying to play. Take any industry expert from any industry
| and unless they themselves are a lobbyist I can near
| guarantee they would be happier if lobbying was illegal
| with very harsh punishment
| kuhewa wrote:
| This is like saying any engineer would like it to be
| illegal to have people paid to write documentation.
| There's an art to communication, especially in niche area
| like getting the ear of the right legislators and
| translating a topic in terms they will understand. Louis
| Rossman hired lobbyists to get right to repair
| legislation passed. If hiring a lobbyist is illegal it
| wouldn't prevent lobbying, it will keep occuring just in
| wink wink nudge nudge smoke filled back room quid pro quo
| sort of channels and less accessibly.
| j16sdiz wrote:
| It should be do it the reverse way: we should vote for
| lobbyists and have the lawmaker paid to write the law for
| us.
|
| Voting lawmaker who don't know the subject don't help
| kuhewa wrote:
| Run for office. Seriously. Also I'll point out no
| lawmaker is going to be very well versed in every subject
| on which legislation is necessary.
| Etrnl_President wrote:
| It would be far more effective to strike the incentive
| for lobbying by eliminating the coercion inherent to the
| system.
| [deleted]
| tough wrote:
| Nah, It's just corruption smoke and mirrors, it's just
| wealth transfer in exchange for kickbacks but adding a
| middleman some how makes it legal.
|
| Like SuperPAC's and all that bullshit
| kuhewa wrote:
| Yes, but making it illegal would mean well meaning groups
| also can't bend the ear of politicians when they need to.
| The heavily moneyed interests don't really need
| professional lobbyists so much when they can offer high
| six figure consulting salaries to politicians once they
| leave office, have former company people in govt
| positions, can communicate through campaign funding etc.
| Bigger broader problem. Meanwhile a right to repair
| advocate very much could benefit from hiring a guy that
| knows the office hours of the legislator and who the best
| staffers would be to float an idea with.
| themitigating wrote:
| Nothing in the government should benefit those with more
| money.
| kuhewa wrote:
| That's a nice soundbyte. How are you doing to get us
| there though without worse unintended consequences than
| the status quo?
| themitigating wrote:
| By banning lobbying and political donations
| hanselot wrote:
| So what you are saying is that we should allow people
| with bad intentions the ability to influence politicians
| monetarily (literally bribery), so the few morsels of
| good money that can buy any influence may have a chance
| to also be considered for inclusion?
|
| Edit: I see your point wrt alternative bribery schemes
| existing, and isn't the solution perhaps for those
| schemes to also be shut down, instead of allowing it
| because some good _might_ come of it?
|
| Hmmmm, it's difficult not to assume you are yourself a
| lobbyist or politician if you take this position, given
| that the coffers of those with ill intent are vastly more
| lined than the alternative...
| kuhewa wrote:
| > Hmmmm, it's difficult not to assume you are yourself a
| lobbyist or politician
|
| Well, it probably is difficult if one is not very good at
| thinking.
|
| Regarding your edit, sure, but that's not the content of
| the post I replied to. That was about banning lobbying
| and I'm making the point that consequences of that could
| be counterproductive and make for an even less level
| playing field.
| tough wrote:
| Thanks for putting words on what was rubbing me wrong.
|
| We need something better than this fake democracy we
| inherited.
| conradev wrote:
| Lobbyists lobby for causes, for money, that is their
| point.
|
| If you run a small solar company, it is in your best
| interest to support SEIA, the member association
| (lobbyist) for the solar industry.
|
| You might think the system is dumb, and it is, but if you
| don't understand why it exists, you can't design a
| replacement.
|
| Lawmakers and their teams legislate on topics that they
| are far from experts in, so they regularly need to
| consult with experts. Those experts, no matter how you
| select them, will harbor biases.
|
| How do you get the relevant expertise to the lawmakers?
| I've talked to a chief of staff for a senator and at that
| level it is a lot of responding to what is next on the
| agenda, and less deciding.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "if lobbying was illegal with very harsh punishment"
|
| I suppose you mean professional lobbying, with the
| purpose of influencing laws to make money?
|
| Because when a environmental group tries to block some
| dirty mining project for example, than this is also
| lobbying. It is just people using influence. You cannot
| really make that illegal.
|
| You can force the parties involved for transparency and
| punish bribery, but you cannot make it illegal for people
| to talk to politicians.
|
| Even when it is done "professional". The problem in
| reality is, that when you look closely, in effect lots of
| lobbying is indeed bribery. (most of the indirect kind,
| like informal promising lucrative jobs after their terms
| are over, or giving overpaid talks). And that is and
| remains illegal.
| blitzar wrote:
| When you write a letter to your congressman ... lobbying.
| frankfrankfrank wrote:
| >Because when a environmental group tries to block some
| dirty mining project
|
| Which is also usually driven by financial interests under
| cover of virtue. It is most obvious in Europe where many
| people now have become multi millionaires, largely of
| government imposed enrichment schemes.
| triska wrote:
| So far, I have never before seen an environment group
| trying to block a mining project referred to as
| "lobbying". Is the term really that generally used in
| practice?
| juujian wrote:
| Reading about the topic of lobbying about every day for
| work. The more common term to see is "advocacy" but i
| would not raise an eyebrow if I saw the saw the verb
| lobby used to describe an environment organization's
| activities.
| pedrosorio wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying
|
| "Lobbying, which usually involves direct, face-to-face
| contact in cooperation with support staff that may not
| meet directly face-to-face, is done by many types of
| people, associations and organized groups, including
| individuals on a personal level in their capacity as
| private citizens, it is also practiced by corporations in
| the private sector serving their own interests, by non-
| profits and non-governmental organizations in the
| voluntary sector, by fellow legislators or government
| officials influencing each other through legislative
| affairs (legislative assistance) in the public sector,
| and by advocacy groups (interest groups)."
| tinus_hn wrote:
| Selectively forgot this part:
|
| > is the act of lawfully
| bratbag wrote:
| Media focuses on the corrupt side of lobbying because it
| sells rage clicks.
|
| The fact is without the non-corrupt side of lobbying, the
| lawyers whom make up most of the legislature wouldn't
| have the first clue how their legislation interacts with
| complex industry specific real world systems.
| fafqg wrote:
| [flagged]
| stavros wrote:
| [flagged]
| [deleted]
| LunaSea wrote:
| This is simply bullshit.
|
| Congress can simply bring people to testify in the open
| instead of cowering in the shadows like they do now.
| buran77 wrote:
| Lobbying in exchange for any kind of favor (money,
| influence, etc.) should be illegal. Why would you want to
| focus on the almost inconsequential lobbying "for free"
| regular people can do, instead of the society-changing
| lobbying "for money" that is accessible only to the
| advantage of a few?
|
| Lobbying for money is a form of legalized corruption,
| almost identical in form and function to the illegal one,
| except designed to protect those who already have a lot
| of money and power from any legal consequences.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Hiring someone to lobby on my behalf is an important part
| of our political process. If there's an issue I care
| about, my ability to show up at a random time in DC to
| lobby "for free" should not be my only recourse.
|
| If I donate money to the EFF or Louis Rossmann for a
| cause I care about, that should not block them from
| lobbying on my behalf.
|
| Everyone complains about professional lobbying that they
| don't like. That's hardly shocking.
| LunaSea wrote:
| People complain because it links your net worth to how
| much you are represented which is anti-democratic.
| buran77 wrote:
| > Everyone complains about professional lobbying that
| they don't like.
|
| I think you picked the laziest understanding of both the
| issue and my answer, and made my point in the process.
|
| I'm not talking about you paying someone to represent
| your ideas to lawmakers, regulators, judges, etc. but
| about paying those people to directly enact your
| interests. They're both big problems in their own way.
| Straight up buying laws or legal decisions happens even
| if the incentives move from the interest groups to the
| decision factors through so many lobbying laundromats
| that they look completely clean and disconnected.
|
| The other problem is not better. As you confirm, real
| representation in democracy is not with your vote but
| your donation power. Even when your chosen lobbyist isn't
| buying anything directly, just having a voice and
| representation takes money rather than a vote. The EFF or
| Louis Rossmann have to struggle so much to be heard
| because other people pay more to be louder. If _you_ have
| problems being heard for money, imagine the people hoping
| to be heard for free.
|
| The large majority of people can only spend one vote
| every few years to choose a representation that a small
| minority will spend a lot of money to hijack: either
| drown out everyone else's voice, or directly purchase
| exactly what they want. If you can't see why "everyone
| complains" maybe you're too disconnected from the problem
| to even understand it.
| HeckFeck wrote:
| Politics is just filthy business. I know I'm being short
| changed and should pay attention, but it is unsustainable
| with the more I know.
|
| This is probably how corruption takes over a society.
| Something I thought I'd only ever read in history books,
| but now I have the privilege of living through it. Oh
| joy.
| DSingularity wrote:
| You know how we have this image that eastern countries
| are corrupt? Once you recognize the blatant corruption
| that is "lobbying" America doesn't look so pure.
| HeckFeck wrote:
| Chinese state officials don't have to look far when they
| want to point out the hypocrisy of the charges the US
| levies against their country. I've seen them take easy
| shots on Twitter just like the left vs right
| partisanship, "haha your side is hypocritical!" "Well so
| is yours!" and on and on...
|
| I wish we had a better example to show to the world.
| cronix wrote:
| "Redress of Grievances" to the government is specifically
| why the First Amendment was written giving us Freedom of
| Speech. I don't really care if someone is "happy" about
| it or not.
| contravariant wrote:
| Likewise programmers are not experts on the things they
| write programs for so it is acceptable for them to just do
| the bare minimum of translating business requirements into
| code and see what bugs pop up.
|
| Right?
| Karunamon wrote:
| Programmers usually have documented acceptance criteria
| to meet, and those criteria are usually not up to them.
|
| Poor analogy.
| mxkopy wrote:
| > Most lawmakers are lawyers.
|
| Whatever they are they should be representing the people
| first. If that involves learning more about whatever
| they're in charge of, then they should do that, since
| that's what we pay them to do. Plato said our kings should
| be philosophers, but what we have are sophists.
| moremetadata wrote:
| [dead]
| frankfrankfrank wrote:
| Most people don't care and definitely don't pay nearly as
| close attention as should be required to have the right to
| vote, let alone those who are payed massive amounts of money
| to manipulate corrupted politicians. Corruption is now or at
| the very least is well on its way to becoming systemic.
| cde-v wrote:
| Wow, so negative. All NYers need to do is peacefully
| protest with some really original and funny signs/chants
| and they'll solve the corruption.
| kanbara wrote:
| should be required? voting should not require any test to
| exercise said right, as is expected in a normal democratic
| society
| javajosh wrote:
| I wish HN would add a new reply button, "It's hopeless and
| people don't care and its only going to get worse" because
| it would save a great deal of time for everyone involved.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Well the ubiquity of it doesn't make it any less true.
| javajosh wrote:
| It's never been less true. Humans have never been more
| capable of coherent action, and this fact has not been
| lost on the sociopathic no-upper-limit-to-greed
| manipulator types who've done well in this nascient
| internet with its aging, nostalgic noobs. The modern
| zeitgeist is dominated by the heat from a thousand
| battles happening in the info-sphere, fought by PR
| mercenaries and state-sponsored labs duking it out. They
| must win their battle because that is what they are paid
| to do, and saying the word "externality" is a good way to
| get fired.
|
| But. If we can act coherently on one way, we can do so in
| another, and I take great hope in that fact.
| hatethissite42 wrote:
| [flagged]
| creativenolo wrote:
| Maybe instead of reply people should just submit and
| comply?
| mrandish wrote:
| > Corruption is now or at the very least is well on its way
| to becoming systemic.
|
| It's now clear we have a critical vulnerability in our
| political operating system. IMHO, the simplest solution is
| single-term limits. Obviously, there are upside and
| downside trade-offs to such a policy. However, I think the
| upsides might be worth the downsides, especially since the
| system is so clearly being gamed by well-funded adversaries
| to the public interest.
|
| Based on the sky-rocketing increases in net worth after
| becoming a long-term career politician, the incentives are
| simply overwhelming. It's now attracting people with poor,
| or at least conflicted, motivations to the career. Another
| under-appreciated upside would be limiting the influence of
| entrenched, 'permanent' political parties, as seen in the
| now-eternal two-party duopoly we have in the U.S. No matter
| which 'side' you may be on (if any), we'd all be better
| served by a system more able to evolve and adapt to meet
| changing conditions.
| atkailash wrote:
| [dead]
| smeej wrote:
| In New Hampshire, state reps and senators are paid only
| $200 per two-year term.[0] There are also more reps
| (total, not per capita) than in any other state. Reps end
| up representing <4,000 people on average--a number
| someone can actually _represent._
|
| _And_ they have to consider every proposal.
|
| You know what the most common decision is? "ITL," or
| "inexpedient to legislate." In most cases, no, there
| really _shouldn 't_ be a law.
|
| Is it the best system out there? Probably not, but it
| certainly solves some of the commonest problems.
|
| [0] https://www.vnews.com/Upper-Valley-state-legislators-
| push-fo...
| fn-mote wrote:
| Requiring politicians to be (essentially) volunteers does
| NOT insulate the system from corruption. It also seems
| likely to guarantee well-off people will become members,
| but perhaps that's not a change from what you see
| elsewhere in the country.
| [deleted]
| InCityDreams wrote:
| >How do New Yorkers feel about unelected parties writing
| their laws?
|
| Oh no, not the gdpr again?
| dev_tty01 wrote:
| > How do New Yorkers feel about unelected parties writing
| their laws?
|
| I'm all for right to repair laws, but I would hate to see a
| law concerning even slightly technical topics written only by
| elected parties. It would be a disaster.
|
| The legislators approved the editing of the laws and voted
| for the text as written. They are responsible and should be
| held accountable.
| XajniN wrote:
| > They are responsible and should be held accountable.
|
| No, an elected official cannot be punished for voting.
| TimTheTinker wrote:
| Laws written by lobbyists are an even worse disaster.
|
| The legislators' job is to represent their _constituents_ ,
| not those who pay enough to tell them what to legislate.
| balls187 wrote:
| Elected officials who don't at least appear to represent
| their constituents do not remain elected for long.
| balls187 wrote:
| > I'm all for right to repair laws, but I would hate to see
| a law concerning even slightly technical topics written
| only by elected parties. It would be a disaster.
|
| Specific to the US.
|
| They're rarely if ever written by elected officials
| directly. Rather legislative aids do the bulk of the
| authoring and reading of bills along with input from
| lobbyists.
|
| Laws may be problematic due to the unfamiliarity the
| authors/sponsors have with technical details and nuances
| but overwhelmingly the difficulty lies in creating
| legislature that cannot be interpreted in any other way
| than it's intention when challenged by an army of highly
| paid and highly skilled attorneys.
| zx8080 wrote:
| Hey, why so negative! Lobbying is a hard work requiring
| coordination, expensive lawyers and tons of money. It's the
| only layer of protection for the society from a thoughtless
| legislation!
|
| /s
| ezequiel-garzon wrote:
| I'm quite sure lobbying played a role with these changes, but
| the first source is not official.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Sorry - how can lobbyists do this? Are they part of the
| writing process?
| berry_sortoro wrote:
| [dead]
| mrtweetyhack wrote:
| [dead]
| uni_baconcat wrote:
| Last time I use Microsoft hardware is a Surface Pro 3. Though the
| mSATA SSD could be replaced, but firmly glued display is a
| nightmare.
| lucasknight wrote:
| I honestly have never loved Microsoft but I can definitely see
| that they are making some great business decisions. I love Apple
| but they need to up their game. AI has been around for over a
| decade but we are definitely going to start seeing it everywhere.
| I know big things are coming. (that's what she said)
| bt1a wrote:
| Hey, have you heard of this?
| https://developer.apple.com/documentation/coreml
| IndigoIncognito wrote:
| Nefarious tendencies tempt Microsoft
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-30 23:01 UTC)