Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | Clamchop's commentslogin

It's an acquired taste. All alternative sweeteners taste differently from sugar. These days, I appreciate that such beverages don't leave a film in my mouth and have a little extra bite compared to sugar.

I think it's interesting that people go through effort to acquire tastes for various formats of alcohol, dark chocolate, black coffee. A taste for aspartame is more useful to acquire than any of those, in my opinion, but alas it's not associated with refinement and sophistication.

It's better to think of flavors as different rather than strictly better or worse.


Redundancy in natural language isn't a big deal, and it isn't entirely useless, either.

Ok, insofar as saying "tape archive archive" out loud doesn't sound odd to you, keep doing it I suppose.

I think the underlying needle this is trying to thread is teaching kids to know their audience and adjust their register for it (which is a much broader skill than just whether or not to curse), but I agree that the fucking president ;) doing it gives kids ammo to argue against the rule. Idk if that's a good or a bad thing, maybe just neutral.

The rest of that same sentence, " – and that if specialised tools are required, they must be provided free of charge when the phone or tablet is purchased," seems to mitigate that concern, no? I suppose it hinges on what the test for a "specialized tool" is.

EU regulatory bodies haven’t been as blindly sycophantic towards megacorporations in terms of allowing them to skirt by rules set forth by their legislatures, so I would be more optimistic than if this were a development in US law.

Well yes, that's where the innovation happened. Collecting fines based on regulation without innovation is easy street.

If people wanted replaceable batteries in the US, companies would sell them.

There's big conspiracy here. They just don't matter to most people.

And this regulation is really bad and will harm innovation for very little to no value.


The free market only works when you have sufficient competition. The phone market is absolutely not trivial to enter, so your first sentence is plain and simply false.

Also, given that iphones almost already pass the requirements, where is the harm to innovation?


There are hundreds of phone choices made by 10+ manufacturers. What lack of competition are you referencing? You can still buy a flip phone if you want.

The harm to innovation is not today, but in the future for some as-of-yet built product. That is.... what innovation is...


You can buy a soldering kit for 100$ USD. That doesn't mean normal people are going to be able to use them.

I'd rather force larger companies to offer battery replacement at cost + shipping.

I have no real interest and opening up my own devices and messing with batteries, but I have no problem paying the manufacturer $100 for service.


In that context it seems like "specialized" means "not commercially available", no?

Toss: "technically you can purchase a new phone with non-specialist tool 'cash' so we feel no need to provide anything at all"

Specialised as in created specifically for swapping battery of that specific phone? As in you cannot do it with a generic commercially available tool (e.g. a screwdriver)

Quote from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C...

--- start quote ---

Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 states that a battery shall be considered readily removable by the end-user where it can be removed from a product with the use of commercially available tools, without requiring the use of specialised tools, unless provided free of charge with the product, proprietary tools, thermal energy, or solvents to disassemble the product.

Guidance on tool types can be drawn from standard EN 45554:2020e (2). In the context of the assessment of a product’s ability to be repaired, reused and upgraded, this standard uses the following classification groups: (i) basic tools (including those provided with the product as a spare part) or no tools; (ii) product-group specific tools; (iii) commercially available tools; and (iv) proprietary tools.

The concept of commercially available tools mentioned in Article 11 comprises the categories of basic tools or no tools and of commercially available tools as per EN 45554:2020e.

The concept of specialised tools laid down in the Regulation refers to product-group specific tools that are not available for purchase by the general public but are not protected by patents either. Article 11 requires that any such specialised tool that might be necessary to have a portable battery removed and replaced is provided free of charge with the product into which the battery is incorporated.

As per EN 45554:2020e, proprietary tools refer to tools not available for purchase by the general public, or for which any applicable patent are not available for license under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. Such tools should not be needed to remove portable batteries

--- start quote ---

(I fully expect literally no one on HN to spend even a second looking for and reading the relevant texts, and complain about the law being vague or impossible to implement or something)


> without requiring […] thermal energy, or solvents to disassemble the product.

No heat or solvents required. Sounds good.


I did actually look for the text for several minutes but couldn't find it anywhere. Thanks for doing what the news apparently couldn't.

La Brea tarpits

The the tar tar pits.

(La Brea means "the tar").

A bit west of downtown, too, but I'm an annoying pedant.


Then it’s actually “The tar tar pits”. ;)

Sounds kinda like a Mario 64 stage.


That's backwards, eatable is the stronger claim that means fit as food while edible just means safe to eat.


Pedantic difference; most people would reasonably assume either meant "OK to eat".


No more pedantic than the comment I was replying to. My advice would be not to use "eatable" at all because others will just think you're saying edible incorrectly.


In the US, photos of food must depict the actual product being advertised. So all the photos of burgers on the McD's menu are what is being sold, albeit with carefully selected "hero" ingredients skillfully assembled for the best presentation.

For a product that is only advertising one thing in a photo, e.g. an ice cream cone with ice cream on a package of just cones, I don't think there are any restrictions on what the "ice cream" can be made of. (It's probably mashed potatoes, though.)


I agree in fractions.

I think land ownership should be abolished. That'll never happen for a lot of reasons, but it's highly unethical in my opinion. Ignoring who the land was stolen from to begin with, I also feel that it's looting the future, land ownership often being generational and severely kneecapping society from making better, more productive use of a finite resource as its needs change over time.

I do not think intellectual property should be abolished outright, because I can't think of a reliable incentive structure constructed entirely from the social interest. I do think it, particularly copyright, should be severely curtailed, however. Companies exclusively controlling huge swaths of popular culture for 90 years or whatever basically amounts to theft from the public commons, in my opinion. If you're going to replace folk culture with Mickey Mouse, then we ought to own a bit of that, more quickly than is being done.

I have no issue with personal property and actually think it should be strengthened. Consider the right to repair; the right to run the software we choose on the devices we ostensibly own; the erosion of our ability to freely trade, share, and preserve increasingly digital products; stronger enforcement of Magnusson-Moss; infringements of our privacy in an online world; and so on.


No private person should be taxed for the space he needs to occupy to survive, that is slavery to the state! Return to allodial titles!


Who was the land stolen from?


*Conquered. All's fair in love and war.


Demonetized videos show fewer or no ads. It's something they implemented because advertisers don't want to be associated with some kinds of content.


I think at this point all videos have ads. Demonized videos not having ads hasn't been a thing for what feels like years.


Demonetized


And Apple famously struggled for a long time to compete with PCs on price, beyond what their positioning as a premium brand would justify, compounding the problem. And their hardware wasn't exactly setting the world on fire on performance metrics, either.

I'd long thought it'd gone underappreciated how much slow but steady progress Apple has made in the past couple of decades at improving the value of their computers, but everyone has been talking about that since the Neo dropped. Well deserved and overdue, in my opinion.


Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: