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

you need more RAM? Throw it away and buy a new one.

Or sell it, which is much easier to do with Macs because they're known quantities and not "Acer Onyx X321 Q-series Ultra".

There is then the software issue, with Apple devices you are forced to use macOS that kind of sucks, especially for a server usage

That's a fair point. Apple would get a ton of goodwill if they released enough documentation to let Asahi keep up with new hardware. I can't imagine it would harm their ecosystem; the people who would actually run Linux are either not using Macs at all, or users like me who treat them as Unix workstations and ignore their lock-in attempts.


There is considerable evidence that they aren't.

Why did Lia Thomas go from being nowhere near winning in the male division to getting fifth in the women's?

When competitive fairness is raised as an argument for segregation, it is pretextual

If sports were not sex-segregated, most events would never be won by a woman. How is that a pretext?


Fifth is still nowhere near winning. So she went from nowhere near winning to nowhere near winning.

Trying to prevent goods and services from being produced more efficiently is bad actually.

Comment section isn’t nuanced enough to have this conversation and I am on a phone, but that is the way that the industry slandered the luddites as the parent claims.

The truth was that the machines produced worse quality goods and were less safe, not that people couldn’t skill up to use them and not that there wasn’t enough demand to keep everyone employed. It was quality and safety.

You should look into the issue further, because I had your opinion too until I soberly looked at what the luddites really were arguing for, it wasn’t the end of looms, it was quality standards and fair advertising to consumers.


The mainstream conclusion is that the luddites were speaking for their own economic safety mainly along with other things.

Every party in the dispute was acting out of economic self-interest: the manufacturers wanted cheaper labour and higher margins, Parliament wanted industrial growth.

Only the workers are getting framed as though self-interest invalidates their position. The Luddites’ arguments about quality standards and consumer fraud were correct on the merits regardless of their motivation for raising them.


Everyone's interests should not be viewed as the same. More affordable clothes is more important for society than a few people's jobs.

“More affordable clothes” that fall apart in a month aren’t more affordable.

And the choice was never mechanisation versus no mechanisation… it was whether the transition would include basic labour and quality standards. With regulation, you’d still have got mechanisation and cheaper clothing in the end… just without the fraudulent goods and wage suppression. Framing it as “society versus a few jobs” is exactly the manufacturer’s argument from the 1810s, which is very effective propaganda reaching through centuries.

To drive the point home even clearer


The clothes did get dramatically more affordable after adjusting for quality (after a few bumps).

“After a few bumps”, mate, people were transported to penal colonies and fucking hanged for asking for quality standards and fair wages.

Parliament made frame-breaking a capital offence to protect manufacturer profits. Saying it all worked out eventually doesn’t justify the process, any more than cheap cotton justified the conditions under which it was produced. And frankly, look at modern fast fashion: cheap clothing that falls apart in weeks, produced under appalling conditions overseas. We’re still living with the consequences of the principle that cheapness trumps everything else.


I don't condone killing obviously.

But on quality: I found this an interesting read https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/05/ha...


Trying to keep all of labor's sweat as capitalist's own cash is bad actually.

Making clothing more efficient by employing children in dangerous factories is bad actually (what happened in the original factories and now at fast fashion).


Given the absolute slop that passes as clothing nowadays, the Luddites had very good points actually.

They've also removed the regulation requiring a second way out of a burning 5 story building.

This has been well studied. Requiring two stairways significantly increases costs, constrains layouts, and is not actually safer: https://www.pew.org/-/media/assets/2025/05/single-stair_repo...


The Center for Building in North America has been aggressively pushing for these single stairwell reforms all over the country. Stephen Smith, writer of that report, is the founder of that group as well as the founder of Quantierra a real estate tech company.

The real estate industry is in huge support of this particular reform, and they stand to massively profit from it, but the people who are strongly against it include The International Association of Fire Fighters, the National Association of State Fire Marshals, The International Association of Fire Chiefs, and The National Fallen Firefighters Foundation. These are the people who are most informed about the dangers and risks involved and in what safety measures are required to save lives and fight building fires effectively.

The report itself does make some very good arguments like how much safer modern construction has become, and also some rather weak ones (for example it ignores the poor quality of data on fire and smoke related fatalities in the US, as well as important differences between the US and Europe) and I'm not even saying that single stairwell buildings can't ever be made safely, but if safety really wasn't a problem we wouldn't see a lack of support from firefighters who are the actual experts in this space. Until they are convinced of the safety of these reforms real estate developers are going to have a hard time convincing me.

Here are a couple of their objections:

https://www.iaff.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/JointStateme...

https://cityclerk.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2025/25-0247_pc_IAFF...


Sounds like a horrible attempt they rightly resist 100%. Hopefully they prevail.

Rents went down for a couple years then right back up. Except now the city has a bunch of more soulless condos and is horribly congested.

So there were a bunch of people who wanted to live there and now can.


Yes there is a cost to things like a bunch of congestion, decrease of natural spaces and generally soulessness. To paint this as only good is an insane position

Nobody lives there anymore, it's too expensive. /s

Note to the mods, /s is Reddit for sarcasm and this post is a good example of the psychology that leads to people support policies that increase housing costs even though they are designed to decrease housing costs.

And you'd be right. Forbidding efficiency improvements in order to preserve jobs is the correct solution approximately never.

The #1 thing we need to do is make it illegal for your healthcare to be tied to your employment

Yes. Or at the very least, stop making it mandatory. Health insurance should work like literally everything else: your employer pays you money, and you use that money to buy it.


Lots of people without a lot of assets would gamble.

The current system exists because yours is even worse.


> Health insurance should work like literally everything else

Eh, everything else varies significantly by company. Tradesmen have to buy their own tools. FANG provides free lunches.

I've yet to see an argument for why a singular person is going to be able to do a better job making healthcare more efficient than a company that shells out millions of dollars for that line item. Like why doesn't HR drop the health insurer that just keeps lock-step increasing prices? And why doesn't that reason apply to an individual?


UBI doesn't replace market forces with central planning. You're still incentivized to produce goods and services that other people want, and to do so more efficiently than your competitors.


Sure, and if the reason you're going to the top of the mountain is to deliver supplies to people who need them, you should absolutely take the lift.


Sure but here OP was left wondering why prompting didn't make them feel like they had done/accomplished anything. And the reason is because they didn't do anything worthy of giving them a feeling of accomplishment.


If I could destroy these things - as the Luddites tried - I would do so

Would travel agents have been justified in destroying the Internet so that people couldn't use Expedia?


Society was been better without the internet. We have lost all our privacy, our third spaces, the concept of doing hobbies for fun instead of as content, and much more.


> Society was been better without the internet

I don't even follow the reasoning of arguing this counterpoint, you are literally only able to make this argument because the internet even exists.


That's a "yet you participate in society" argument. It's not at all contradictory to use this communication medium to describe my perception of its negative impacts.


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

Search: