falkerie71

Agreed

And they currently engineer product to have things fail right after their warranty expires, so, that’s not really a concern, since we’re already living with the that.

Which is exactly my point of why mandated warranty period does not really fix the core of the problem, which is intentionally making products not last. It's just a bandaid solution (Yes I know a solution is still better than nothing, and may be the first step to address this issue). What I want to see is prolonging the life of a product by letting consumers freely fix their own stuff (parts, schematics, etc.) without the manufacturer locking things down, even after the warranty expires.

As much as I love this, I fail to see how this would be able to be written into law. It's basically gov mandated warranty period. If the goal is to have manufacturers make products that last, how long is long enough for every product category? What's to say that they do the same thing and design products that fail right after warranty ends? Who decides if there is foul play in designing faulty products and how? Unless the gov makes their own product that lasts for 20 years and tells every other company to use this as a baseline otherwise get fined, I don't know how they would be able to enforce this.

I just think this is a big gray area and it would be hard to make this cut and clear. The only thing I think they could do for now is to have companies provide repair manuals and provide parts for a set amount of years after product launch, and repairs should be able to be made by customers themselves without needing to go through 1st party verification like Apple requires with their phones.

That's interesting! Thanks for the reply!

Rules for thee, not for me

Are there any music pieces that are your favorite because of synesthesia? Or pieces that you couldn't enjoy because of it?
I'd also imagine that watching movies must be a very different experience for you too haha.

So what you're saying is that he isn't using the trees to build properties, but using the land after the trees has been cut to build property. I can't imagine this would fly legally for national forests though.

So I just want to chime in here as an outsider. From what I searched, national forests are different from national parks in that, extraction of natural resources from national forests is permitted for commercial and personal use.

Trump's order cites wildfire, insect and disease outbreak as the reason for this change (Biden also sought more logging to combat fire but apparently timber sales did not change much during his tenure). While I agree that forest management is important, Trump had also put tariffs on Canadian lumber and cut down jobs for national park workers. It's not hard to question if there are other motivations other than wildfire prevention in this context.

Putting tariffs on Norfolk Island and Heard and McDonald Islands are particularly funny considering Heard and McDonald Islands only has penguins living there lol.

Taiwan always had pretty good relations with Japan. It's the Trump situation that threw everything in the air. People here for whatever reason can be extreme as if you're not pro-trump, you're pro-china. They actively say that any messages that are anti-trump or anti-america, reasonable or not, are lies of the ccp. Which is insane.

I do not want China to annex my hometown, but I also do not like how trump is going about it, alienating allies and all. It's like having to choose between two evils, because if not the US, who can we rely on to back us up in military? If we want to survive under trump, we have to play by his rule. He does not have a lick of respect for other countries' sovereignty, as shown with Canada and Greenland, and I hate that we have no choice but to endure that.

Speaking as a Taiwanese, I fucking hate this situation we're stuck in.

There shouldn't have been a poll in the first place