22 ms·
I read things differently. Several sections clearly reference the owner of a device. For example under section C part i (C) Makes parts available directly or t
by AaronM 3y ago
I read things differently. Several sections clearly reference the owner of a device. For example under section C part i
(C) Makes parts available directly or through an authorized service provider to:
(i) An independent repair provider or an owner at costs and on terms that are equivalent
to the most favorable costs and terms at which the original equipment manufacturer offers
the parts to an authorized service provider and that:
the word owner shows up 17 times in the bill, and seems to give the same rights to an owner, that an authorized repair shop has.
- userbinator 3y agoThe subtle point in that sentence might be "provider OR an owner", as opposed to "provider AND an owner".
- rolph 3y agohttps://yt.artemislena.eu/watch?v=4AyjKgz9tKg https://yt.artemislena.eu/watch?v=4AyjKgz9tKg [video]
- rtkwe 3y agoThe law there is defining two categories manufacturers need to provide the parts to, changing it to AND would mean owners would have to be certified repair people to be covered.
- filoleg 3y agoNot trying to take a dig at your comment, but for others struggling to parse (as much as I was) what it was trying to say, here is the trick that helped me - place a comma right before “changing” or treat that word as the start of a new sentence.
- olliej 3y agoThere was an entire lawsuit about the presence or absence of an Oxford comma in some law, possibly even in Oregon? [edit: boo it was Maine! Happily "Oxford comma lawsuit" is sufficient search term: https://www.npr.org/2017/03/23/521274657/the-10-million-lawsuit-that-hinges-on-an-oxford-comma https://www.npr.org/2017/03/23/521274657/the-10-million-laws...]
- j33zusjuice 3y agoThey were awarded $5M in the end. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/oxford-comma-maine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/oxford-comma-maine.htm...
- rtkwe 3y agoVery fair I don't do the best job going and clarifying my comments some times. They come out a bit stream of consciousness. I did see your comment in time to make the change at least.
- filoleg 3y agoAll good, no worries. I have the same tendency for writing singular sentences that should’ve honestly been paragraphs instead. I’ve got some feedback about it at work, so now I genuinely try to be a bit better about it. It is a bit easier for me to be mindful of it on HN, but, as evident by my comment history, I am still far from being consistently good about it. It is still often a “stream of consciousness written down as I would speak it outloud”, but now I at least started doublechecking the punctuation (or lack of it) for any potential confusion it could create before hitting send.
- basil-rash 3y agoThere’s tons of prior art in Law saying that And and Or are the same thing and can be interpreted interchangeably based on context. Much to the chagrin of the computer scientists who think it’s some sort of robust formal specification for civil society.
- throw10920 3y ago> based on context Does this specific context allow for interchanging?
- AaronM 3y agoThe bill clearly defines an independent service provider and an owner as different entities.
- AdmiralAsshat 3y agoWANTED: DEAD AND ALIVE
- cutemonster 3y agoIf you look at "wanted" to be prefixed to everything in the list, it'd expand to: "wanted: dead, and wanted: alive". While this: "Wanted: dead or alive" could be interpreted as: "We haven't decided yet what we actually want, if it's dead, or alive, but it's one of those". Then it can be good to give them (the police) a call and ask if they have decided yet, before you go looking for the wanted person
- tcmart14 3y agoObviously they want Schrodinger's criminal. You must get them before their wave function collapses.
- littlestymaar 3y ago> Much to the chagrin of the computer scientists who think it’s some sort of robust formal specification for civil society. Law is actually code, just written in a language that is full of UB and you need to have if run on the system to know exactly what it does, the system being the hierarchy of jurisdictions.
- Kon-Peki 3y agoThat's what I'm saying. It looks like you can repair your device. But you can't repair devices for anyone else without a mountain of certifications. They're going to kill the independent repair industry.
- ssl-3 3y ago> They're going to kill the independent repair industry. This bill does not kill anything that is not already dead.
- samtheprogram 3y agoThis. The parts and information in question are already hard to get and aren’t being sold to authorized repair providers.
- weebull 3y agoIt places the minimum bar at known place, and that known place is anti-consumer. So now all companies know that they don't have to any more than have a certified repair center program. What's that you sa? The requirements on certification are impossibly high. Oh noes.
- ssl-3 3y agoThere is presently no bar whatsoever. Any bar at all is an improvement over what presently exists, wherein: There is a vacuous void.
- hiatus 3y agoIt's one thing to fix things for yourself, and a whole other kind of thing to hold yourself out to the public as an expert in something. Kind of like how you can defend yourself in court but not someone else unless you are a lawyer. Though I would be surprised if the law were written such that you couldn't repair someone else's device, so long as you did not receive compensation for it.
- 3y ago