Actually, in the past few years it has been discovered that nicotine uniquely relieves the negative symptoms of schizophrenia.
It is notable that cigarette smoke includes a MAO inhibitor. We used to use those for depression and still do in refractory cases.
Interestingly, it is the combination of nicotine and the MAOI that makes cigarettes so addictive. The nicotine alone really isn't that hard to taper down and then off (though it might take a while). The patch might actually work if it delivered enough nicotine to help cover the loss of the MAOI initially.
Yes, though where suffering has happened, we tend to go well out of our way to find some reason the person deserved it. Often then stretching further to find justification for even more.
Of course, a lot of that low value is because the batteries and other parts are likely worn out and not replaceable. If car engines were welded together and the hood welded closed, there'd be no resale value in a used car either.
IoT itself doesn't have a lot of legacy software that needs x86. It's all embedded stuff and it's fairly new. It's also common to have the source code and so no problem compiling for whatever architecture is convenient.
No, it really isn't. It's saying that buyers don't have sufficient information for the market to be healthy enough to drive repairability. There's plenty of demand, there's no willingness to supply.
Market failures like that are a good example of when intervention is called for.
I am generally in agreement with you. In this particular case, given government intervention to mandate repairability I do think competition will drive prices down to reasonability (at least to the extent it does now).
In other words, we have a punitive culture. We like to see others suffer.
There does need to be some reasonability there. Sure, component level repair on a PCB is probably too much to ask. But consider the most common reasons consumer electronics need repair: broken screen, dead battery, burned out backlight, worn out/broken buttons and connectors. There is no good excuse for those things not being easily fixed.
Or, it turns out that the throw away culture is universally more profitable for manufacturers so that's what they do. That is, we've hit a false minimum in the process of optimizing the system using the drunkards walk.
In other words, even if the consumer would happily pay $10 more now for a phone that can be repaired, the manufacturer knows they will fork over $800 more in three years if it can't be repaired.
Speaking of not knowing what one is talking about, do you REALLY think industrial screw guns have a little robot hand to pick individual screws up out of a bag or something? It's a long solved problem, and certainly no more expensive than shooting glue through a nozzle (complete with clogs, heating element failures, calibrating the exact amount of glue etc.). Whatever the price difference may be for the screw gun, amortize it over millions of units produced.
It really isn't that expensive to screw the back of an LCD TV on, nor is it expensive to use common off-the-shelf cold cathode tubes that can be easily changed out. For an example.
It's also funny how the expensive products are the ones that go with ultrasonic welding or glued together cases first while the cheap products still have screws. It's almost like they didn't save any money using glue.
Pointless since we already have torx.
I'll see your anecdote and call. I doubled the usable lifetime of my phone which I use as a grown-up tool for communication by replacing the battery when it crapped out.
And for people who use them as social plumage instead, wouldn't it be nice if you could put a new battery in and get some resale value out of that phone that's "so last week"? You could use that to buy an even more prestigious phone.
So greed coupled with a belief that the market doesn't work?
Real Users are afraid they'll break the machine -- but they're never afraid to break your face.