I'd want:
- Trivially replaceable battery. This means no glue, and ideally means a standardized battery approach to maximize chances of buying a replacement one down the line.
- Putting ports on a separate board than the CPU and ram and such. Physical damage comes to ports, especially charging ports. Having this delegated off board minimizes risk of having to replace something expensive.
- Replacable keyboard and screen. Again, at high risk of damage and should be replaceable
- Removable storage. If your mainboard does fail, smoothest if you can move your SSD over to the replacement main board.
- Commitment to consistent form factor. If 5 years down the line it breaks, I can accept if I can't get *exactly* the same board anymore, but it would be nice if I could just get a new generation board and replace it without letting perfectly adequate screen, keyboard, case go to waste.

So mostly Framework, Lenovo recently did a think with a Thinkpad also exhibiting most of these, except no indication of generation to generation consistency in parts.

On laptops like the ideapads, yes.

I have not seen a ThinkPad where they did this with the keyboard. The commenter was specifically talking about Thinkpad.

Note that this report might be based on perusing websites more than hands on evaluation.

That said, "Lenovo" laptops include the non-thinkpads, which tend to be *terrible* for repair-ability. For example, in many cases they don't consider the keyboard to be a part worthy of keeping replaceable without replacing half of the laptop, despite it being one of the most likely things for a user to break. You can get third-party parts that is just the keyboard, but you have to destroy a lot of plastic welds to even try, and there was never a design to put it really back together after you did that.

The Thinkpads tend to do pretty well, though increasingly the cpu and memory are "just part of the board now", but honestly that's just the direction of that industry in general. We are pushing physics, it's harder for us to do modular RAM at the speeds we want to interact with the RAM, LPCAMM is a thing, but even then you just have a single LPCAMM and it's less about 'repair' and more about being able to have different memory amounts by swapping the module out.

Couldn't find actual details on *which* models they looked at.

If you look at the non-ThinkPad Lenovo laptops... They are complete shit for repairability.

The ThinkPads on the other hand tend to be very very good.

But other issues make me wonder about their competency in writing the report. Notably they give Lenovo a "lobbying penalty" for being a member of a group that fights right to repair but gives Motorola a pass for not being in those groups.... Lenovo and Motorola are the same company, and they don't seem to realize that.

It's not out of date, it's a simplification.

They don't innately understand their capabilities, but information about it's own capabilities may be fed explicitly into it by other means, just like any other data you want to endeavor to put into the context.

The concept of asking if it implements a certain behavior and either it's deliberately lying or it's not actually there relies upon a false assumption that of course it has innate knowledge of it's own implementation without any "help".

The core relevant issue is that the LLMs will generate an answer based on no data. Instead of "Information on that one way or the other is not available to the model" it sees the answer most consistent with the narrative to be "Those behaviors do not exist". LLMs tend to generate output that implies confidence regardless of whether there should be confidence or not. The workaround has been to try to do everything possible to make sure there is actual data in the context window and hope it just doesn't come up that much, but this is only so possible. Some coding has the opportunity to use test cases to add "the output given failed to work" automatically to the narrative to drive iteration and maybe get further.

They did, but it's never too late to cheapen how they're current stuff is produced.

Still, I think they know all too well that mainframe is "stuck" doing it the way they always have done it.

If you are diabetic, sure. Otherwise, you obviously haven't known anyone who has tried to get this as a weight control solution and deal with insurance that absolutely doesn't want to pay for that stuff.

Here's the thing, some folks do the discipline and keep a healthy weight, but they are basically always feeling hunger. Some people don't feel it but some people are having to constantly fight sensation of hunger, with a respite of a little bit after a meal, and almost never feeling 'full'.

If we had something to tame the rather depressive experience of constantly denying one's hunger because you know in your mind that you got the nutrition and caloric intake you need, but your body wants to eat your way to obesity.

Problem is that the only viable market for mainframe are current mainframe customers, who are so change averse that if you even hint at breaking compatibility they will be triggered to start evaluating *all* their options if they are faced with a potential migration anyway.

IBM may love the idea of shuttering their in-house stuff in favor of massively cheap commodity stuff, but they would absolutely no longer command mainframe margins.

Indeed. And yet Stephen Miller is still gonna have a tremendous fit. Probably more so.

OK. But I'm pretty sure that generation could have gone to the moon 11 years after without the spousal abuse as well.

You assume that a standards document exists and is also sufficiently specific for all scenarios. Other than some very fundamental IETF stuff have I seen a standards document that pretty much covers the scope specifically. Even more severely, "specifications" for an internal project have been so traditionally bad, a whole methodology cropped up basically saying that getting specifications that specifically correct is a waste of time because during the coding it will turn out to not be workable.

Yes, it can write hundreds of tests, but if the same mediocre engine that can't code it right is also generating tests, the tests will be mediocre. Leading to bizarre things like a test case to make sure '1234' comes back as 'abcd' and the function just always returns the fixed string 'abcd' and passes the test because it decided to make a test and pass it instead of trying to implement the logic. I have seen people almost superstitiously add to a prompt "and test everything to make sure it's correct" and declare "that'll fix the problems". The superstitious prompting is a big problem in my mind, that people think they add a magic phrase and suddenly the LLM won't make the mistakes LLMs tend to make. I have seen people take an LLM at their word when the LLM "promises" to not make a specific mistake, and then confounded the first time they hit the LLM making the mistake anyway. "It specifically said it wouldn't do that!", it doesn't understand promises, the thing just will generate the 'consistent' followup to a demand for a promise which is text indicating making the promise.

Take the experiment where they took Opus 4.6 and made it produce a C compiler. To do so, the guy at Anthropic said point blank he had to invest a great deal of effort in a test harness, that the process needed an already working gcc to use as a reference on top of that, and specified the end game as a bootable, compiled kernel. Even then he had to intervene to fix it and it couldn't do the whole thing and when people reviewed the published result, it failed to compile other valid code and managed to compile things that shouldn't have been compilable. This is Anthropic with their best model doing a silly stunt to create a knock off of an existing open source project with full access to said project and source code and *still* it being a lot of human work for mediocre output.

Yes, it has utility, but there's a lot of people overestimating capabilities and underestimating risks and it's hard for the non-technical decision makers to tell the difference until much further down the line. Mileage varies greatly depending on the nature of the task at hand as to whether LLM is barely useful at all or it can credibly almost generate the whole thing.

It's bad for your health if you care about the work. It might be less bad if you just don't give a damn how crappy the output is or if it's at all useful or not.

Well, it kind of sucks to have an idea to contribute and no way to contribute because you have to be invited by someone before you can offer...

The problem is volume.

Just like AI slop content isn't generally that much worse than human slop that flooded the services, at *least* the human slop required more effort to generate than it takes a person to watch, and that balance meant the slop was obnoxious, but the amount was a bit more limited and easier to ignore.

Now the LLM enables those same people that make insufferable slop to generate orders of magnitude more slop than they could before. Complete with companies really egging them on to make as much slop as they possibly can.

LLM can be useful for generating content, but it is proportionally *way* better at generating content for content creators that don't care about their content.

Which for self-directed people is an easy-ish solution, don't let the LLM far off a leash if you use it at all. Problem is micromanaging executives that are all in and demanding to see some volume of LLM usage the way they think is correct (little prompt, large amounts of code).