This is a valid retort. But let us not think that lawyers are struggling: once they get to be a "partner" in a firm they are likely making $1 million/year. And the entire context of the discussion is that they aren't relying on staff like they used to. Back in 1980, a lawyer had staff members who ran down to the court house to get documents, bring them back, photocopy them, staple them, file them, make phone calls. Now all of that is 100% automated, plus now they have AI.

I'm not sure the legal overhead is quite what it used to be.

Disclaimers like this apply to Excel, TurboTax, GCC, ChatGPT, and more: The user is ultimately responsible for the application. The manufacturers always disclaim responsibility.

You can get companies to stand behind products and accept liability or sign a Business Associate Agreement - but you are going to have to put it in a contract and pay extra for it. This is why the product you buy at Home Depot and the one the government/military/NASA buys has a very big price difference even if it is the exact same part.

Every industry does this.

From Housing inspectors and plumbers, to software products - it is super common. I just had plumber put this into their contract for replacing a cast-iron drain with PVC. Then I had the tub reglazed and they did the same thing. There are often two prices, based on if you want a guarantee behind it or not. I paid a structural engineer to inspect the foundation of my prior to purchase. While he said the cracks were normal setting, the price was $200 for the inspection + verbal assessment, or $600 to put it in writing and stand behind it. In the last two weeks I've gotten this same thing from a tax preparer and a property attorney. Free advice from the tax preparer, but if we want him to file it and sign it there was a price. The attorney told me what to say in court, but quoted me a price to put it on his letterhead or to show up and say it.

Half the world runs on VBA for Office applications (or used to, it's probably less now), and VBA for Office has never been officially supported by Microsoft. You're on your own if you choose to use it.

In what other industry can you say,
"We think our product is great/safe/reliable/... but no we absolutely won't stand behind it if anything goes wrong." and have that no impact the marketability.
I am not talking legal or anything like that, just purely from a sales and customer relationship perspective.

Just imagine a GM ad;

"The 2026 Silverado our most capable pickup ever!" - Read in deep dramatic voice
"Remember Chevrolote Silverado models are for entertainment purposely" -Read as the image fades to black in higher pitch at 2x speed.

  It would be scandal..but when Microsoft does it, hardly anyone even blinks.

https://emetonline.org/resourc...

https://www.icanw.org/what_you...

https://armscontrolcenter.org/...

"No user serviceable parts inside"

Or, in simple English, repair requires skill, training, knowledge, some combination of the three, beyond that a regular and common user would possess.

It also works, in the real world, to identify some product that can not, in fact, be repaired at the component level, either due to physical reality (epoxy potted components come to mind) or the manufacturer's inability to source the required components (third-part complex parts, I could offer examples which should be obvious to anyone able to make an argument from knowledge).

Sometimes this is more a statement of reality than an attempt at obfuscation. 'cause some stuff cannot be 'fixed', and the average user would not even understand why.

Disclaimer - I fully support Right to Repair. I also acknowledge the reality that some stuff is really difficult. And in the example from TFA, We are generally talking about equipment that is not so much 'repaired' as either replaced at the subassembly level, or more likely, in the example, problem-solved in software. You want the right to repair your router's software? Or just access to it after the explicit agreement or arbitrary agreement with the manufacturer says no? As in, you paid for support during the warranty period, but after that expired, the manufacturer soon abandoned software support...? Read the EULA. Ask the State to force them to do whatever the State decided to do. Watch innovation die.

"So, let the companies retain their monopoly over repair and then regulate that repair business"

Your solution is the highest abuse of rent-seeking for the ostensible purpose of 'making things right'.

And this is how government destroys our lives, beyond even the efforts of 'those evil corporations' that are assumed to exit merely to exploit us.

Your proposal is the opposite of liberty. It substitutes the State for the Corporation. And diminishes us further with no benefit, because the State will act in its own interest. The solution is less of the State, more of the individual. Right to Repair does this better than regulating repair.

I was there, three thousand years ago...

Ok, well it was only ~35 years ago, but I well remember cobbling together installable floppy images from Usenet to get Linux running on my 486DX with a bunch of GNU utilities. This took many hours of downloads and preparation over a dial-up connection, but this was the only way to install because even SLS hadn't come out with a coherent Linux distribution yet.

My 486 system had a whopping 4MB of RAM with a 200MB hard drive (my first). I massively overpaid for it and charged it all on my shiny new Circuit City credit card while I was still in college.

At my student job, I had an awesome, monochrome DECstation 3100 running Ultrix 3.1, so the thought of being able to run UNIX at home was just awesome.

Those were the days. :)

My first Linux installation was Redhat 3.03 on a 16MHz 386/SX system in mid-1995. For those of you without an AARP card, that's a 32 bit CPU with a 16 bit bus, which Intel released to cannibalize the market for the 286, which did not have a memory management unit. That means no swapping, you run out of ram, it was game over.

I think the 486/25 that replaced the 386/SX arrived in ... 1996 ... and it had an astonishing *eight megabytes* of memory. I had kept a one megabyte LIM/EMS 4.0 physical memory card from my 286 when I got the 386/SX, and that actually mattered with Windows 3.x. I put it in the 486, but given that vast eight megabyte expanse of dram it didn't last long.

Then in late 1997 my employer went bankrupt and as part of the dissolution I brought home the dual Pentium 133 system with 32 megabytes of ram. I remember all my IRC friends were so jealous of that monster ...

Not really...

Almost all IoT devices work by phoning home. They call some remote server, and do some API stuff, send some message poll for new messages / instructions. They tend to have very little if anything listening.

If they do get onwd its because the infrastructure that supports them gets compromised, at which point its really the infrastructure that was hacked and not the device. The other thing that happens - all the gosh darn time - is what ever little web based interface they have for setting up wifi/IP settings/etc is some terrible CGI thing with some form of injection vulnerability. Again though if that gets pwnt, it is only after some ofther failure of your internal network security. That is a concern, I understand defense in depth, I get foothold and dwell time issues, However a newer kernel won't prevent that kind of compromise. Lack of shell escaping on calls to system() or bad choices around using eval() will get you popped on Linux 7.0 as easily as 2.0.

spending effort to maintain support for stuff nobody is using is not reasonable. Would you write a book, if you were certain nobody would ever read it or even want to?

Don't say "but what about a diary," even a private diary generally has one intended audience if it is the author themselves, for their own recollection.

writing software that no computer will ever run makes very little sense, even from an educational standpoint.

- as to the hidden breakage. Probably not much, because if you don't know about those 486s lurking out there, you are not updating the firmware/OS/other software on them either, and they will continue humming a long as they have until something else breaks.

This is a part everyone seems to miss when the get freaked out about Linux itself or some distribution dropping support for something 30 years old...

In 2026 if you are still using a computer older than mid-90s (and very more than likely even one from after the mid 90s) it is because it is part of some very specific process that almost certainly has you not making changes, which are almost certain to include software changes too.

Just because Linux 7.x can't be built for i486 any more does not stop you from grabbing any prior version and using that. Thinking about 486s specifically, I know there are actually a lot of odd things like hardened industrialized PCs and some routers and the like running licensed 486 cores and late manufacturing Intel parts; that are still in use. You can even still buy some new. It would not surprise me to learn people are running Linux on a good number of them, it would surprise me to learn people are running Linux newer than 5.10 or 5.15 on them. Even in the most exotic memory configurations a 486 is going to top out at 3.5GBs of memory, I guess you could do nearer to 4GB on a ISA only system (No PCI or VLB). You really going burn 16MB or more of that just on the kernel?

Let's be real if you are running a 468 you are probably using using Linux 2.0 - 2.6 already. Not being able to use 7 hardly affects you.

Oh, and I forgot one thing. Iran is quite proud of the amount of enriched uranium it already has, which has reached the point where it would take less than weeks, perhaps to enrich it to weapons grade. If you were paying attention, you could be confused as to why Iran has any enriched uranium that approaches weapons grade, when it's previously agreed not to do so, that it was sanctioned for doing so, and now it claims it has a right to do so in opposition to widespread agreement that it should not by other nations. By its own words. It's telling you that sanctions weren't effective and that they were ignored or subverted. You wanted evidence, listen to Iran's leadership itself if you would.

Source: Council on Foreign Relations https://share.google/QgdoNXHS0...

Iran Sanctions: Fact or Fiction | UANI https://share.google/aqXycKz6t...

Iran’s Response to Sanctions? Ignore Them | The Washington Institute https://share.google/BnGQ9tcN0...

There is more.