
Samsung confirms it will render the US Note 7 useless with next update - gnicholas
http://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2016/12/9/13897794/samsung-galaxy-note-7-update-shut-down-inoperable
======
jmcdiesel
Is this supposed to be ok?

~~~
elmerfud
Of course it's not OK, but it's not really shocking either. The vast majority
of people have accepted the non-ownership ideas that have been pushed for the
last 30 years. Because these phones are potentially dangerous, people accept
it as reasonable.

This is just another small step toward total non-ownership, and the
destruction of private property rights. Kitchen fires burn down more homes
than an S7 but we don't ban people having kitchens. There was many small steps
leading up to this and there will be many after it and people will be happy to
give up all personal property rights.

~~~
dvdhnt
What personal property rights?

None of us really own anything, anymore, at least in the most developed
countries (that's my only point of reference).

I/e the government can seize even the wealthiest's assets with minimum effort.
You don't really own your home, if you're lucky enough to partake in that,
because as soon as you fail to pay taxes consistently, they take it. Then
again, failure to abide by homeowner's association by-laws can cause your home
to be taken away in some circumstances.

Even your car, your bed, your tv... you "own" it until you have no place to
put it; then it's just trash or free-stuff for those who come after you.

It's quite fitting if you ask me, given that we're all basically leasing
everything down to the atoms that make us up, all to be returned upon our
death.

What's most frightening to me is the pretense of personal property rights. It
hangs out in the back of most people's minds, encouraging them to resist
communal ideals like universal basic income and true public healthcare (at
least in the US). So, once something incredible happens, like a house fire,
cancer, unauthorized government seizure, etc., we're left to fend for
ourselves when these issues would be minor if we were all working together.

That said, IMO, if we're going to have a pretense of property rights, then we
need to have inalienable property rights, but if those rights are indeed
destined to remain fragile, we should do away with them now to better prepare
for a world where robots have more jobs than we do.

~~~
jmcdiesel
"What's most frightening to me is the pretense of personal property rights. It
hangs out in the back of most people's minds, encouraging them to resist
communal ideals like universal basic income and true public healthcare (at
least in the US). So, once something incredible happens, like a house fire,
cancer, unauthorized government seizure, etc., we're left to fend for
ourselves when these issues would be minor if we were all working together."

While that's a great utopian idea ... it never works in practice, and it turns
out pretty horrible.

Because you have to justify why someone should work hard to contribute, or why
anyone should work harder than the next guy... if the outcome of doing as
little as possible to get by is the same as the outcome of busting your ass
every day - everyone will do the former and society would stagnate pretty
quick...

As much negative weight people put on property, ownership and just about
everything anti-socialist/communist ... its the system of reward for effort
that drives innovation. Profit drives change.

~~~
dvdhnt
> While that's a great utopian idea

I'm not describing a system without reward, quite the contrary.

For one, basic universal income is cheaper than patch-work social programs
because it ensures continuity in fiscal planning, ensures that a minimum
amount of money is in circulation and being spent (as a result of additional
monetary policy), and helps to curb loan defaults and unpaid bills (feeding
back into the first point).

> Because you have to justify why someone should work hard to contribute, or
> why anyone should work harder than the next guy... busting your ass every
> day - everyone will do the former and society would stagnate pretty quick

Busting your ass to get ahead is an American exaggeration at this point. In
general, most employees just get by. I've seen this in the military and
private sector. Oppenheimer didn't do atomic research for monetary gains, nor
did Einstein, because in the end, they didn't get it, especially O. Plato,
Socrates, Galileo, Turing... most people who push the boundaries towards
change do so because they want to. Change for the sake of money generally goes
terribly wrong; the British empire, fracking, etc. Then again, we can pick and
choose on both sides.

> it never works in practice, and it turns out pretty horrible.

And if we're being honest, this has never been tried. Yes, communism spread
during the cold war, but it was opposed overtly and covertly from all sides,
and from within, by capitalists. Plus, communism isn't true socialism; we've
only seen the rise of greedy parties and dictators enforcing socialism for
their own gain, profiting more than their people.

The only true socialism/communism to exist comes in the form of insects, who
consistently outnumber us by trillions.

~~~
jmcdiesel
> Busting your ass to get ahead is an American exaggeration at this point. In
> general, most employees just get by

Exactly my point. Now imagine an entire country full of nothing BUT that.
Imagine no Elon Musk driving electric cars forward, or space travel.

Answer me this question about what you perceive as the ideal system: Why would
you remove a system which rewards effort, and replace it with a system that
rewards everyone the same, regardless of effort.

~~~
dvdhnt
> Why would you remove a system which rewards effort, and replace it with a
> system that rewards everyone the same, regardless of effort.

Alright, so a couple of things. First, I think we're starting off with
different evaluations of the current system, or at least, different
valuations. Either way, let's agree to disagree on its value.

I don't believe the current system rewards effort as consistently as we're led
to believe. More so, it rewards workers according to the value they produce
and to whom. For example, while a garbage collector's service is invaluable to
me, he is almost always paid less than a marketing manager for say Coca Cola,
who provides zero value for me. There's an obvious gap between private and
public employment in terms of pay. Then, factor in entrenched biases such as
gender and race, you'll find a lot more pay inequality there that disputes
people being paid based on "effort".

What the system does a great job of, as your comments actually do a good job
of highlighting, is allow people to believe that most of the time, their
effort can get them ahead regardless of their current circumstance. And, not
to totally disagree with you, this is true if you're the marketing manager for
Coke. However, this is unlikely to be true for the garbage man, as in his/her
current course of work, there is an undisputed glass ceiling.

Given that the top is far heavier than the bottom, then as long as I am
classed somewhere in the plain 99%, I will always favor a more equitable
distribution. Not only because it benefits me more directly, but because I
just find it more ethical. I believe this because of how often chance plays
into success. The most successful people often claim that their station in
life was achieved through both luck and hard work. We have no control over
where or when we were born, and due to existing laws, cultural phenomenons,
and other external factors, it's not as simple as moving here or doing that.

We really have to quantify the overall output rather than individual effort
and doing so is difficult. There is no easy way to calculate the effects of
stress and worry associated with an economy based on capitalism. So, while I
believe universal healthcare, basic income, etc. would alleviate much of the
stress associated with being a citizen, I can't really prove it because there
is no answer as to how detrimental it is in the current system. However, I
will say that we've seen articles written recently on how the rich go back to
work because of x, y, and z; in my scenario, there really isn't "rich", so I
hope that most of us would find the satisfaction in a job well done that was
once indicative of community.

Additionally, I just think that below the math it makes reasonable sense.
Whereas we see averages distorting things. For example, 4 workers in a
capitalist economy average an effort (or good job) of 75% because the one go-
getter really wants a promotion. In reality 25% (his products) are awesome,
but 50% of them are mediocre because of the 2 average employees, while the
last 25% are horrible because the fourth employee knows he'll never be as good
as the first resulting in 25% of the products being unusable. Yes, he'll be
fired and replaced, but it doesn't do anything to actually fix the problem.
I'm hoping that if all 4 employees are well taken care of, in the vein of
Google, and are no longer worried about that promotion or raise, each can at
least do an average job, some may even do a great job based on pride or skill
level. In the end we have products that are about the same, if not better, in
quality without the emotional distress.

Finally, while it may not seem like it, there definitely should be some kind
of consequence for those who refuse to contribute. My ideal system requires a
hardline level of acceptability. There shouldn't be anything wrong with
minimally-acceptable effort as long as we do a good job of setting that floor
initially.

