Comments by "Mikko Rantalainen" (@MikkoRantalainen) on "Louis Rossmann"
channel.
-
351
-
116
-
95
-
90
-
74
-
58
-
53
-
47
-
28
-
25
-
20
-
17
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think that planned obsolescence as an intentional process is nonsense, too. Manufacturers just optimize to minimize their responsibility and if the device lasts the warranty period, it's no longer the responsibility of the manufacturer.
Ask for warranty periods where it starts to make sense for the manufacturer to repair things to honor the warranty and things will get better automatically.
If it's cheaper for the manufacturer to replace your whole device in case of warranty instead of repairing it, they will give zero effort to make the device easier to repair. This is result of most devices being good enough to last the warranty period so having the replace a single device in case of rare incident, it's cheaper overall to just give a full new device in case of even a minor failure.
And as a bonus, most people actually like to have fully new device in case they hit any warranted failure. For example, Bose is known to give you full new device in original factory package in case of any error in their products. They can sell their products with extra premium because their customers can trust that in case of problems, they will get a totally new replacement no questions asked.
Of course, that requires that the warranty is really strict about what's covered and what's not or everybody is going to receive new devices which would get too expensive for the manufacturer to continue.
If you accept e.g. a smartphone that has one year warranty for the hardware and software support is EOL'd 18–24 months after the release, you're part of the problem!
That said, the fact that manufacturers are allowed to hide the tools needed to do repairs is the biggest issue with right-to-repair. But it has nothing to do with planned obsolescence.
1
-
7:15 I think clerical errors are going to happen in future, too. You cannot avoid that. However, you could have a sensible system where you cannot have lien or warranty set on you or your business without you being immediately aware of it. And when you're aware of it, you can object the clerical error. As such, this whole thing is not the result of one clerical error but systematic failure of the system as a whole. You just were unlucky to be the one that suffered from this one error.
I've been watching a lot of videos by Mentour Pilot and aviation industry doesn't even pretend that the employees never make mistakes, no matter how much training they have. Extra training can only reduce failure rate, not eliminate it. Instead, the whole system is designed on the basis that errors happen but those errors can be catched before people start to suffer. Of course, if you're unlucky enough to have 3, 4 or 5 independent failures occurring simultaneously, things can still go sour. But with a good system design, you can at least avoid single point of failure.
It's clear that that the system had single point of failure where single clerical error can mess up your life for 7 years until you finally accidentally noticed it!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Increasing hours just makes things worse. Here in Finland, children are usually in the school for 6 hours a day and 5 days a week. And for those 6 hours, they get 15 minute break every hour so it's really 6 x 45 minutes per day from monday to friday. With 2.5 month holiday for the summer and 1 week holiday for the autumn, 2 week for the xmas, and 1 week holiday for the spring. Homework needs maybe 15-30 minutes per day and that's all. And Finland used to have really good results in the PISA tests around year 2005. The curriculum details have since changed a bit and results are a bit worse but the length of education or the amount of homework hasn't been changed. I'm not sure if the worse behavior is caused by minor curriculum changes or the use of smartphones in classrooms –in addition, one big change in Finland since 2005 has been integrating special education into normal classrooms without extra resources for the teacher of the normal classroom. I would guess this might be the real cause for worse results in recent years. It was done on the basis that it would improve understanding between "normal" people and "special" people but schools assumed it was cost minimization technique and just reduced staff instead of having one normal teacher and one special ed teacher per class. In practice, the normal teachers were expected to do everything they used to do and, in addition, do all the stuff the special ed teachers did previously.
The minimum education for teachers in Finland is Master's degree from university, which obviously helps, too. And Finland doesn't have any private schools in practice and parents don't get to choose the school children go because all the schools follow the same curriculum with similar requirements for teachers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I partially agree the John Deere line with emission controls. Diesel engines do emit sooth particles and NOx emissions without special tweaks. I'd argue that sooth particles do not matter a bit on rural areas because it's only carbon and is not a problem in small amounts per area. As such, DPF can safely be bypassed. NOx emissions are problematic no matter where it's emitted around the globe so I agree that deleting NOx emission controls is a bad thing in all cases. However, that doesn't mean that engine control unit couldn't clear the error codes from the user interface. The most important NOx emission control system is EGR and the system can figure out in maybe 10 seconds if it doesn't work while the engine is running. So allow do clearing the codes but maybe reduce the engine power when EGR system has failed. That would allow completing the workday with the tractor but would put some incentive to actually fix the EGR. (Usually this requires replacing the EGR valve and I think a competent farmer could do that in 15 minutes unless John Deere has even worse design than VW car diesel engines which I assume is unlikely.)
As for the software, the problem is not the required software but the protocol between the computer and the tractor. Again, speaking with experience with VW car software, there VW has a secret protocol handshake which is required until you can speak to all controllers. Other than that, the interface follows publicly available standards with different settings channels (basically memory addresses to software engineer) and values for those channels (basically memory values to software engineer). If these protocol handshakes and channels were publicly documented, there would be no need for the OEM software. Basically the required info is along the lines: "Engine Control Unit has identifier 01, the subchannel 13 is the turbo boost, unit is absolute mbar as integer". If you want to monitor real time turbo boost, you connect to the CAN BUS (the standard part of this whole system), do the SECRET handshake, connect to unit 01 and select channel 13 and read the value. If it says e.g. 1325 you know that the current boost pressure is 325 mbar above the atmosphere or about 4.7 psi boost pressure for US readers. Reading through all channels would allow creating a backup of the current configuration and if the owner then messes something up while tuning the control unit, all values could just be restored from backup.
For VW, Audi, Skoda and Seat (all manufactured by VAG), you can use software called VCDS by Rosstech where the founder of Rosstech reverse engineered the secret handshake and created business by selling MUCH cheaper software than VAG to do every thing that the OEM programming unit can do, too. And the VCDS has superior user interface compared to official unit. As such, Rosstech is doing much better work than VAG. However, if the protocol (including the secret handshake) were public then we would see much more software developers creating tools to program VAG cars. Currently we have the official VAG tools and Rosstech VCDS, but I think company called OBDeleven has also completed the reverse engineering part to create their own tools. In the end, the secret part of the protocol DOES NOT prevent 3rd party developers from creating software, it only raises the bar to do so and increases costs for all customers.
I think John Deere should be totally okay with setup where user must unlock their tractor by requesting serial number specific unlock code to remove all secret handshakes and control unit locks. John Deere could require user to accept that warranty is void if the unlock is completed. Some Android manufacturers already do this. For example, to unlock any Sony smartphone, just follow the official instructions at https://developer.sony.com/develop/open-devices/get-started/unlock-bootloader/ - there's absolute no reason why tractors or cars couldn't work the same.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1