Vendor lock-in on those batteries might not be quite as "lock-y" as other examples of vendor lock-in.
One can buy or print[1] cheap adaptors to use cross-brand batteries.
I wonder if it would be plausible to manufacture/sell a line of generic batteries with easily swappable adaptors for major brands, similar to how some AC/DC adaptors have a replaceable wall socket connection for different countries. Perhaps someone on HN knowledgeable on such things knows if there would be some technical or legal issue with that?
I bought a Dewalt battery -> Ryobi tool converter so I could use their cordless PEX cincher. It works fine. But I left the battery connected for some days (something I do all the time with the Dewalt tools), and it bricked the battery. Presumably it was lacking some sense/control lines, or the adapter had its own large quiescent draw, or maybe that's just the expected behavior for the Ryobi system? Obviously I accept the blame and I won't make that mistake again, but the point is it's not seamless. Also the adapter certainly did affect the weight/balance.
I don't see any hard impediment to making compatible batteries, it just feels like a soft lock in of momentum where it's easiest to go with the flow. I've seen plenty of aftermarket batteries for the major brands, but I don't use up enough batteries where I want to chance them having a very limited lifespan (as Chineseum batteries often do IME). I'd rather pay slightly more for a solid brand and know it will last for several years. And I don't think there are any incentives for the name brands to make batteries that work with each other, especially considering there are only a handful of companies making the major brands.
I've pondered buying more Ryobi tools since I have the means to power them, but then I ask myself if I really need to buy it at all rather than buy lower quality (eg lack of brushless motors). Perhaps that calculus would be different if I had an adapter to Milwaukee and was looking at their tools, but honestly Dewalt has swamped the market with enough different models that the last thing I need is to figure out other company's line (more soft lock in!). And some tools are fine in corded versions from whatever brand, like I'm contemplating a handheld planer and don't see how cordless would be super helpful.
Visual Pinball X [1] is a free modern pinball simulator. It also supports VR, and comes pretty close to feeling like the real thing (sans realistic bumping).
There are hundreds of VPX format tables available online including original works, replicas of physical tables and replicas of existing digital tables. I've played dozens of hours of Stern's Tron Legacy both on a physical table and in Visual Pinball X, and I prefer VPX over the real thing.
There's also a high quality remake of 3D Space Cadet [2] available. Playing that one in VR feels like stepping into a PC in the 90s.
Also if it were intended as "meeting all of the criteria disqualifies you", then part A is completely redundant, isn't it? If B and C are true then A is also true.
As an Australian I agree with you. I would definitely expect several to be more than a few. Most of the time "a few" would mean 3 or 4, to me. "Several" is anywhere from 4 to ~7.
I agree with you on this, at least. The length of time doesn't matter.
I would argue that the only sensible reason for a feeling of guilt is actus reus. I didn't participate in colonisation, I don't feel guilty that my ancestors did, and I'm yet to hear a clear argument for why I should.
It does seem logical to feel guilty if you benefit from the displacement of existing societies to their disadvantage, are aware of that benefit, and don't work to correct it.
I'd also suspect that the violence and inhumanity inflicted during colonisation are, as far as the "how guilty should descendents of colonisers feel" calculation goes, irrelevant. The thing that many of us are personally responsible for and should feel guilty about is shutting our eyes, and not doing enough to correct the inequity that still exists today.
> The thing that many of us are personally responsible for and should feel guilty about is shutting our eyes, and not doing enough to correct the inequity that still exists today.
This is what I meant by the "continued oppression", so we agree with each other.
We agree with each other.
I know some folks who really genuinely believe that Amazon is a force for good, the criticism is exaggerated, will talk about how lucky they are to work for the World's Best Employer, and will get a bit sulky if you say anything negative about the company.
Generally though, I think it's understood that "most customer centric company" doesn't mean "we will put the customer before ourselves because we are such good people", but instead "strategically keeping the customer happy is better for the shareholders in the long run".
It's the same with most of the LPs. They're packaged in a way that makes Amazon sound like this amazing company that really cares, but they boil down to "16 ways YOU can enrich Amazon's shareholders (you won't believe number 15!)".
I've never met anyone that thought the LPs were meant to imply Amazon "really cares". I like Amazon because it seems more straightforward than other companies. It's a business and it wants to make money. The only way I've ever interpreted "customer obsession" is that it's mutually beneficial to do what's best for the customer.
That's exactly it though: it's often (perhaps even usually) not beneficial for Amazon to do what's best for the customer.
What's the point of "Customer Obsession" if it's secondary to "Amazon Obsession"? Doing what's best for the customer unless it isn't also what's best for Amazon is just doing what's best for Amazon.
