The reason is simply that there are not enough incentives for manufacturers to do so. I would be happy if nothing on smartphones was glued together but everything was screwed or plugged in, and if I could simply replace batteries in smartphones and laptops, as was the case in the past. If these things are not made mandatory requirements, the thinner device, the lighter device, the device where the manufacturer can use battery life as the upper limit for device life will win.

I don't know anything about chips and boards, but in the EU, a regulation will come into force in 2027 that requires batteries in portable devices to be replaceable by the user without special tools.

If my grandmother had wheels, she would've been a bike.

Apparently, there's this guy who's really good at optimizing computer performance and makes a lot of money doing it. At the same time, he writes mediocre school essays that are actually a bit embarrassing. Guys, if you have the opportunity to land a very well-paid job, then do it. Take the money. Live your life. But please spare us the public self-castration.

I apologize for the obscenity. I hope it's clear that I was trying to make a point in relation to the article.

Ignore the downvotes, this group is finicky.

> ... so far I found out that looking at it as a chaotic thermodynamic-like system makes the most sense.

What do you mean, you found that out? And what does that have to do with anything?

> So in regards to this economic issue, it seems that human personality traits that lead to disproportionate power/influence/money are distributed non-uniformly to an extreme extent.

To me, that doesn't sound like an observation, but rather an interpretation. We could apply various epistemological carpet beaters to see what remains. One would be the critique of ideology. A few others can be found in the philosophy of science. It also seems to contradict your reference to thermodynamics. Wouldn't that mean that personality traits don't play a role at all? We don't look at individual particles, and certainly not at their personality traits.

> Humans themselves are a specie with disproportionate power & influence compared to other species, so I think it would only make sense if this trait would also apply within the specie.

I cannot understand this conclusion at all. Why should the structural relationship to other species be reflected within the species itself?

> I cannot understand this conclusion at all. Why should the structural relationship to other species be reflected within the species itself?

It's all an interpretation, never claimed it to be anything beyond a thinking model I like.

> To me, that doesn't sound like an observation, but rather an interpretation. We could apply various epistemological carpet beaters to see what remains. One would be the critique of ideology. A few others can be found in the philosophy of science. It also seems to contradict your reference to thermodynamics. Wouldn't that mean that personality traits don't play a role at all? We don't look at individual particles, and certainly not at their personality traits.

No we don't, but I don't think it's necessarily because we don't want to, but because we often can't. Nevertheless, I think my rationale still applies. For example, if you take a bunch of matter, for example water, you'd find out that the distribution of Deuterium and definitely Tritium is really "unfair". Why only so few particles get to have that extra neutron and others do not?

> I cannot understand this conclusion at all. Why should the structural relationship to other species be reflected within the species itself?

It doesn't necessarily have to but: 1. It seems to have been very favorable trait evolutionally to force your will on other species. I'm no brain nor social expert but it seems to me that in order to stop this trait internally, there would need to be some pretty strong inhibitors to counter that. 2. Regardless of the species claim, you can see the pattern of exceptional individuals with disproportionate influence in many other places in nature: queen bees, pack leaders, and human kings of sorts. in I think practically every culture on earth in recorded history?

I really struggle to think of any mass systems, in human society or nature in which power is not distributed disproportionally to a relatively small portion of individuals.

> never claimed it to be anything beyond a thinking model I like.

Sorry, but if that's your yardstick for acceptable models of thought, then only nonsense can come out of it. No one has any reason to take any of your thoughts seriously if you don't question your own thinking more critically.

> Why only so few particles get to have that extra neutron and others do not?

This has nothing to do with thermodynamics and even less to do with unfairness. It's a completely meaningless analogy. You might as well just flip it around and say that it's good that so few particles have to carry around that annoying extra neutron, or whatever. If you're going to draw any conclusions about humans from this, you might as well read coffee grounds or clouds or animal bones scattered on the forest floor. That's not thinking!

I have people like that in my personal circle. They're not exactly the brightest minds.

Edit: A queen bee is simply fed in a special way during the larval stage. Ultimately, it doesn't matter which larva is selected for this purpose. That said, it is also wrong to imagine her as an actual queen or as the CEO of the bees. She does not rule over the other bees but is simply responsible for laying eggs. If you wanted to, you could see from this example that your thinking does not proceed from premises to conclusions, but rather begins with conclusions and then rather loosely gathers together premises that might fit.

To supplement the thermodynamic reference with a more benevolent interpretation:

What can certainly be done, and what has already been done quite productively, is to transfer the thermodynamic concept of entropy to other areas. The first thing that comes to mind is Shannon's information entropy. But there is also Georgescu-Roegen's bioeconomic entropy, social entropy in the social sciences, and some (rather speculative and perhaps primarily metaphorical) concepts of psychological and psychodynamic entropy.

However, I do not think that if one were to zoom in further in these areas, one would find hard evidence for the worldview that is seeking justification here.

> If we remove from life everything that people have access to by industrialization and mass production, then many or most people would say that "society" has collapsed.

I agree.

But I'm not convinced by the next paragraph. You present it as if it were a matter of 0 or 1. But I don't see any good reason why taxation shouldn't be used to make adjustments without immediately collapsing the entire incentive structure for investment. Less profit is still profit. If this argument were valid, there would be no large industries in countries that tax companies more heavily than the US.

No country which I am aware of taxes companies for reinvesting profit and for growing. On the contrary, some countries instead give tax breaks to industries if they are large enough. And these are socialist countries.

Thinking about how incredibly many factors have to come together right for a giant business or industry of any kind to be able to exist, I understand that governments are very careful to not poke them with too many sticks. Their products and services exports (and imports) are an incredibly valuable bargaining chip in foreign politics. The only other significant bargaining chip which nations usually have are military threats, and that isn't a pleasant road to travel.

Yes, I understand what you're saying, and I agree with you: promoting growth and reinvestment are essential parts of a functioning economic and industrial policy. But that doesn't mean we have to tolerate massive and harmful wealth inequality, or that the only alternative is an aggressive foreign policy. I mean, what is the implication here? “Leave the super-rich alone, otherwise the economy will collapse like a soufflé if we don't go to war instead”? If that is the final conclusion of economic competence, then everything is going down the drain anyway.

> the gigantic prices of real estate and rent, created by the monetary system being based on real estate instead of productivity

Rents are expensive because real estate is expensive. Real estate is a good store of value. The massive accumulation of surplus wealth among a small portion of society has led to an increased demand for stores of value. Someone looking for a house to live in competes not only with others who want to live in it, but above all with the super-rich who want the property as a store of value. That's why real estate is expensive.

> Wouldn't building a rocket to go to Mars for example be such an endeavour, which is bigger than chasing the imaginary dollar number?

That's conceivable. But I don't see the space science fiction of Le Guine or Asimov being realized in the activities of Musk and Bezos. To me, the whole thing seems more like an awkward dick measuring contest. The awkward situation with Shatner was a good example of how hollow and superficial this whole thing is. These people could go down in history as benefactors and heroes of humanity. But they don't have the guts for that. Either they launch rockets or go to the gym or sit with Joe Rogan or try to undermine democracy and replace it with a neo-feudalist hell.

Edit: I agree with you that we don't necessarily have to focus on the billionaires who are so prominent in the public eye. Below them, there is a larger class of super-rich people who have their fortunes managed for them, never lift a finger in their entire lives, and yet still attract an ever-increasing share of society's overall wealth.

> That's conceivable. But I don't see the space science fiction of Le Guine or Asimov being realized in the activities of Musk and Bezos. To me, the whole thing seems more like an awkward dick measuring contest. The awkward situation with Shatner was a good example of how hollow and superficial this whole thing is. These people could go down in history as benefactors and heroes of humanity. But they don't have the guts for that.

SpaceX has done a huge amount of engineering work in making the cost to get mass into orbit significantly cheaper, more reliable, and more routine. Elon Musk is, on a personal level, because of the sort of company he chose to build after becoming wealthy, absolutely responsible for bringing humanity closer to a future imagined in space science fiction.

That hasn't aged well in the last few days, has it? Unless your space science fiction is of the dark variety.

> The complexity about XML comes from the many additional languages and tools built on top of it.

It's not just that, is it? There are also attributes versus child elements, dealing with white space including the xml:space attribute, namespaces, schemas, integration of external document fragments with xinclude:include or &extern;. Each of these is a huge can of worms in its own right. There are probably more that I'm not even aware of right now.

A few years ago, I wrote a fully functional parser for JSON that is easy to verify for correctness and that isn't just lying around somewhere as a toy, but is actually used (by me) in various projects time and again. Overall, building this parser was almost trivial. With XML, I'm not even sure I would be able to write a correct and complete parser.

But I agree with you that XML-based languages and XML tools make things even worse. I had to work with XML a lot over ten years ago. I still get annoyed when I think about XSLT, or dealing with schemas, or the challenge of finding usable tools that are reasonably compliant with standards.

You can only have a positive view of XML when you think of something like this:

    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
    <booklist>
      <book>
        <title>Example Book</title>
        <author>Max Mustermann</author>
        <year>2025</year>
      </book>
      <book>
        <title>Second Book</title>
        <author>Erika Musterfrau</author>
        <year>2026</year>
      </book>
    </booklist>

And at that level, I have (almost) no problem with XML. But as soon as things get more demanding and you really take the various aspects of XML's value proposition seriously, you enter a world of pain and despair. At least, that's how it was for me back then. Maybe I would see things differently today, but I'm not really interested in finding out.

First, you're describing the parsing side, while the message I was replying to claimed that it can't be written by hand.

Anyhow, schemas, XInclude and even namespaces are what I was referring to as additional languages of tools.

In your application you use them if you want, they're not really part of XML.

Of course even a parser for plain XML is a lot more complex than one for JSON, but people usually use libraries for that...

In any case, in your application nothing prevents you from using a dumbed-down version of XML, without entities, white space handling, and even only looking at elements and attributes; there were some applications that did that.

That already gives you a format that's easier to read and write manually than json.

I had more to say about "attributes versus child elements", but it's taking me too much time, I'll probably do that tomorrow.

I think I understand your point. I only brought parsing into play to illustrate that XML is complicated, not because it's my general focus. I wouldn't classify namespaces, etc. as additional languages and tools, but that's beside the point.

> in your application nothing prevents you from using a dumbed-down version of XML

That's right. And if XML were exactly that, then there wouldn't be so many people frustrated with it. Unfortunately, in a professional work context, you don't always have control over whether it stays within this manageable subset. Sometimes the less pleasant aspects simply come into play, and then you have to deal with the whole complicated mess.

> It's designed to be written by hand

Are you sure about that? I've heard XML gurus say the exact opposite.

This is a very good example of why I detest the phrase “use the right tool for the job.” People say this as an appeal to reason, as if there weren't an obvious follow-up question that different people might answer very differently.

SGML was designed for documents, and it can be written by hand (or by a machine). HTML (another descendant of SGML) is in fact written by hand regularly. When you're using SGML descendants for what they were meant for (documents) they're pretty good for this purpose. Writing documents — not configuration files, not serialized data, not code — by hand.

XML can still be used as a very powerful generic document markup language, that is more restricted (and thus easier to parse) than SGML. The problems started when people started using XML for other things, especially for configuration files, data interchange and even for programming language.

So I don't think GP is wrong. The authors of the original XML spec probably envisioned people writing this by hand. But XML is very bad for writing by hand the things that it eventually got used for.

> Again, they are not part of the capital class.

I vaguely remember reading something recently, probably by Branko Milanović, about how there is a class of workers in the tech sector who earn so much money that they are gradually starting to become capitalists. When you have so much money left over that you can start putting your capital to work for you, you cross that very line. I don't mean a home savings plan or ETFs or anything like that, but if you have seven figures and can skim off returns that you could live well on, then you're definitely no longer working class.