Of course it's not socialism. Socialism is government control of the means of production. Anyone tells you anything else, he's lying.
Actually, it’s not government but a collective control of production, distribution, etc. of production by the people. Marx saw it as the step between capitalism and communism. The two have been seen as the same in common usage, with socialism being government providing goods and services. Call government giving tax breaks etc. what you want but whatever you call it the biggest welfare queens in the country are corporations.
Their 'task manager' to do list was fantastic. I wish there was something as simple and powerful. You could make unordered lists so easily and sort them by priority. It was wonderful.
Yes, along with Graffiti that was actually useful for entering information. I had an expense manager that was pretty impressive - drop down lists for entry as well as free form, export as a CSV and upload that into my company's accounting software. Made it real easy to submit expense reports as well as keep a copy electronically. I now do that in iOS but Palm had it 20 years ago.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
-Robert A. Heinlein
While I have done much of that, I'll pass on the die gallantly part for now...
But people will not get those skillsets if they decided to take the shortcuts to get a programming job. People taking the quick path will find their jobs going to the cheapest outsourced workers, whereas people who know what they're doing will become the senior programmers and designers.
Agreed. It's about developing skills that will be in demand and are less likely to be outsourced to the cheapest provider.
And yet not a single mention of the uselessness of MBAs. Funny how businesses. particularly tech based ones, fail to realize that they don't sell power point slides, they sell software based services, and yet the development staff is the least respected in the organization.
Actually, they are selling neither - they are selling a solution, a new way of doing business, or something else to satisfy the customer's wants. Far too often the sales people focus on why the product is great and the tech folks love all the neat technology; both fail to see what the customer really wants. I've een in meetings with both and the development folks mock the sales people and the sales people think the development folks are a bunch of prima donna nerds; all the while both miss the point of unless you deliver what the customer wants and sell it whatever you do is worthless.
5. "Confident"? Arrogant is the correct word. There is a tendency among academics to believe that while - at best - they are aware that they might not know everything, they certainly know better than the guy who doesn't have a degree. Which does actually happen to be turns out to be false every now and then.
A degree does not make you omnipotent, unfortunately there are way too many who thinks otherwise.
Then you are working with the wrong academics. Many I have worked with will accept a better idea and actually enjoy a robust debate about how to address an issue or idea.
This. You hire CS majors because they know about the problems you don't know you have and can prevent them from becoming business catastrophes.
Construction doesn't need every carpenter to be an architect but you'd better have an architect.
Exactly. Hire people with the skillset needed to do the job. Designing systems and programming are different skillsets, both are needed at the appropriate time. You don't hire engineers to be mechanics, and mechanics to be engineers. They need to work together, using their own knowledge and skills, to build a workable solution.
As should be the fate of any who try to take away anonymity on the Internet.
No one took away your ability to remain anonymous; they gave people a chance to have a verified ID if they wanted it. I would pass but threatening the company’s employees because you don’t looe their approach is full on nut case. Your arguement seems to be “anyone who disagrees with my view of how the internet should work should be threatened into submission.” Do you really think violence or threats is how to run the internet?
Truck emmisions are an issue for ports. A lot are older OO vehicles that aren’t clean idle ans aome ports offer incentives to get new tractors. If LA can get a significant numbers of the trucks to be H2 fueled it’s a win.
The Hyundai Kona is very competitive with the M3, and the soon to be released Kia Niro and Nissan Leaf 60 probably will be too. This is in no small part thank's to LG's excellent battery pack. They managed to get the cost down lower than Tesla, and are able to offer an unlimited warranty on it.
Good points. Tesla has gone for the sedan market while Kia/Hyundai are targeting the crossover market; which is very popular in the US. I'm not a fan of the Leaf's styling but a 60W battery should put it's range up there with the others. I suspect cost will be a big factor driving purchases so it will be interesting to see when (if) Tesla actually sells a 35K car. Kia/Hyundai should get the full incentive as these are their first evehicles. Things should get interesting in late 2018/2019.
Try reading the actual article. I couldn't muster the entire thing because the amount of asinine bullshit in it. It really reads as through the guy just read through the TOS for AXS app, and didn't understand half of it, and so made false conclusions based on piecing unrelated parts together.
I would agree. Going to the AXS website shows you can still do the email ticket to print at home, will call, or "Download the app and no more worries about losing a ticket or realizing you left the ticket at home the moment you arrived at the venue. " I'm guessing the writer assumed the app was the only way to get a ticket, didn't bother to check the AXS website, and then went off on the rant.
I doubt it. The GDPR would protect from most of what oc is saying about it, or would fine the company to the ground. GDPR violations are based on turnover, not profit. So if a ticket seeks for â100 plus â2.50 handling, the fine is based on â102.50, even though â100 is going to the concert venue.
I wonder if they block purchases based on IP addresses. An EU citizen could install the app on a visit to the US, use it in the EU to buy a ticket if they don't block via IP address (or using a VPN if they do); thereby potentially opening them up to a GDRP complaint.
However, the Tesla brand is definitely not going away. The company could go broke tomorrow, and it would just be scooped up by another car maker, or maybe even a tech company like Apple. It would be a bloodbath for Tesla stock and bond holders, but largely a non-event for Tesla customers.
I'm not so sure about the customers. A company could buy the assets but not the liabilities if they wanted the technology. That could leave the car owners with no service network, limited parts availability as existing stocks get depleted, no more charging network, etc.
Every day Ford sells an average of 2,452 F-Series trucks...
And in 1907 more people bought horse carriages than all automobiles combined, and the city streets were full of manure rather than the air being full of pollution. Change happens.
True, and the question before us is not will electric vehicles become more common in the future but can Tesla survive when the entrenched players make serious moves into the market? There were hundreds of horseless carriage manufacturers as that new technology began to be seen as a replacement for the horse; being an early entrant didn't ensure success; having enough capital to survive did. It will be interesting to see if Tesla survives or if it becomes another Tucker, Checker, Mercer, Stanley...
But are they outselling gas guzzling trucks and SUV's?
If you take a broader look at the market and include 50K vehicles (which is what M3's are currently selling for) the Ford F150 alone crushed Tesla. The US market has moved heavily toward pickup trucks, with the premium (50k+) being the heavily targeted by domestic manufacturers. In the US, car sales have declined while light truck sales, as a percentage of the market, have increased. In June they were 67% of the total market. Tesla is grabbing a larger share of a shrinking market, to me their long term challenge is to crack the pickup truck market in the US.
Tesla also appears to be adopting the common platform approach used by the major manufacturers, in that future vehicles will be based on the Model 3 platform. This saves a ton of development costs and enables new models to be introduced faster. IMHO, Tesla's real challenge will come as the majors move more heavily into electric vehicles. Right now, the US manufacturers are more interested in building and selling high margin pickup trucks, but that will change. I can see the foreign manufactures will probably be the first to really challenge Tesla.
That was my knee jerk reaction, but really the way you would do this wouldn't actually HAVE big water flow/ecological considerations.
You aren't just going to pump it back up from downriver, you're going to build a reservoir at the bottom sized on the capacity of energy storage you're adding.
Your fixed water cost is the amount it takes to fill that reservoir, (which you could in theory refund in case of a drought by pumping it back into the river)
Your marginal water cost is the additional evaporation that takes place in a reservoir.
So in theory from a water management standpoint, you're almost just adding additional water reservoir capacity.
True, and to me the real issue is not technological but political. The water rights and power distribution schema is the result of political agreements and laws; adding power and diverting water to pumped storage would probably take longer to get political agreement on how it will be manage, who benefits and to what extent than to build, operate, and decommission the unit.
When I worked in power plant construction the company I worked for decided to downsize. All the very senior staff were told they could get a very generous severance package plus retirement; so the all bailed. Not surprising - they were engineers and good at math. Trouble was none of us had any clue how the turbine control system worked, none of us worked for the turbine division. So when the client came to our office and said "we have a problem with the turbine" all we could do is say, "Sorry, there are no turbine engineers on staff." They wound up getting consulting gigs making more than they did before plus had full retirement benefits such as medical.
It's not just companies, I had a friend that left the Navy when they offered a bonus to leave active duty, then went back a few years later when they were offering pilots bonuses to return, and keep the original bonus as well.
My housemate, who had land line phone service in his name, moved out. I called up the phone company, and told them I needed to put the phone in my name. They told me that for security reasons my ex housemate had to do that himself. So I asked them, "So, if I hang up and call you right back claiming to be him, you'll put the phone in my name?" There reply was, "Yes." I did, and they did.
Years ago when I worked for a large corporation I added my phone to their account. All it took was a call to say I work for X please put me on the corporate account and it was done. When I left and called to transfer it back I was told the "person in charge of phones at X" needs to call and do that. I asked who that was and they didn't know, and when I asked what happens if I just stop paying they said , no problem, X just pays. Since I wanted my number back I had a friend call and say they were the person in charge of phones and to transfer my account, which I was then able to do with no problems.
A friend, who tried to cancel his dad's cable after he died, called the cable company. After the rep expressed condolences at his loss, took the account info, and then as the last step said they needed to talk to his dad to get his OK.
Given that the first hydroelectric power plant was constructed at Niagara Falls in 1895 I'd say that it would have been a rather unbelievable oversight to not intend to use the Hoover Dam, built over 30 years later, to produce power.
Moreover, how would you even begin to retro-fit all the necessary machinery if it had not been planned for in advance?
I wasn't clear in my OP and I see where it can be misleading. Planning for Hoover Dam began as the result of several serious Grand (Colorado) River floods and the then U.S. Reclamation Service developed the plan for the Boulder (Hoover) Dam. Water rights was the paramount issue that had to be decided in order to build the dam. Power production was included in the design, which makes sense, but it was not why they built the dam; unlike those intended for hydropower production.
From Hoover Dam: Evolution of the Dam’s Design:
When the 1924 design was released the issue of generating hydroelectric power had not been decided, so was altogether omitted. All of the Bureau designs for this stage forward were made with an eye towards their being retrofitted to accommodate hydroelectric generation, even if these were not shown on the plans
I agree it would have been foolish not to include power generation capabilities in the design; even if power generation was not the driving force for the dam..
Hoover Dam wasn't originally intended to produce power, it was for water management, such as flood control, supplying LA with a consistent water supply, and irrigation. Power was added later. I would guess pumped storage would have to balance the water management needs so it's not like you can just raise the water level and keep it there.
How much do you pay for a subway ticket in your town?
Depends where I am. Some cities have mileage based and prime time rates that can easily reach $10. Even an off peak short trip runs at least $2 for a very short trip; and in a sometimes 20 minute wit for the next train and the extra 2 to 3 $ for UberPool is worth it.
UberPool/Lyft Line is often close in price to a subway trip and you go door to door. Even with the shared ride (which anecdotally seems to happen 40 to 50% of the time), it is also competitive with the time it takes once you factor in the walk, wait time and actual travel time. My mapping app shows the Lyft and Uber fares as well as travel times for public transit so it's easy to pick the cheapest or fastest depending on what I want.
Take for instance, hardware that is more than capable of running other things (take a nintendo switch for instance. Without the locked boot loader, it can run Linux just like any other tegra based system. Works great doing it too.) that is crippled by its retailer/OEM to only run a single ecosystem, designed to be locked down hard, where there is no viable alternative market space for software.
The solution is simple; don't buy a Nintendo console if they won't do what you want. Buy one that does. I do not like DRM either and avoid whenever possible buying stuff that has it. As for single ecosystems, it's again a choice to be made - lock in or go elsewhere?
first sale doctrine type protections.
First sale does not mean that whatever you sell still has all the features available to the original buyer, unless the manufacturer specifically states so such as a transferable warranty, etc. Even the doctrine of first sale is not absolute, but varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
In many ways the right to repair, especially for consumer electronics, is a chimera. Sure, manufacturers many be forced to make available parts, manuals, software diagnostics, etc. but the costs may be so high that it is not economical for a third party shop to buy them because the may never recoup the costs, and/or the cost to fix after you buy parts and add in some labor is so high that consumers simply chose to forgo repairs and buy a new device. Individuals would still be locked out because the costs of manuals etc. would probably be much more than simply buying a new device. If the market is big enough their will be third party tools sold, such as is done with automotive diagnostic software. A small subset would get bootleg copies of the manufacturers software to mod their stuff, such as is done with BMW's diagnostic and coding software.
You list 4. but how is a military normally a 'free market' item? If you include it, what about other things like infrastructure and utilities? Surely they are better handled by some form of co-operative or government?
Interestingly in the US when electric utilities first started they were not monopolies. The strung their own wires, resulting in multiple sets serving the same area. The utilities pushed for regulation since they couldn't make a lot of money when you had multiple providers competing for the same customers. In exchange for a monopoly they limited their service area and could not sell across the boundaries except to the other utilities to handle excess demand.
Phone companies competed early on as well, resulting in challenges to connect to people on competing services.
Of course, competition also meant that sparsely populated areas didn't get service since it was unprofitable, resulting in the government passing laws to drive rural electrification.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course it's not socialism. Socialism is government control of the means of production. Anyone tells you anything else, he's lying.
Actually, it’s not government but a collective control of production, distribution, etc. of production by the people. Marx saw it as the step between capitalism and communism. The two have been seen as the same in common usage, with socialism being government providing goods and services. Call government giving tax breaks etc. what you want but whatever you call it the biggest welfare queens in the country are corporations.
Their 'task manager' to do list was fantastic. I wish there was something as simple and powerful. You could make unordered lists so easily and sort them by priority. It was wonderful.
Yes, along with Graffiti that was actually useful for entering information. I had an expense manager that was pretty impressive - drop down lists for entry as well as free form, export as a CSV and upload that into my company's accounting software. Made it real easy to submit expense reports as well as keep a copy electronically. I now do that in iOS but Palm had it 20 years ago.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
-Robert A. Heinlein
While I have done much of that, I'll pass on the die gallantly part for now...
But people will not get those skillsets if they decided to take the shortcuts to get a programming job. People taking the quick path will find their jobs going to the cheapest outsourced workers, whereas people who know what they're doing will become the senior programmers and designers.
Agreed. It's about developing skills that will be in demand and are less likely to be outsourced to the cheapest provider.
And yet not a single mention of the uselessness of MBAs. Funny how businesses. particularly tech based ones, fail to realize that they don't sell power point slides, they sell software based services, and yet the development staff is the least respected in the organization.
Actually, they are selling neither - they are selling a solution, a new way of doing business, or something else to satisfy the customer's wants. Far too often the sales people focus on why the product is great and the tech folks love all the neat technology; both fail to see what the customer really wants. I've een in meetings with both and the development folks mock the sales people and the sales people think the development folks are a bunch of prima donna nerds; all the while both miss the point of unless you deliver what the customer wants and sell it whatever you do is worthless.
5. "Confident"? Arrogant is the correct word. There is a tendency among academics to believe that while - at best - they are aware that they might not know everything, they certainly know better than the guy who doesn't have a degree. Which does actually happen to be turns out to be false every now and then.
A degree does not make you omnipotent, unfortunately there are way too many who thinks otherwise.
Then you are working with the wrong academics. Many I have worked with will accept a better idea and actually enjoy a robust debate about how to address an issue or idea.
This. You hire CS majors because they know about the problems you don't know you have and can prevent them from becoming business catastrophes.
Construction doesn't need every carpenter to be an architect but you'd better have an architect.
Exactly. Hire people with the skillset needed to do the job. Designing systems and programming are different skillsets, both are needed at the appropriate time. You don't hire engineers to be mechanics, and mechanics to be engineers. They need to work together, using their own knowledge and skills, to build a workable solution.
As should be the fate of any who try to take away anonymity on the Internet.
No one took away your ability to remain anonymous; they gave people a chance to have a verified ID if they wanted it. I would pass but threatening the company’s employees because you don’t looe their approach is full on nut case. Your arguement seems to be “anyone who disagrees with my view of how the internet should work should be threatened into submission.” Do you really think violence or threats is how to run the internet?
... said someone from 1996, maybe.
Truck emmisions are an issue for ports. A lot are older OO vehicles that aren’t clean idle ans aome ports offer incentives to get new tractors. If LA can get a significant numbers of the trucks to be H2 fueled it’s a win.
The Hyundai Kona is very competitive with the M3, and the soon to be released Kia Niro and Nissan Leaf 60 probably will be too. This is in no small part thank's to LG's excellent battery pack. They managed to get the cost down lower than Tesla, and are able to offer an unlimited warranty on it.
Good points. Tesla has gone for the sedan market while Kia/Hyundai are targeting the crossover market; which is very popular in the US. I'm not a fan of the Leaf's styling but a 60W battery should put it's range up there with the others. I suspect cost will be a big factor driving purchases so it will be interesting to see when (if) Tesla actually sells a 35K car. Kia/Hyundai should get the full incentive as these are their first evehicles. Things should get interesting in late 2018/2019.
Try reading the actual article. I couldn't muster the entire thing because the amount of asinine bullshit in it. It really reads as through the guy just read through the TOS for AXS app, and didn't understand half of it, and so made false conclusions based on piecing unrelated parts together.
I would agree. Going to the AXS website shows you can still do the email ticket to print at home, will call, or "Download the app and no more worries about losing a ticket or realizing you left the ticket at home the moment you arrived at the venue. " I'm guessing the writer assumed the app was the only way to get a ticket, didn't bother to check the AXS website, and then went off on the rant.
I doubt it. The GDPR would protect from most of what oc is saying about it, or would fine the company to the ground. GDPR violations are based on turnover, not profit. So if a ticket seeks for â100 plus â2.50 handling, the fine is based on â102.50, even though â100 is going to the concert venue.
I wonder if they block purchases based on IP addresses. An EU citizen could install the app on a visit to the US, use it in the EU to buy a ticket if they don't block via IP address (or using a VPN if they do); thereby potentially opening them up to a GDRP complaint.
However, the Tesla brand is definitely not going away. The company could go broke tomorrow, and it would just be scooped up by another car maker, or maybe even a tech company like Apple. It would be a bloodbath for Tesla stock and bond holders, but largely a non-event for Tesla customers.
I'm not so sure about the customers. A company could buy the assets but not the liabilities if they wanted the technology. That could leave the car owners with no service network, limited parts availability as existing stocks get depleted, no more charging network, etc.
And in 1907 more people bought horse carriages than all automobiles combined, and the city streets were full of manure rather than the air being full of pollution. Change happens.
True, and the question before us is not will electric vehicles become more common in the future but can Tesla survive when the entrenched players make serious moves into the market? There were hundreds of horseless carriage manufacturers as that new technology began to be seen as a replacement for the horse; being an early entrant didn't ensure success; having enough capital to survive did. It will be interesting to see if Tesla survives or if it becomes another Tucker, Checker, Mercer, Stanley...
But are they outselling gas guzzling trucks and SUV's?
If you take a broader look at the market and include 50K vehicles (which is what M3's are currently selling for) the Ford F150 alone crushed Tesla. The US market has moved heavily toward pickup trucks, with the premium (50k+) being the heavily targeted by domestic manufacturers. In the US, car sales have declined while light truck sales, as a percentage of the market, have increased. In June they were 67% of the total market. Tesla is grabbing a larger share of a shrinking market, to me their long term challenge is to crack the pickup truck market in the US.
Tesla also appears to be adopting the common platform approach used by the major manufacturers, in that future vehicles will be based on the Model 3 platform. This saves a ton of development costs and enables new models to be introduced faster. IMHO, Tesla's real challenge will come as the majors move more heavily into electric vehicles. Right now, the US manufacturers are more interested in building and selling high margin pickup trucks, but that will change. I can see the foreign manufactures will probably be the first to really challenge Tesla.
That was my knee jerk reaction, but really the way you would do this wouldn't actually HAVE big water flow/ecological considerations. You aren't just going to pump it back up from downriver, you're going to build a reservoir at the bottom sized on the capacity of energy storage you're adding. Your fixed water cost is the amount it takes to fill that reservoir, (which you could in theory refund in case of a drought by pumping it back into the river) Your marginal water cost is the additional evaporation that takes place in a reservoir. So in theory from a water management standpoint, you're almost just adding additional water reservoir capacity.
True, and to me the real issue is not technological but political. The water rights and power distribution schema is the result of political agreements and laws; adding power and diverting water to pumped storage would probably take longer to get political agreement on how it will be manage, who benefits and to what extent than to build, operate, and decommission the unit.
Company wanted to downsize.
They gave monetary incentive, essentially "get out of here, take some money, so we don't have to do lengthy negotiations".
Only problem was that the end result was this:
http://dilbert.com/strip/2001-...
When I worked in power plant construction the company I worked for decided to downsize. All the very senior staff were told they could get a very generous severance package plus retirement; so the all bailed. Not surprising - they were engineers and good at math. Trouble was none of us had any clue how the turbine control system worked, none of us worked for the turbine division. So when the client came to our office and said "we have a problem with the turbine" all we could do is say, "Sorry, there are no turbine engineers on staff." They wound up getting consulting gigs making more than they did before plus had full retirement benefits such as medical.
It's not just companies, I had a friend that left the Navy when they offered a bonus to leave active duty, then went back a few years later when they were offering pilots bonuses to return, and keep the original bonus as well.
My housemate, who had land line phone service in his name, moved out. I called up the phone company, and told them I needed to put the phone in my name. They told me that for security reasons my ex housemate had to do that himself. So I asked them, "So, if I hang up and call you right back claiming to be him, you'll put the phone in my name?" There reply was, "Yes." I did, and they did.
Years ago when I worked for a large corporation I added my phone to their account. All it took was a call to say I work for X please put me on the corporate account and it was done. When I left and called to transfer it back I was told the "person in charge of phones at X" needs to call and do that. I asked who that was and they didn't know, and when I asked what happens if I just stop paying they said , no problem, X just pays. Since I wanted my number back I had a friend call and say they were the person in charge of phones and to transfer my account, which I was then able to do with no problems.
A friend, who tried to cancel his dad's cable after he died, called the cable company. After the rep expressed condolences at his loss, took the account info, and then as the last step said they needed to talk to his dad to get his OK.
Given that the first hydroelectric power plant was constructed at Niagara Falls in 1895 I'd say that it would have been a rather unbelievable oversight to not intend to use the Hoover Dam, built over 30 years later, to produce power.
Moreover, how would you even begin to retro-fit all the necessary machinery if it had not been planned for in advance?
I wasn't clear in my OP and I see where it can be misleading. Planning for Hoover Dam began as the result of several serious Grand (Colorado) River floods and the then U.S. Reclamation Service developed the plan for the Boulder (Hoover) Dam. Water rights was the paramount issue that had to be decided in order to build the dam. Power production was included in the design, which makes sense, but it was not why they built the dam; unlike those intended for hydropower production.
From Hoover Dam: Evolution of the Dam’s Design:
When the 1924 design was released the issue of generating hydroelectric power had not been decided, so was altogether omitted. All of the Bureau designs for this stage forward were made with an eye towards their being retrofitted to accommodate hydroelectric generation, even if these were not shown on the plans
I agree it would have been foolish not to include power generation capabilities in the design; even if power generation was not the driving force for the dam..
Hoover Dam wasn't originally intended to produce power, it was for water management, such as flood control, supplying LA with a consistent water supply, and irrigation. Power was added later. I would guess pumped storage would have to balance the water management needs so it's not like you can just raise the water level and keep it there.
How much do you pay for a subway ticket in your town?
Depends where I am. Some cities have mileage based and prime time rates that can easily reach $10. Even an off peak short trip runs at least $2 for a very short trip; and in a sometimes 20 minute wit for the next train and the extra 2 to 3 $ for UberPool is worth it.
UberPool/Lyft Line is often close in price to a subway trip and you go door to door. Even with the shared ride (which anecdotally seems to happen 40 to 50% of the time), it is also competitive with the time it takes once you factor in the walk, wait time and actual travel time. My mapping app shows the Lyft and Uber fares as well as travel times for public transit so it's easy to pick the cheapest or fastest depending on what I want.
Take for instance, hardware that is more than capable of running other things (take a nintendo switch for instance. Without the locked boot loader, it can run Linux just like any other tegra based system. Works great doing it too.) that is crippled by its retailer/OEM to only run a single ecosystem, designed to be locked down hard, where there is no viable alternative market space for software.
The solution is simple; don't buy a Nintendo console if they won't do what you want. Buy one that does. I do not like DRM either and avoid whenever possible buying stuff that has it. As for single ecosystems, it's again a choice to be made - lock in or go elsewhere?
first sale doctrine type protections.
First sale does not mean that whatever you sell still has all the features available to the original buyer, unless the manufacturer specifically states so such as a transferable warranty, etc. Even the doctrine of first sale is not absolute, but varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
In many ways the right to repair, especially for consumer electronics, is a chimera. Sure, manufacturers many be forced to make available parts, manuals, software diagnostics, etc. but the costs may be so high that it is not economical for a third party shop to buy them because the may never recoup the costs, and /or the cost to fix after you buy parts and add in some labor is so high that consumers simply chose to forgo repairs and buy a new device. Individuals would still be locked out because the costs of manuals etc. would probably be much more than simply buying a new device. If the market is big enough their will be third party tools sold, such as is done with automotive diagnostic software. A small subset would get bootleg copies of the manufacturers software to mod their stuff, such as is done with BMW's diagnostic and coding software.
You list 4. but how is a military normally a 'free market' item? If you include it, what about other things like infrastructure and utilities? Surely they are better handled by some form of co-operative or government?
Interestingly in the US when electric utilities first started they were not monopolies. The strung their own wires, resulting in multiple sets serving the same area. The utilities pushed for regulation since they couldn't make a lot of money when you had multiple providers competing for the same customers. In exchange for a monopoly they limited their service area and could not sell across the boundaries except to the other utilities to handle excess demand.
Phone companies competed early on as well, resulting in challenges to connect to people on competing services.
Of course, competition also meant that sparsely populated areas didn't get service since it was unprofitable, resulting in the government passing laws to drive rural electrification.