bricej13's comments

Yes, everything can be overridden with Tailwind classes (i.e. `btn p-8`). It's a great choice you're a Tailwind enjoyer, but want the batteries-included experience of Bootstrap.

I think it's the best of both worlds. Tons of free components right out of the box for non-designer developers (like bootstrap), but you still have the power of Tailwind at your fingertips.

I think the theming & semantic color support is underrated. You just use `-primary` or `-secondary` classes everywhere instead of hardcoding the colors. The theme colors are then just updated with css variables.

Dark mode is free, you don't have to pepper your code with a million "dark:*" classes.

Nice job shipping! I've used the built-in Chrome tools for IndexedDB, what does this give on top of what's already there?

I just create a single calendar specifically for my app, then add things to it directly. Calendar events already support all of the repeated scheduling I needed. I didn't setup anything for categorization directly, but could be pretty easily done by prepending an emoji to the event name.

I've got a side project that is a long-term reminders app. It has a long list of reminders included like changing the oil, test the smoke detectors, flipping the mattress, getting your prostate checked, etc. You could just go down the list and enable everything that applied to you. I kinda lost interest in it but one of these days I should dust it off and get in the app stores.

For a small peek watch this simple farmer dig a hole, put a seed in, and put dirt on top: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqK5667B5As

That's sorta the idea behind server-rendered Blazor. Components are rendered on the server and passed over to the client via websockets.

Unsurprisingly, input lag and scalability can be major obstacles, but I expect it to make large headwinds in enterprise apps.

Good catch, using the word 'subsidize' was probably a bit sloppy on my part. I don't know whether the base configurations are sold at a loss or not.

In a highly-competitive market I suspect that they would, but maybe not in a less-competitive market.

> your software

I was an intern. I wasn't anywhere near the engine controller software.

> And no, Deere shouldn't fix that under warranty. It's the same with cars. You can do that trick to a Honda with a resistor in-line to the MAF sensor and it will run the car lean, giving the illusion of more performance while wearing out the engine and burning the combustion chamber way too hot. Should Honda fix that? No way! Should Honda let the customer do it anyway? Of course they should! Should Honda share the schematics with the customer so they not only realize that it's a bad idea, but also know WHY it's a bad idea? Yes.

Looks like we agree here.

> It's strictly to protect Deere.

We also agree here.

> Engine horsepower, for example, can be increased by a software update.

> How do you see this as an asset?

I explained this further in another comment.

> Yeah, you don't sound like a shill or anything.

I explicitly stated my bias in the first line.

> Would they really go after Deere?

I don't know the details, just that this something they worry about. I'm guessing that <speculation> the wording in the EPA regulations requires companies to take 'reasonable measures' to prevent end-users from subverting emissions mechanisms. 'Reasonable measures' is a grey area that the lawers get to fight about. That said, buying a black box off of ebay and plugging it in seems pretty easy.</speculation>

> In the perfect world, it would all work itself out. In the real world, while the farmers have every incentive to extract as much performance as physically possible from their equipment, JD - like every business - has a lot of incentive to screw farmers over. Competitive pressure is a traditional protection against too much abuse of customers, but it doesn't really apply all that much when you have a small amount of providers. DRM itself is, in its general form, a mechanism for creating a localized alternative reality, in which you can attach colour to bits[0]. It allows businesses to enforce arbitrary rules in their products - rules that would be impossible to enforce in pre-computer reality. This is open for abuse, and also kind of destroys the protection of competitive pressure - attach DRM to something, and its complementary commodities stop being commodities. Customers lose their traditional protection from abusive tendencies of for-profit businesses.

Well said

> JD doesn't spend a dime to deliver the upgrade

That's true, they already spent all the dimes installing the top-of-the line engine in the tractor.

> JD is crippling the capabilities.

Said another way: Deere gives a discount to those who don't need the full capabilities of the engine provided. Another user pointed out that market price is $1000 per horsepower. That's a significant savings when you don't need the extra 1-300hp.

The idea of buying 'Horsepower' instead of an engine is pretty weird though.

I must have done a poor job at communicating if you think I was trying to support the case for DRM. My purpose was to help people understand where Deere is coming from and some of the details that the "John Deere Bad!" comments just don't capture.

> And I'm not sure too many of your things actually REQUIRE DRM to be carried out.

I actually agree. They're using DRM as a legal fix for what is a technical problem.

I feel like you missed the point about the warranty. We probably agree that if someone re-flashes their controllers they've voided their warranty. The problem for Deere comes when someone screws it up, flashes back to factory settings and takes it in for warranty work. They could have done tens of thousands of dollars of damage. This is not FUD to Deere, it is an actual risk. Their 'fix' for that problem is DRM. (Again, I'm not promoting DRM)

This is very true

> So long as the hack didn't cause the problem they are legally obligated to honor the warranty.

I agree. The problem is that you could update the software to void the warranty, then do a factory reset when you have problems. Deere would never know that you operated the tractor outside of the parameters that they designed, built, and tested, but then they would be on the hook for it.

> Upping the fuel pressure and changing some maps should not cost the consumer $10k. The markup in that is ridiculous.

My numbers probably aren't that accurate, but they're not selling just software in that case. They've already bought an engine (for cheap) that is capable of that horsepower. They just don't realize the cost for it until they actually upgrade.

> These are all benefits for John Deere.

Yep, that was my point in posting. It's usually good to hear both sides of things.

> Yup, DRM and platform lock-down (machinery is a platform??) increases profits

Reducing manufacturing costs is not the same as increasing profits. They're not a monopoly, they still have to set prices according to the market. This allows them to price things lower.

> "Platform flexibility" is nothing more than the ability for JD to lock out capabilities of the machinery that the farmer supposedly bought, and sell it as an add-on later.

Do you think that when a farmer spends 100k they don't know what they're buying? I don't know what you mean when you say they 'supposedly' bought it. They order a tractor, customize it, and buy it. It allowes them to get a tractor at a lower price point and upgrade as needed

Disclaimer: My father worked as an engineer for John Deere for 35 years. I interned at John Deere writing code that runs on the tractor controllers.

Discussions on this topic always end up one-sided and simplistic. Hopefully I can shed some light on the more nuanced reasoning behind John Deere's position.

Having the DRM in place allows Deere to reduce manufacturing expense and increase platform flexibility. There is a very wide array of needs that farmers have based on what they do. Deere allows buyers to customize tractors to their needs for everything from engine horsepower, to wheel count, size, and type, cab quality-of-life, to hydraulic hookups for implements. Some of these changes are just a software change, while others are a software + hardware change.

Engine horsepower, for example, can be increased by a software update. Techincally, this is pretty cool. Designing and manufacturing engines is expensive. This allows them to manufacture fewer different engines that can cover a wider variety of use cases. It also allows farmers the flexibility to upgrade their engine horsepower at a future date. If I remember correctly each extra 50hp above the base costs ~10k, so the large configurations subsidize the cost of the base configurations.

With that understanding, think of how this can apply to Deere's obligations to the EPA or to warranties. Years ago, farmers found a hack where they could put a resister in-line between the diesel temperature sensor and the ECU and increase their horsepower. The hack spread like wildfire. This made the engines run in a configuration that had not been tested by Deere or approved by the EPA. Who would the EPA go after if it had caused emissions issues? Should Deere honor the warranty in this case of those who did the hack? How would Deere know if someone did the hack, borked the engine, then removed the resistor?

Liability is the enemy of automation. Deere has added some automation over the years, allowing the tractors to drive straight down the field without intervention, and executing perfect turns at the push of a button. This is functionality that no companies would let end users change. Much like my dad, a tractor is not a cell phone. Installing a custom rom on a cell phone is one thing, updating the autonomous driving of a 10 ton tractor is quite another.

There's got to be some middle ground, but I don't know what it is.

I built my side project with Vue: https://wherecaniwatchmy.team

Client side rendering saved my bacon when it went mini-viral a few weeks ago. My little home server probably would have keeled over and died had it been rendering all the pages, but just serving static files is a piece of cake.

I solved my own problem. I cut the cord two years ago, but I love to watch college football. When doing research this year to figure out where to stream each game, I realized that a lot of people would be doing this same research.

I built [https://wherecaniwatchmy.team] as a site specifically for determining which streaming service is best for watching a specific sports team.

I'm no entrepreneur, but I think it's something that could actually turn into a basic side income.