It is not so much 'plastic' but 'flexible plastic' and the lack of a stiffening internal frame which causes problems.
I've seen a few 'consumer' laptops - HP DV6000, several Acers - go bad this way with parts on the board loosening. What these models had in common was that none of them had a stiff inside frame but consisted of a plastic bottom on which the guts were screwed down and onto the back of which the screen hinges were mounted with 2-3 screws each. This was capped with a plastic top into which the keyboard was mounted. With all parts removed the top and bottom shell are quite flimsy so any stiffness in the finished product depends on all parts being screwed down tightly. Now add those screwed-down hinges on the back which make the thing flex every time the screen is opened and closed, lift the thing using one hand every now and then which causes it to flex as well and you have a recipe for loosening parts - especially BGA components - on the mainboard.
Some 'misinformation' is hard to correct because the corrections are reversed by those who are intent on spreading the 'misinformation'. This is especially prevalent around contentious and/or politically sensitive subjects like the mentioned SARS2-related cases. This is what makes it hard to trust articles on such subjects on Wikipedia.
If this is quite widespread, it should be fairly straightforward to point to an example of a page that's being defaced with misinformation, which would include an edit history and perhaps a Talk page documenting whatever sides to the debate there is that's preventing consensus.
I don't disagree that weird bullshit occasionally happens on Wikipedia, but I have noticed that as soon as light is cast on it, it usually evaporates and a return to factual normality is established.
My go-to example is the "Constitution" of Medina[1]
> It is widely considered to be one of the first written constitutions of mankind.
Now go to the page on constitutions in history[2] and see how far down the list that one is.
Now go back to the Constitution of Medina (itself an example of misinformation, since it should be charter or even more precisely, treaty, but those protecting the page have meddled with the title too) and look at the reference it uses[3] and what it says to get a feel for the kind of "reference" that is being used there, and then try and update said Wikipedia page by removing the parts about its being the first.
The talk pages of both show that invested groups have been trying to force their views, and they've done it quite successfully.
Let us all know how you get on with that, and then I'll point you to the next example, and the next example…
Some other notable things to check are co-founder Larry Sanger's 9 theses[4], and the news that broke yesterday about a PR firm doing "Wikilaundering"[5].
I don't really understand how you've come to that conclusion. If you look at the protection log[1], Constitution of Medina was protected in 2016 for a bit under a month, and never outside of that. The "earliest constitution" was also discussed in 2016[2][3], and there was consensus not to include the claim. Then, in November 2025, it was re-added by a new editor who made no other edits[4].
Looking at the talk page of Constitution, it was discussed exactly once, in 2005[5].
>> those protecting the page have meddled with the title too
> Why is this "consensus not to include the claim" relevant when the claim was already included?
Because anyone can dispute anything. But saying it's some kind of agenda by a group of admins is incorrect.
You’re taking those questions too literally. The need for dispute resolution implies a dispute, well done… if you’re in to one-step thinking. Explain how there was a dispute over the facts there and how it wasn’t intentional misinformation pushed by a group of interested parties that have continued to press their case from before that date until now.
Or, you can put it down to an honest mistake or difference of opinion. That really is the oldest written constitution in the world, or it’s got a valid claim to be, and those people don’t want to add any respectability to their pet project.
Tough choice. The phrases “die on that hill” and “never interrupt your opponent when they’re making a mistake” come to mind. Do continue.
I cannot fathom where you get "intentional misinformation pushed by a group of interested parties". You're welcome to read the original dispute at [1]. Such things are not uncommon when collaboratively editing. There doesn't need to be a cabal of editors behind it.
This must be one of the more bizarre conspiracy theories I've heard.
Again, please explain how such an obvious piece of misinformation wasn't misinformation but an honest mistake, yet occurring over several years and with several people, some of whom were sock puppets and still it persists in some form.
While I'm not going to build this thing I will have a go at making a new base for one of the broken-down Kenwood blenders we have here. All of them - different types - break down more or less in the same location and way: some flimsy plastic bit somewhere on the plastic base which connects the glass jug to the motor base. Once broken I got them for free, fixed them by glueing parts, having them break again, glueing reinforced parts only to see some other flimsy piece of plastic break, etc. They seem to be designed to break in this way, I can see no other reason why they use such small flimsy (ABS) plastic bits to keep this essential component in place. Now that I've got a 3D printer on its way here - an older Ender 3 V2, these can be had for next to nothing - it seems like a good project to tackle.
This wouldn't be so bad if the connections were standardized, but every manufacturer has their own standard, and sometimes don't even stick to it across their own products.
If this was standardized, you'd just buy a new blade/connector or jar from whoever, and in fact you'd have a wide choice of specialist jars and blades to choose from.
The concept of re:mix is great (and the name), but at €350 it's irrelevant. Make the standard open and free, maybe get EU persuade it's use, and let manufacturers build around it at realistic prices.
> If the MacBook is the AR-15, the ThinkPad is the AK-47.
You can get parts to customise an AR-15 to the hilt, field-strip and assemble it in minutes, replace any worn-out parts at will and if so desired assemble one from scratch using parts from many vendors. This sounds far more like working with ThinkPads than with those other machines you mentioned. I recently replaced a keyboard in one of the latter, it was a close approximation of one of the punishments Dante describes in the Divine Comedy. On a ThinkPad the same repair takes a few minutes and you get a better keyboard. Nope, this comparison does not make sense.
Pointer accuracy and the possibility to keep your hands on the keyboard while navigating the cursor. Clickpads make it harder to get pixel-perfect pointer accuracy without compromising pointer speed since the act of pushing down on the pad to click invariably moves the pointer. A touchpad with separate buttons does not have these problems but those are becoming rarer and have not been available on your preferred device for a long time.
Is it possible to operate the trackpoint with your thumb? Being able to keep my fingers on the home row while moving the pointer would be a feature I'd pay for.
Seeing how your thumb normally rests somewhere in the vicinity of the space bar and the 3 buttons underneath it it is possible but not the most ergonomically sound way to do it. Normally you'd operate it with your middle finger, use your thumbs for the buttons and space bar and that way your hands do get to rest in their assigned areas on the keyboard. It sits between the g/h/b keys so you can try simulating using one on any keyboard you have, just imagine three buttons - two wide ones with a raised smaller one between them - just underneath the space bar.
Really? I have always used one of my index fingers, the other fingers stay on their keys in the home row. Do you find an advantage to using your middle finger or just one of those things you do because that is how you always have done it?
Yes, index finger, I stupidly used the wrong term. INDEX FINGER. It is too late to edit that post so for anyone interested in not getting some weird crippling finger affliction use your INDEX FINGER to massage the nub.
I've been using one of those Chinese devices - a Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 Pro - for the last 8 years. The combination of good-enough hardware and AOSP-derived Android distributions do make some of these devices capable of lasting for a long time. This does not make them "better" than their more expensive counterparts but it does mean they're a much better value proposition. This is not limited to "Chinese" phones, it is also true for some devices by brands like Motorola. It also does not hold true for all devices produced by those 'Chinese" brands since it stands or falls with the device being supported by AOSP-derived distributions. Many of these devices become obsolete long before their time due to lackluster or missing software support by the vendor.
Your first two examples are more proof of the hype around the fruit factory and Jobs' "reality distortion field" than of what you mentioned. Nokia had been producing "smart phones" (Symbian devices with user-installable applications, cameras and other such "smart" features) for years when he first presented the mentioned device, IBM had been producing utilitarian box-like laptops for years before that other device you mentioned was presented. All examples show that fanboyism is rife in the world of technology, not just information technology but any such: tractors, cars, tools, audio equipment, musical instruments, look into any field and you'll quickly find camps around certain technologies and brands. Much of this is centered around the fact that those who have invested resources into acquiring and learning a given implementation wish for their choice to become or remain leading so as to defend their choice. This goes especially for those who invested time and money into "premium" brands and even more so when those brands have created "ecosystems" around their products which make it harder to escape should the choice turn out to have been the "wrong" one.
What you describe is part of, but not the entire reason why tensions arise around migration. There are at least two main drivers for tension which are missing, very broadly defined those related to cultures and social security systems where the latter is often related to the former. Taking the recent revelations about fraud in Minnesota as an example - which encompass both mentioned factors - it becomes clear that the tension is not so much about the fact that about 80.000 people from Somalia moved to this region but that these people:
(culture) by and large did not integrate into local Minnesotan culture but remain focused on their Somalian culture and traditions including clan culture which now has a marked influence on the local political climate with people voting along clan lines
(social security) for a large part are and remain dependent on the social security systems: 81% of Somali immigrants are dependent on some of the welfare systems, 78% of those who have lived for more than 10 years in the area remain dependent on these systems [1]
Combine this with the practice of calling out any criticism of these facts as 'racist' and tensions quickly arise.
The rhetorical and alarmist tone of your comment and the absurd sounding statistics you quote were what prompted me to check the background and bias of the resource you cited: CIS (Center for Immigration Studies) [1]. And oh boy! Isn't that an interesting and fun find!
Here is what Wikipedia says [2]:
> The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is an American anti-immigration think tank . It favors far lower immigration numbers and produces analyses to further those views. The CIS was founded by historian Otis L. Graham alongside eugenicist and white nationalist John Tanton in 1985 as a spin-off of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
> CIS has been involved in the creation of Project 2025
> Reports published by CIS have been disputed by scholars on immigration, fact-checkers and news outlets, and immigration-research organizations. The organization had significant influence within the Trump administration, which cited the group's work to defend its immigration policies . The Southern Poverty Law Center designated CIS as a hate group with ties to the American nativist movement .
All emphasis are mine. So to explain the reason behind a problem, you chose a resource that caused the problem in the first place. Hilarious! That too, an organization with a known history of hatred and bigotry against the population you're 'criticizing', and of producing fake research.
At this point, that resource alone is enough to suspect that everything you argued is false - especially the statistics. There is no better way to discredit yourself than to choose such a pathologically biased source.
Media Bias/Fact Check service [3] rates them with 'low' factuality (7.0), 'extreme right wing' bias (8.9) and an overall 'low credibility' rating. Here are some quotes:
> Overall, we rate CIS a questionable source based on publishing misleading information (propaganda) regarding immigration and ties either directly or indirectly to the John Tanton Network, a known White Nationalist.
> A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing of credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news.
Whenever we look for sources to quote for some facts, we try to find well known publications or at least something that turns higher up in the web search, so that nobody will outright reject our claims for lack of credibility. How do you all instead find such obscure sources on such specific topics? Do you refer some resource list or similar?
> Combine this with the practice of calling out any criticism of these facts as 'racist' and tensions quickly arise.
This really is the cherry on the top! You might as well just say "I'm going to say some racist nonsense, but don't you dare call me a racist!" Preemption by gaslighting?
> ... tensions quickly arise.
The tensions due to hateful behavior are already so high that the minor inconveniences caused by calling it out are well worth it.
If I or some neutral party were to go to the effort to learn how to pull up the information they used from the American Community Survey [1] and it matched what CIS published would you be open to changing your mind on either the absurd sounding statistics of the rate of Somalians using welfare or the reputation of CIS in general?
> would you be open to changing your mind on either the absurd sounding statistics of the rate of Somalians using welfare
I'm never completely closed to changing my mind on anything. I don't have any confidence that anything that I know is set in stone. I only have a reasonable confidence in anything I say. You can see that in my original comment too. Those weren't my judgments, those were my assessments based on available evidence that I quoted.
However, this debate started with the quoting of a source with extreme conflicts of interest and bias that wasn't declared. That's academic dishonesty, if you know how reaserch is evaluated. The proper way to debate this was to either quote a reputable source or at least give a heads up about the data and the source. Once that trust is breached, the readers have every justification to be very skeptical and prejudiced about any further claims. That's how debates work. Resorting to these tiring meta debates about the source instead is just shifting the goal posts and inverting the responsibility again.
And as for the counter evidence, I hope you see what others have been saying. Statistics can be used to lie about reality. I don't know who said this, but 'there are lies, damned lies and statistics'. It takes extra context to interpret it properly - a fact that's persistently used by some to spread lies. Because of this, these claims are now going to need a lengthy scrutiny.
> or the reputation of CIS in general?
CIS was started by a eugenicist and they still are a hate group connected to a hate movement. Their motive isn't even in question here. The simplest trick in the book they can use is to cherry pick data that supports their claims from a valid research and neglect everything else. So even if their data turns out to be true in however narrow sense, I don't see how that should give them any more legitimacy.
>> Combine this with the practice of calling out any criticism of these facts as 'racist' and tensions quickly arise.
> You might as well just say "I'm going to say some racist nonsense, but don't you dare call me a racist!" Preemption by gaslighting?
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Instead of hyperventilating the usual 'racist, racist, racist' mantra and shooting messengers - '...Project 2025! ...Fact Check!' - it would be enlightening to hear your reaction on the facts presented by those maligned sources.
Are they wrong? Not so much according to you but according to the cited sources - the Census bureau et al, see the end notes in the article. Show where they are wrong, don't just act like so many others who join in the chorus when prompted by their leaders.
If you can not show they are wrong you should really retract the above diatribe. Facts, after all, don't care about anyone's feelings?
Dumping an information capsule and demanding that it be debunked upon challenge is an age old misdirection tactic, that takes advantage of the fact that debunking statistics-based narratives take a lot of additional context. That's why the lack of credibility of the source is considered a valid reason to reject an accusation. If you didn't have a motivated agenda in this, you would have avoided this kind of singular source of such reputational dearth, instead of resorting to the tactic of inverting the burden of proof.
I never expected a meaningful response to a criticism of your comment. But I find it disturbing that you slipped in such an obscure and malicious source here without disclosing their conflict of interests. That's a genuine misdirection. The real intent of my reply was to point out this problem to the other readers. Having done that, your rhetoric and weak insults are a misguided effort that I don't find any value in addressing.
In other words you have no information which contradicts what is stated in the article so you turn to ad-hominem tactics. For what it is worth the same statistics can be found in many other countries, Denmark [1], Sweden (where I live) [2] and The Netherlands (where I'm from) [3,4] among them. You probably won't believe these either since they go against the desired narrative but I have to ask who you think is helped by this attitude. Are the governmental organisations which created these statistics just racist as well?
Here we're talking specifically about Somalis because people from that country have been in the news lately. The original tangent was that the lack of integration into host countries as well as the large dependency on social services together with the taboo on mentioning any of these issues - as you so well displayed here - are a large cause of the tensions around migration.
I like how these hacks like to pretend that we need to treat every engagement with them in a vacuum with their reputation intact and being given the opportunity of good faith after lying repeatedly. I don’t know the name for the fallacy but it’s like some expectation that we are in single events for game theory instead of an iterated game where we can respond to previous behavior.
For `hagbard_c1, you’re using a source that’s lied repeatedly, not gonna waste time debunking more of their information and I am going to assume any suggested solutions based off their data is also incorrect.
Yes, I got a tour of their factory back in the day when I was editor for a number of IT-related magazines. Close to everything was made there in that factory from the metal housing for the machines to the circuit boards - photoresist, exposure, etching, cleaning, printing, conformal coating, through the pick-and-place machine, through the wave solder bath, testing and mounting in the chassis. In the Netherlands, in a relatively modest factory hall. If it could work then - and it did, for a while - it should be possible to do that now without the compulsive urge to outsource everything.
As hencq already mentioned ASML and NXP were spinoffs from Philips, to be specific from the Philips Natuurkundig Laboratorium [1] or NatLab for short. What something like e.g. Bell Labs was for the USA the NatLab was for the Netherlands: an industrial research and development organisation where theoretical research and product development were integrated into the same organisation. Apart from the already mentioned ASML and NXP spinoffs it was also where the Compact Disc [2] was developed. NatLab was disbanded in 2001, the facilities now house a business park (High Tech Campus Eindhovem [3]) where both ASML as well as NXP have a presence.
I've seen a few 'consumer' laptops - HP DV6000, several Acers - go bad this way with parts on the board loosening. What these models had in common was that none of them had a stiff inside frame but consisted of a plastic bottom on which the guts were screwed down and onto the back of which the screen hinges were mounted with 2-3 screws each. This was capped with a plastic top into which the keyboard was mounted. With all parts removed the top and bottom shell are quite flimsy so any stiffness in the finished product depends on all parts being screwed down tightly. Now add those screwed-down hinges on the back which make the thing flex every time the screen is opened and closed, lift the thing using one hand every now and then which causes it to flex as well and you have a recipe for loosening parts - especially BGA components - on the mainboard.
reply