<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>niklasni1</author><text>This if obviously true, but I don&amp;#x27;t think this means we shouldn&amp;#x27;t demand openness in hardware, though.&lt;p&gt;Openness for me is first and foremost ideological, not practical, and certainly not just about the results. It&amp;#x27;s really about power, and the relationship between those who make the technology and those who are dependent on the technology.&lt;p&gt;Being dependent on proprietary technology whose continued existence is completely tied to the financial well-being of a single corporate entity is not a very good situation to be in for anybody, since it means that you are by proxy dependent on that entity and its success. Openness does not reduce dependency on technology, but it does reduce dependency on specific technology providers, and ultimately I think that&amp;#x27;s in my best interest.</text><parent_chain></parent_chain></comment><story><title>To elaborate on why open-source hardware is hard</title><url>http://www.mauve.plus.com/opensourcehw.txt</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>mbanzi</author><text>This article describes why hardware is hard but if you were a small company designing a closed-source circuit you&amp;#x27;ll have the same problems.&lt;p&gt;Being open has the theoretical advantage of having multiple people review your circuit and help you spot mistakes.</text><parent_chain></parent_chain></comment><story><title>To elaborate on why open-source hardware is hard</title><url>http://www.mauve.plus.com/opensourcehw.txt</url></story>