The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
No bio...
User ID: 174
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
1hr ago
The draft not working very well in Vietnam was why we got rid of it, though.
We got rid of it because we withdrew from Vietnam
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
1hr ago
It won't exempt blacks. It will merely allow hardship exemptions, including exemptions for being a member of a marginalized class and whose ancestors were once held in an enslaved condition within the United States.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
3hr ago
The draft doesn't require social cohesion (as we had in WWII), just government force (as we had during Vietnam)
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
3hr ago
No motte-and-bailey; slippery slope. I'm not going to argue about the specifics about any particular spot on the slippery slope because the main problem is that it is on the slippery slope.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
3hr ago
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, both state and federally. State courts are certainly allowed to evaluate the constitutionality of state laws.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
3hr ago
Security for devices for the defense industry is one of those reasons, but I think household devices would be mostly outside their purview.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
3hr ago
If the blue tribe needs red tribe warm bodies to fight blue tribe battles, most likely Red will just respond to calls to patriotism. But if they don't, there's always force (the draft).
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
3hr ago
If you're going to just ignore everything I wrote
I'm not ignoring it, I'm rejecting it. I'm saying requirements to fly an aircraft have frozen in place because FAA regs froze them in place.
I'm not going to argue about the specific regulations because that's implicitly accepting that the regulatory framework is a good thing, and I think it's a bad thing.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
4hr ago
If the FAA hadn't foreclosed it all at the start by freezing the technology in place with regulations we might indeed live in a different world already. If the NHTSA existed back when the model T was current, we might need checklists for driving cars and have regulations based on needing to turn a crank to start.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
4hr ago
It's not true at all.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
4hr ago
You have zero reason for anyone to believe that the core reason why we don't have flying cars is regulatory and not technological/cultural/practical, especially when I can see with my own two eyes that every proposal that comes up is obscenely whack from a technological/cultural/practical standpoint.
Of course they're "obscenely whack". The only people foolish enough to propose them are those who know nothing about the industry and thus the fact that the regulatory barriers are insurmountable.
If you want to fly you have to learn a bevy of arcane radio procedures, log every trip you take, follow various checklists every time you fly, get your aircraft maintained only by FAA-certified mechanics, have regular medical examinations, and more. And you still only can fly in good weather, which makes every trip a risk of being stranded. There's no market for a flying car, even if technical barriers were overcome, given those requirements.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
5hr ago
There's no point in talking about the specific merits of the specific regulations, since doing so is like the old joke about the prostitute -- "we've established that, now we're just arguing over the price".
Once you've accepted that the government should be regulating this sort of thing your road to hell is paved and greased. The end state might look like aircraft where nothing actually new can be built because the regulatory barriers are too high, it might look like buildings which all have to be basically the same because the rules constrain the solutions overmuch, it might look like dishwashers and laundry where new things are forced to be less and less effective due to regulators' efficiency obsessions. It won't look like innovation. It's not that any epsilon amount of regulation instantly kills innovation to zero; it's that having the regulatory framework in the first place makes satisfying the regulations Job One, and that job tends to expand until it fills the space. Over time, not instantly. And it tends to drive out the kind of people who would do the innovation, because they hate all the box-checking, on top of hating all the constraints themselves.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
5hr ago
That you can scoff at the idea that regulation can kill innovation doesn't mean it cannot.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
6hr ago
The previous time I heard this sentiment was from conservatives criticizing universities for being too left-leaning/left-biased.
It's pretty common for the leftists to take rightist talking points and throw them back, often in situations where they don't really apply. It's not that surprising they'll also use them against other leftists.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
6hr ago
No one looking at a lot full of cars doesn’t make sure the car has airbags and seatbelts and antilock brakes.
Since they're all mandated now, no one bothers. And when they weren't, people indeed chose cars without them. But those are a different issue; those are safety, and what we're talking about with IoT devices is security. Think door locks and immobilizers, not airbags and seat belts.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
6hr ago
But I’d want a conservative President with the kind of deep congressional connections and sleazy lobbying ability to actually be able to pass things
The option is not on the table. It's Trump or 4 more years of Biden. At this time the implicit message associated all this criticism of Trump for not being successful enough (much of which is true) is that you might as well vote for Biden and wait for the Perfect Conservative to come along; it's not going to happen.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
18hr ago
Or do you have some weird twisted argument that literally any epsilon>0 of regulation instantly grinds innovation to a halt?
It never stays epsilon.
Architecture, for instance. Do you know what architects do nowadays? It isn't really to design buildings. It's to figure out a way for any given space to satisfy fire regs and ADA regs at the same time, while still being usable. If there's anything left over for creativity, it's taken by energy efficiency rules.
Aircraft I mentioned in another post. No flying cars, no supersonic jets, and the big aircraft manufacturers aren't even planning new designs, just variants on old ones.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
19hr ago
What do you think is "the way we talk about flying cars today"?
The idea that we'll ever have them is an utter joke, and has been since before Avery Brooks made a meme of it. And that's true, it is an utter joke. But at one time people thought we would have flying cars. The ever-increasing regulation on anything airspace-related has made it so we don't have flying cars, we won't have flying cars, fewer people have their own aircraft, and even flying toy airplanes is mostly illegal.
There are of course substantial technical barriers to flying cars, but almost no one is even interested in trying to overcome them because the regulatory barriers to marketing them and getting the general public to be allowed to fly them are obviously insurmountable. No one goes into the aircraft industry unless they want to live, sleep, and breathe FAA regulations; nobody's designing better airplanes, the whole object of the business is to make more cost-effective (cheaper or more fuel-efficient) airplanes while still satisfying the myriad FAA regs. Which mostly means finding some way of claiming the new airplane is a variant of an old one, otherwise the regulatory cost of certifying the new airframe AND getting pilots certified on it is too high.
If the regulators get their way, we'll have the same thing in household automation. We'll still be doing the dishes the same way (only with less and less effective dishwashers, since it's an obsession of the US government to do dishes without water), laundry (same thing about effectiveness) and cooking too. Nothing that could be automated will be (except toys like the Roomba)
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
21hr ago
The game of insisting on some very tangible prediction for a perturbation to a complex system, and then if no such prediction is forthcoming insisting the person making less tangible claims is wrong is annoying and only works on Yudkowskiites. I'll make a less tangible claim, though: If regulation gets a foothold and continues to increase, in 20 years we'll be talking about the promise of automation of household tasks the way we talk about flying cars today.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
21hr ago
Maybe their little subculture will change. It is a Culture War, after all.
You won't change it without breaking it such that it can't produce the new stuff any more.
...wait, so those people aren't building them? Who is building them? People who aren't the artists and don't find following the regulation to be boring? Then we don't actually have any problem at all! I'm not sure what you've been complaining about this whole time.
"Technokings" is not a reasonable description of the people building them. The people building them exist, and are not people with the regulated-industry mindset, where there are a ton of boxes to be checked and rechecked every time something is built or a change is made.
But you know all this; you're unable or unwilling to truly conceal your glee at keeping the people (such as myself) that you hold in such disdain being stomped on by the English jackboot.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
22hr ago
The difference is that it's easy to people who don't have a particular psychology or culture.
So you say. But those people can't do it, because they aren't the people building the devices. The people being required to do it are the people you (gleefully) admit it is painful for.
But hey, I think we're making progress. The reason why IoT devices have been an absolute security shitshow for years is just because a small culture of powerful technokings think that it's too boring for them to fix the obvious problems that everyone knows are obvious problems and which are objectively easy and simple to fix. We may have reached agreement!
I do not agree. The reason IoT devices have been an absolute security shitshow for years is no one except you and some European regulators actually gives a shit. There are no technokings building them, and nobody's going to pay a red cent more for an internet-connected light bulb that's more secure than some other internet-connected light bulb.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
22hr ago
Compliance is a huge industry.
Weird. I hear about that from my friends in literally every other industry ever. They still seem capable of operating.
Sure, and Harrison Bergeron could walk with a junkyard's worth of scrap metal stuck to him. It's a handicap, not necessarily a fatal one (though sometimes it is).
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
22hr ago
It can be easy and simple to follow, but incredibly grating to the personality of "artists". They don't like coloring inside the lines, even if it's easy and simple to follow.
If it's that grating, it's not easy even if it is simple. The word for such a thing is common: "tedious".
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
23hr ago
Your original post expresses considerable contempt for "tech folks" and demonstrates absolute joy for us having regulation "dropped" on us "in a much stronger way that you really won't like." This really doesn't fit with an idea that you think the regulations will be anything like easy or simple to follow -- rather, you actually think they will be difficult and painful to follow and are joyfully anticipating the pain it will cause.
Yeah, regulation sucks. It's terrible that in the "real" engineering professions, you need a minimum 10 years of experience before you're allowed to do anything more than turn the crank on well-tested models to determine if some very slight variation of an existing thing meets all the requirements, and then fill in all the boxes on the paperwork to maintain traceability. Doing that has high costs; applying those costs to the software industry as a whole will cause it to stagnate.
Gay marriage was on a slippery slope down to all the trans stuff we have today. I don't know if the slope ends before dog marriage. Not sure what that has to do with a regulatory framework being a slippery slope towards the death of innovation.
More options
Context Copy link