There are valid reasons to oppose regulations. They can be used to create barriers of entry for small businesses, for example. They constantly affect the poor more than the middle class.
That is usually the opposite because the absence of regulations usually put the smallest players in a state of dependence of some huge monopolistic groups.
Think pesticides and genetically modified plants for example.
Maybe. But the original context here is an article about removing lead from gasoline. Which I’m pretty sure that helped many people based on the “greater good”.
There’s no copper sulfate in canned green beans or borax in beef. Those seem all around good.
Let’s agree that impacts of regulations are nuanced, and not try to condense it down to something overly simplistic like, “regulations hurt poor people”.
When left to their own cigaret companies tell congress cigarettes are safe and non addictive. Left alone companies pay in scrip only usable at the company store.
The 'greater good' has arguably PREVENTED much more hurt of people than it has ever hurt. Meanwhile companies have PROVEN time and time again that they WILL hurt people when left to their own devices. In environmental policies. In pay policies. In employment policies. In EVERY aspect possible.
This is the extreme, and it shows how far some (most?) people would go. There are many examples, and more being minted, it can be a drag.
Yes, not just environmental, all kinds of money stuff. The more money can be how it gets on steroids.
But this says a lot here:
>not try to condense it down to something overly simplistic
With greed involved you can follow the money to an extent, you find lobbyists on both sides of every controversy, sometimes chalking up wins, other times losses. But they stay in business and grow by compromising the greater good with as little profit loss from those paying them the most.
They might switch roles when they lobby in favor of ordinary citizens one time, and squarely against in a future campaign. But they never actually switch sides, the least costly thing to compromise is the "greater good", which ideally from their point of view is intangible, versus actual money, which their clients are usually counting before they have earned any.
It's politics, all regulations are hard to pass, but as lobbying has increased, the difficulty of having good legislation in favor of the greater good is becoming less possible.
It just costs too much to have a seat at the table.
If people want to have good things, it might become completely dependent on older regulations which were in their favor before it got too expensive to do that any more.
Lobbyists at this point is just sports 'flood the zone' defense strategy gumming up the process everywhere so they can point and say 'look at it, government doesn't work'. Another form of the Reagan 'starve the beast' strategy to say 'look at it, government doesn't work'. I'm starting to feel the same with speech online. Capitalism and other negative social elements working to undermine the social system that impedes them just constantly flooding the systems that assume/can handle the volume of/when all interactions are in good faith but can't designed to handle malicious flooding.
Hundreds of book on utilitarianism have been published since Bentham (ca 1800) first argued 'why'. They argue the matter from evey perspective ad nauseam.
There are valid reasons to oppose specific regulations not all.
Imagine I open a auto repair center and I perform oil changes. It would cost me money to have used oil hauled away or I could dump it down the drain. You probably support a requirement that I pay for the service.
I'm sure there are regulations that cause actual harm to small businesses that have little or no value but I wonder what percentage it would be of the total.
We're talking about environmental regulations. It is no more good for a small business to pollute than a large one, and it's precisely the poor who are most harmed by environmental pollution.
the largest unaccounted for victims of environmental degradation are our children and their children. given that we can't even keep from poisoning our own well water for our own uses today, it really does like on the whole we're failing to regulate sufficiently.
which isn't to argue that they shouldn't make sense. or that they should be used to tilt the playing field due to corruption, but on the balance claiming that we are currently overregulated is pretty indefensible.
Because "investors" are a large group. Many of them are not involved in the industry and are clueless about tech. Same reason they invest in OpenAI, that hasn't made any money.
Investors, both commercial and individual, often have more money than sense.
I didn't say they make it. They have it, like an older person who grew their portfolio over time. They are an example of someone who invests in AI without knowing anything about what it is.
I find it strange that when there is a housing crisis, they can't seem to build enough, frequently because of building permit refusals. But when a data centers get secrecy and fast tracked before anyone can oppose them.
Is there evidence of "fast tracking"? I'm imagining permitting a green field data center build is different from densification of an already populated urban place.
For a 100MW scale facility the contract work is never over. Once you are done with one bit of work something else is in need of refreshing or changing. Components are breaking daily at that scale, and switch gear, UPS, generators, breakers, etc. all have useful lifetimes and a replacement cycle.
It’s effectively a full time job for an electrician crew or three.
Of course once the facility goes away entirely the job does too. But so goes a factory or anything else.
"Less than agriculture " isn't the limit on what is too much. not sure how you decided that. Western states in particular struggle with their water supply and should not be wasting it on cooling transistors for people who are too lazy to think.
Can you make more substantive comments besides saying "wrong!" ? I don't disagree with your claim but it's extremely low effort and adds nothing to the conversation.
On reddit they used to say "the down vote is not a disagree button" but that's not the case here. I've been specifically corrected when I assumed that.
So if the prevailing opinion is that ice is committing murder, it makes sense a contrary comment would be heavily down voted.
I agree that hn is heavily liberal and holds a lot of the toxic leftist anti-thought patterns that are prevalent on reddit. But I think it's more of a symptom of the country and perhaps the West being wound-up over "things".
You want PCIe-6? Cool well that only runs on Asus G-series with AI, and is locked to attested devices because the performance is so high that bad code can literally destroy it. So for safety, we only run trusted drivers and because they must be signed, you have to use Redhat Premium at a monthly cost of $129. But you get automatic updates.
Do you want the control systems of the subway to get modified by a malicious actor? What about damn releases? Heat pumps in apartment buildings? Robotaxis? Payroll systems? Banks?
Amutability is a huge security feature, with tons of real world applications for good.
The fact that mega corps can abuse consumers is a separate issue. We should solve that with regulation. Don't forsake all the good that this tech can do just because Asus or Google want to infringe on your software freedoms. Frankly, these mega corps are going to infringe on your rights regardlessly, whether or not Amutable exists as a business.
reply