Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 564 posts

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#521

Post by deong »

bzbarsky wrote: post #496
int_19h wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most laws have loopholes, just as most software has bugs. You try to anticipate them when you write the law, and you keep an eye on them and amend the law as necessary.

It's not that simple in this case, because for my first question the answer really needs to be "yes" as a clear First Amendment matter: individual political speech is clearly protected, and video is a common "speech" medium nowadays. So that's a "loophole" that is pretty much required by the Constitution. It's really not clear to me how one can draw a sane line between the first and second question, for this case, un…

You're 100% right. What I'd say is that we as a society have to make a choice between preserving the full range of protected speech we all enjoy and curtailing the degree to which the democratic process has been corrupted by the unlimited need for private money to run a campaign.

I'm not personally convinced I know which of those two options is preferable, but those are the options. I am fairly well convinced that you can't do the latter without the former.

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#522

Post by Decade »

CydeWeys wrote: post #507
Decade wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can’t live in Manhattan? Because NIMBY housing policies prevent Manhattan from growing. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-...

I don't disagree that zoning policies need reforming, but that just makes living here more expensive, not impossible.

If there are fewer places to live than people who need to live there, then having a place for everyone is impossible. In a shortage, all housing is luxury housing.

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#523

Post by atemerev »

abalashov wrote: post #513
atemerev wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a consultant in a small team of professionals, right. However, for me, "learning on the job" comes mostly from solving problems, not talking to people. Which is why I steered to consultant / R&D positions. And I had no problems in acquiring said knowledge (in trading systems) on my own.

If you are an independent and highly skilled professional who knows the business, you can definitely work remotely. Good for you! But that's a far cry from, "Why do information workers need company offices at all, ever?"

For me, the need for commuting is such a great nuisance that I worked the hardest I can to get rid of it.

I agree that it might be a transitional phase, or something necessary to acquire the skills needed, but it needs to be rid of at the first sight of an opportunity.

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#524

Post by CydeWeys »

Decade wrote: post #522
CydeWeys wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree that zoning policies need reforming, but that just makes living here more expensive, not impossible.

If there are fewer places to live than people who need to live there, then having a place for everyone is impossible. In a shortage, all housing is luxury housing.

No one's talking about everyone though, just one person who is a HN reader.

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#525

Post by beat »

jonknee wrote: post #517
int_19h wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically the big reason why it succeeds where ACA does not is because it regulates the prices?

That along with a real mandate and the fact that Switzerland is a tiny place (similar in population as Virginia, though 1/3 the physical size).

I've seen the geography argument brought up for a "Why no national insurance companies?" Apparently, network stuff is so localized that it's very hard to set up a national-level insurance company. Although I suspect state-by-state laws play into it as well.

At any rate, the sheer geographic size, plus the large population, plus the legalistic bizarreness of our federal/state divide, leads to a chaotic system, and we can't easily just legislate that away.

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#526

Post by to3m »

fps wrote: post #506
to3m wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an interesting article. It didn't gel with my experience of people's motivations for buying cars in the UK, so I had a skim anyway, because what the fuck do I know about America (answer: I went there on holiday once), and ended up clicking on the link about how millenials prefer SUVs: http://fortune.com/2015/09/09/10-used-cars-millennials-buy/ and finding a list of the top 10 used cars that millenials buy. Now…

That list of cars isn't the list of most popular millennial cars, it's the list of cars that no one except young people will buy. You're right, the GT-R, R32, WRX, IS-F, and Magnum aren't a "normal person cars", they're mostly cheap high performance cars. The other half of the list is cheap, ugly SUVs. That list is a list of unpopular cars that for various reasons sells slightly better to younger people.

OK, yes, that's a worthwhile clarification, thanks. I did realise this, at least at first, but it looks like I warmed to my theme too much, and then promptly forgot, only to remember again towards the end ;)

Still, I stand by my conclusion...

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#527

Post by malyk »

serhei wrote: post #405
gozur88 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If people don't bang on about it, nothing will ever change ... It's not going to change anyway. The car haters on HN are in the minority of Americans.

I suspect that part of the reason cities like San Francisco, New York, and Vancouver are so ludicrously expensive in North America are because there are far more people that hate cars than there are cities which are amenable to their preferences. So, if a minority, then a very under-served one. Those cities are going to stay expensive unless the supply of walkable cities increases.

434,000 people ride Bart everyday in the Bay Area. But 270,000 cars still cross the Bay bridge every day and another 112,000 cross the golden gate. And obviously there's everyone driving up/down the peninsula.

I generally agree though, but to think that SF in particular is anti-car isn't exactly true. Much better than the rest of the country, but not as public transit friendly as it could/should be.

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#528

Post by mikestew »

everybodyknows wrote: post #358
cylinder wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No not really, once you study the legal system of other advanced countries you will realize the US system is completely insane. The verdicts are wild, and we use juries for complex civil litigation. A bunch of regular Joes are supposed to understand torts and then even calculate damages! The result is trial lawyers succeed by playing on emotion, class, race, playing a character, etc., and a bunch of bored confused Jo…

This accounts for trial lawyers reputed aversion to engineers during jury selection: not easily manipulated by emotional appeals, too likely to think about where that $50 million came from and will go to. I've been on the voter rolls for 35 years, and not once called in.

I've been on the voter rolls for 35 years, and not once called in.

That's luck of the draw, not anyone's aversion to having engineers on a jury.

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#529

Post by pikzen »

bzbarsky wrote: post #481
int_19h wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The exact opposite of it: money isn't speech, so restrictions on campaign financing aren't infringements on your free speech rights. Not letting you spend millions on campaign ads is not an equivalent of silencing your political opinion - you can still speak, write etc as a private individual, same as any other citizen.

Can I create a video and post it on my private youtube channel, as a private individual? Can I spend $10 million creating the youtube video, if I have that much money as a private individual? Can I organize a group of 10 friends to each spend $1 million on the youtube video? Can I organize 1 million people to spend $10 each on said video? Note that under McCain-Feingold (which is the law that was at issue in Citizens…

>Can I create a video and post it on my private youtube channel, as a private individual?

Yes.

>Can I spend $10 million creating the youtube video, if I have that much money as a private individual?

Yes. However, if it turns out that those ten million were gathered from other friends, explicitly in the goal to make this video without disclosing your donors or ignoring the caps, you should be fined and be made unelectable for multiple years.

>Can I organize a group of 10 friends to each spend $1 million on the youtube video?

Not if that video is part of your campaign, because then the amount each person can donate is capped.

>Can I organize 1 million people to spend $10 each on said video?

Yes.

The only real problem in those four is the third. Because it is infinitely easier to organize only ten friends to donate one million to your campaign than to organize one million people, especially if you're already in the category of people that can afford to blow ten millions like that.

As a bonus, at least having one million people donating to you demonstrates that you actually have people following you.

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#530

Post by pikzen »

bzbarsky wrote: post #496
int_19h wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most laws have loopholes, just as most software has bugs. You try to anticipate them when you write the law, and you keep an eye on them and amend the law as necessary.

It's not that simple in this case, because for my first question the answer really needs to be "yes" as a clear First Amendment matter: individual political speech is clearly protected, and video is a common "speech" medium nowadays. So that's a "loophole" that is pretty much required by the Constitution. It's really not clear to me how one can draw a sane line between the first and second question, for this case, un…

>corporations shouldn't be able to engage in political speech

Corporations should be able to engage in political speech, as long it is done through their CEO or anyone that represents them officially, who then would be nothing more than just another citizen who happens to own a company, defending its interests. By all means, have an interesting debate, explain your point of view, reason as to why you'd like X or Y.

Money is _not_ speech. By allowing those citizens to contribute financially, in an effectively unlimited way through superPACs and other setups, you are throwing away the very foundation of democracy and equality amongst citizens when it comes to being represented.

>unions shouldn't be able to engage in political speech

Go ahead, same thing, debate! Make yourselves heard, in the streets or on television. But, once again, money can fuck right off.

Post reply on HN