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

Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 225 posts

Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive

#111

Post by jamiek88 »

rwmj wrote: post #99
idoh wrote: post #19

"Low oil prices have limited the government jobs that many Saudis have long relied on, and the kingdom is trying to push more citizens, including women, into gainful employment. But some working Saudi women say hiring private drivers to get them to and from work eats up much of their pay, diminishing the incentive to work." I'm guessing that this is the biggest driver - Saudi Arabia just cannot afford to not allow th…

It's a strange statement because low oil prices are caused by Saudi Arabia's own policies.

That is overly simplistic indeed.

Macro forces leave them a certain percentage wiggle room in production to affect price but US oil and the world wide reduction in demand rule even over OPEC at its strongest and OPEC is practically dead really.

While US producers price their projects in the $25-35 cost per boe produced and the Fed keeps rates low the US can keep on trucking and Saudi can do very little about it. There are billions of barrels of oil sitting offshore in ships waiting for better prices.

There are hundreds of fracked fields that can be turned on and off like a faucet.

Sure offshore deep water is slow due to cost and cannot respond to swings readily but the fundamentals changed years ago.

Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive

#113

Post by korethr »

knz wrote: post #89
rconti wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite example is the South Carolina law that was finally rescinded a few years back, where bars had to serve their mixed alcoholic drinks with liquor poured from single-serving 'airline' style bottles. A colossal waste of time and resources, but the kicker was the arguments against rescinding the law-- some folks arguing that DUI rates would go through the roof and The Children (TM) would all die, and others ar…

Laws related to firearms are often similar. The current example is the effort to make suppressors more available. Those opposed are already pushing tales of dramatically increasing crime rates and poaching instead of acknowledging that even suppressed firearms are still very loud or that many other OECD countries (which have more strict regulation) allow or even encourage the use of suppressors. The sad part about us…

> many other OECD countries (which have more strict regulation) allow or even encourage the use of suppressors.

Now this piques my curiosity. Could you perchance name some examples?

Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive

#114

Post by ant6n »

knz wrote: post #89
rconti wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite example is the South Carolina law that was finally rescinded a few years back, where bars had to serve their mixed alcoholic drinks with liquor poured from single-serving 'airline' style bottles. A colossal waste of time and resources, but the kicker was the arguments against rescinding the law-- some folks arguing that DUI rates would go through the roof and The Children (TM) would all die, and others ar…

Laws related to firearms are often similar. The current example is the effort to make suppressors more available. Those opposed are already pushing tales of dramatically increasing crime rates and poaching instead of acknowledging that even suppressed firearms are still very loud or that many other OECD countries (which have more strict regulation) allow or even encourage the use of suppressors. The sad part about us…

True, we should work on the true underlying societal problem -- a society flooded with guns, a society viewing guns as a reasonable way to solve problems.

Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive

#115

Post by xoa »

ufo wrote: post #106
knz wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laws related to firearms are often similar. The current example is the effort to make suppressors more available. Those opposed are already pushing tales of dramatically increasing crime rates and poaching instead of acknowledging that even suppressed firearms are still very loud or that many other OECD countries (which have more strict regulation) allow or even encourage the use of suppressors. The sad part about us…

Why do some countries encourage the use of suppressors?

I can't speak for those countries, but I wish my state would encourage or even require them as a matter of politeness, quality of life and public health. Suppressed guns are less of a noise nuisance to neighbors/other land users, disturb wildlife to a lesser degree, and are much safer for hearing. In the case of small calibers they can eliminate the need for separate hearing protection which increases situational awareness and thus safety. They also increase accuracy of course (longer barrel).

They are expensive, but not prohibitively so imo. It's unfortunate the movie/TV industry really seems to have poisoned the well a bit there.

Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive

#116

Post by aparks517 »

ufo wrote: post #106
knz wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laws related to firearms are often similar. The current example is the effort to make suppressors more available. Those opposed are already pushing tales of dramatically increasing crime rates and poaching instead of acknowledging that even suppressed firearms are still very loud or that many other OECD countries (which have more strict regulation) allow or even encourage the use of suppressors. The sad part about us…

Why do some countries encourage the use of suppressors?

Neighborliness and hearing protection are the reasons I've heard.

Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive

#117

Post by xupybd »

woodman wrote: post #110
xupybd wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah you're right that is weird especially that both agreed, are you sure they weren't trolling you? But I do agree with voting irrationally being a problem in democracy. I just don't think it's only women that do that. I'd love it if, in order to vote, you had to name one policy position that the party you are voting for holds. I know we want everyone to vote so we can say participation is high but I'd rather only t…

Lol, this is so incredible. You've essentially suggested the reintroduction of a voter literacy test... now consider the context of that suggestion.

To be honest I'd never heard about voter literacy tests. I'm not in the states so the context is not something I'm aware of.

I know it creates more problems than it solves, I just wish people would take the time and effort to have an informed opinion before voting. Even if that informed opinion is opposed to mine.

To split hairs you don't have to be literate to name a policy.

Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive

#118

Post by korethr »

ufo wrote: post #106
knz wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laws related to firearms are often similar. The current example is the effort to make suppressors more available. Those opposed are already pushing tales of dramatically increasing crime rates and poaching instead of acknowledging that even suppressed firearms are still very loud or that many other OECD countries (which have more strict regulation) allow or even encourage the use of suppressors. The sad part about us…

Why do some countries encourage the use of suppressors?

Think about it.

The threshold for potential instant noise-induced hearing loss is 120 dB SPL at the ear. A rifle can exceed 170 dB SPL at a distance of one meter[1]. When you're shooting a rifle, it's going to be cradled firmly against the shoulder -- a lot closer than 1 meter. Even the lowly .22lr fired from a handgun can exceed 160 dB SPL[2]. A suppressor can knock that down about 30 dB. 130 dB is still a lot, but it's out of the 'will-immedately-and-permanently-damage-your-hearing' range at least, and makes further hearing protection (earmuffs, earplugs) that much more effective.

tl;dr - A suppressor is safety equipment.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure#Examples_of_sou... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor#Effectiveness

Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive

#119

Post by Khaine »

dmix wrote: post #87
dibujante wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not exactly true. People tout those photographs of "liberated" women in Iran in the 70's but that was a tiny slice of a female urban lifestyle restricted to a small number of elite women. That was not representative of the lives of the overwhelming majority of Iranian women.

Iran was still far more liberal in general before the cultural revolution, no? Women don't have to be in nice clothes in urban areas to not be repressed by clerical rule backed by state rule... There may have been societal pressure but it's significantly different when it's backed by government security services and religious police.

Yes, the Shah of Iran pushed a massive modernisation program [aka liberal agenda] to westernise Iran. The pushback from conservative elements was one of the driving forces of the revolution.

The interference from western powers to prop up the Shah did not help matters.

At least this was the impression I got from my time in Iran and visiting the tourist sites.

Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive

#120

Post by ue_ »

qsymmachus wrote: post #94
lucb1e wrote: post #85

Just today I had someone casually mention that he thought women should not be allowed to vote. This is the Netherlands, the person is Dutch, not muslim or some other culture that I might not be used to, we're master's students... nothing out of the ordinary. And the third person in the conversation apparently agreed, calling it bad to prohibit it in principle but "seeing the effects of allowing women to vote" he agre…

A creepily common idea among certain libertarians. "Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of 'capitalist democracy' into an oxymoron." – the inimitable Peter Thiel

I agree that "capitalist democracy" is an oxymoron, but I come from the exact opposite side from Thiel; I believe that a democracy cannot function within capitalism when politicians can be bought off, and there is no democratic control over the economy, the economy being half of the societal coin; we accept democracy in matters of politics, but not in matters of economy, the economy having just as much if not more effect on our lives.
Post reply on HN