There's a reason we don't just "let the builders build". We used to do that (certainly to a massively greater extent than we do now), and the result was that although a few of them managed to construct monuments we can all be proud of, most of them built a pile of crap and/or damaged the places they built in and the people they nominally built for. This is true of literal buildings, but it's also true of a great many…
The dictatorship of the articulate
301–310 of 409 posts
Re: The dictatorship of the articulate
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
Essentially the more people have veto power or require consultation the harder it is to get anything done. The more policies and rules there are (particularly once uncertainty about what the rules are creeps in), the harder it is to build. If you've worked in a large corporation and a 10 man startup this should be obvious. In the latter you can spin up a new service in a couple of hours. In the former a couple of mon…
> In the latter you can spin up a new service in a couple of hours. In the former a couple of months is a blistering pace. In the latter you can harm society in ways that take a couple of hours to fix. In the former, you can cause harms that take months or years to fix (and, with enough lobbying, you can make taxpayers foot the bill).
Re: The dictatorship of the articulate
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe you will not come to an agreement with those that find that the opposite is true (‘let builders build’) because ultimately it boils down to one’s outlook on life and what we deem important (‘our value system’). By arguing in favour of regulation, you have a set of assumptions and expectations that support your view. For example, in the literal case of buildings, you might be thinking of rent-seekers and gre…
You start with a truism/No True Scotsman, then overlay a theory of everything without any evidence to suggest how construction deaths Are comparable to natural selection. I don’t disagree with you - but it would be worth revisiting how you make this argument. You took all this time to write a nice comment! & here I am, criticizing it, but I think you may need some refinement.
Basically, if you lean against regulation, clever/imaginative/quality building will flourish, but the price you have to pay is that cheap/shoddy building will flourish, too.
The problem for me is that even though I can see the tradeoffs associated with regulation, it's difficult to determine where to set the regulatory "dial." And even if I could set that metaphorical dial with confidence, not everyone will agree with me. :-(
Re: The dictatorship of the articulate
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was also a cost in human life. I saw a photo exhibition [1] about the construction of the Bay Bridge once, containing many beautiful shots from the point of view of the workers. The photos were taken by Peter Stackpole, a 20 year old kid who basically just talked his way onto the boats that took the workers out to the site. He took photos of the towers as they were being riveted together, of the cables being wo…
Was going to say this, human life was cheaper. It's quite worrying to see now a trend trying to praise this attitude as fearless workers, where as the ones we have now are all wimps, views usually espoused by people who have never, and will never work a job that could be dangerous
Have you ever been on a construction site, shipyard, pit mine, etc.?
They're stuck in the mud doing "everybody stand back" shit that isn't technically against the rules with a port-a-power because it's the least worst option and your ilk has the gall to come along and lecture that a 5-gal bucket isn't for standing on. It should come as no surprise that there's push-back.
More generally, the people who are actually subject to workplace injury are the ones complaining and they are not complaining about safety. They are complaining about you and your misguided attempts to "help" them. They are complaining that people like you saddle them with asinine policy that lacks nuance thereby making their jobs more difficult and less fulfilling than they were previously albeit marginally safer. Such policy routinely optimizes for reducing some trivially measurable source of danger while completely ignoring the fundamental dangers of the job. Policies like "no more box cutters", "no more step stools, step ladders for everything", "PPE all the time, even when everything is off and people are eating lunch" routinely come down the pipe from corporate HR or OH&S but you ask these types for a second truck crane or whatever to save everyone's back or a plasma cutter so gas cylinders don't need to be carted around as much and they act like you just threw a puppy into a wood chipper. No wonder these policies and their purveyors are held in low regard by the people on the ground.
Unfortunately, the people getting screwed are not necessarily the best versed in the ins and outs of organizational policy, management theory and whatnot so their complaints are not very well articulated. This brings us right back to the titular complaint of the article...
Re: The dictatorship of the articulate
#305There's a reason we don't just "let the builders build". We used to do that (certainly to a massively greater extent than we do now), and the result was that although a few of them managed to construct monuments we can all be proud of, most of them built a pile of crap and/or damaged the places they built in and the people they nominally built for. This is true of literal buildings, but it's also true of a great many…
Re: The dictatorship of the articulate
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Chesterton's Fence at all: before you criticize let alone dismantle regulation, you should be able to demonstrate a sound understanding of why it came to exist in the first place It's not the individual regulations themselves, it's the mass of regulations that's slowing things down. I'm sure SF has a ton of regulations around building housing. You can point to each rule and give a very good reason for why that rule…
> I'm sure SF has a ton of regulations around building housing. Which only affect those builders who keep wanting to build in San Francisco. Just go and build somewhere else, that's the entire point of San Francisco regulation! > massive disservice to the community by driving away affordable housing and business. I don't agree with you. SF regulations are working exactly fine for SF community: they are preventing the…
Re: The dictatorship of the articulate
#307There's a reason we don't just "let the builders build". We used to do that (certainly to a massively greater extent than we do now), and the result was that although a few of them managed to construct monuments we can all be proud of, most of them built a pile of crap and/or damaged the places they built in and the people they nominally built for. This is true of literal buildings, but it's also true of a great many…
> seems not to consider Chesterton's Fence at all: before you criticize let alone dismantle regulation, you should be able to demonstrate a sound understanding of why it came to exist in the first place This should probably be amended to “you should be able to demonstrate that you took reasonable measures to investigate why it came to exist in the first place.” Otherwise you’re likely to select for regulations whose…
When I suggested to the chair that we shouldn't do this anymore, his response was simply "but that's what we've always done." The older people on the committee, who had been there for decades, often engaged in antisocial behavior (lying, calling other committee members in the middle of the night to complain about things) including purposefully wasting time (trying to get committee members to go to trainings for tech we didn't use, stretching out committee meetings with things that were supposed to be handled before even after repeated warnings).
I think of this experience whenever someone invokes Chesterton's fence, and have to wonder how much experience people have with some of these organizations.
Imagine how much time we would waste if we applied it to ideology - you can't dismiss any weird conspiracy theory (and many conspiracy theorists have a _lot_ of information they'll throw at you) or ramblings of schizophrenics on the street until you have a sound understanding of their theories. Most people would think that's a terrible way to go about life, one where you either waste all your time with the most unhinged elements of society or accept their beliefs as holding as much weight as anyone else's. What people often fail to realize is that unhinged people also exist in bureaucracies, and deciding that you'll let all of their actions remain until you fully understand them is a terrible approach. So bad, I'd argue it's a dereliction of duty, surrendering regulations to the most inscrutable nutcases (you won't ever be ever to understand them, so in theory you would have to let all their actions remain).
This doesn't mean mindlessly get rid of all regulations, but you need to take a measured approach that deals with the world as it exists, and not pretend we live in an imaginary utopia where every action has a well reasoned and easily identifiable justification.
Re: The dictatorship of the articulate
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
False dichotomy. Look at the delays and cost balloons of the HSR project. They have nothing to do with safety of workers. You can adopt modern safety standards and still wipeout a ton of roadblocks to actually get started much sooner by just generally using eminent domain more freely and not empowering people to so easily stop projects with lawsuits.
I think NASA vs SpaceX is a good example. The Artemis costs about 4 billion dollars each flight The Artemis(/SLS) gets build in so many different states so everyone gets a bit of the pie, it seems mostly build by politicians, not by engineers or a general director. Starship, which is similarly powerful and has more tonnage to carry only costs $240 million, which numbers will drop steeply if we do a lot of launches.
But I think your point is both correct and missing something. It's true that NASA is largely run by politicians (it's no accident that there are NASA Centers in major political states like Florida, Texas, Ohio, California, and Virginia). But conversely, there would be no SpaceX in it's modern form without NASA. They needed a customer willing to take a risk with big contracts on non-profitable ventures to initially fund their infrastructure and R&D. Their existence is symbiotic.
Re: The dictatorship of the articulate
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps the primary goal shouldn't be regulation or de-regulation, but ensuring affordable access?
Whatever mechanism the government uses to “ensure affordable access” would be a regulation. We’ve seen what fully unregulated healthcare looks like and it’s people dying in the streets.
Re: The dictatorship of the articulate
#310There's a reason we don't just "let the builders build". We used to do that (certainly to a massively greater extent than we do now), and the result was that although a few of them managed to construct monuments we can all be proud of, most of them built a pile of crap and/or damaged the places they built in and the people they nominally built for. This is true of literal buildings, but it's also true of a great many…
Some examples from that time period: leaded gasoline, CFCs, shock therapy, suburban sprawl