When did New York start building slowly? • Hacker News Board

Re: When did New York start building slowly?

#191

Post by zdragnar » Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 2:10 PM UTC

nine_k wrote: post #86

zdragnar wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak too much to the first several points, but noting - agency micromanagement of contractors - general red tape is very fitting and a direct contribution to - too little competition I worked with a startup company ~8 years ago that wanted to go after government contracts. According to the owners, everyone they demo'd the product to said it was very clearly superior to what they were currently using. Unfortu…

> the people that sign off on paying for it. Those people had checklists of irrelevant requirements, slow response times, almost certainly pressure to select "certain" vendors This reads like a lack of democratic influence and even direct corruption. That is, these "stakeholders" are not concerned that the voters would be unhappy with their performance, and would fire them (directly or through an action of a newly el…

There is very little democratic influence in the bureaucracy of most governments. Most functions aren't political, and most politicians don't actually have any direct authority to manage a random government employee's job performance.

Re: When did New York start building slowly?

#192

Post by seanw444 » Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 2:14 PM UTC

rajamaka wrote: post #155

wongarsu wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, in situations where a bad roll of the monarchy dice isn't a big deal because people can just leave, dictatorship tends to become the preferred form of government. See for example open source projects with their BDFL; if you have a bad BDFL the project gets forked with new leadership. Another example are small to medium sized businesses, where customers and employees can just go elsewhere if the CEO tur…

Could you explain what you mean by "people can just leave". Because this isn't really a realistic option for a majority of people.

It's really annoying that HN has resorted to the same hivemind behaviour as Reddit. You're asking a reasonable question, because you didn't follow, and you're greyed-out from downvotes.

If someone has a bad take, downvote them. If someone doesn't understand, but wants to, either upvote or don't vote. It's really that simple.

Re: When did New York start building slowly?

#193

Post by lordgrenville » Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 2:17 PM UTC

enkid wrote: post #164

nicbou wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of what Dan Carlin called "rolling the monarchy dice" in his Hardcore History podcast. If you get a good dictator, things get done with little friction, because the power rests on a single person's shoulders. But if you get a bad one, you're stuck with it. Democracy might be slower and less inefficient, but it's reliably slower and less efficient.

What's an example of a good "dictator"? I can think of are individuals who willingly gave up power or set up a democratic system after they left, i.e., George Washington, Ataturk, etc. I can't think of a single historical example where someone actually improved the people's situation in their country, but that could be my bias when I think of someone who is good or my ignorance.

Without meaning to start a flamewar, I'd give a shout to Napoleon. Took over when France was in chaos, and turned it into a wealthy powerhouse, spread Enlightenment values, built incredible cultural treasurehouses. He was a great general and administrator and leader. Yes, some of the family members he appointed to run parts of the empire weren't great, nor were his successors. And yes, invading Russia was a mistake. But still seems a good example of "rolling the dictator dice".

(Relevant disclosure: I'm not French.)

Re: When did New York start building slowly?

#194

Post by EntrePrescott » Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 2:20 PM UTC

MagnumOpus wrote: post #129

hoseja wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just a totalitarian vanity project. People live in squalor and die by the thousands on the warfront meanwhile.

The Moscow metro is not just for vanity - the nomenklatura don't take the metro, the people in squalor do... Besides it is irrelevant for the topic - say you are right, then you are still admitting that even a corrupt country that constructs public transport only for vanity can do it at 10x the speed and 0.1x the costs as we can...

> The Moscow metro is not just for vanity - the nomenklatura don't take the metro, the people in squalor do...

That's like saying the vanity construction projects of Roman emperors weren't for vanity because they were used more by the plebs than by the nomenklatura.

Which group uses it most has absolutely nothing to do with what makes a vanity project. Quite to the contrary, the criterion for a vanity project is that a core motivation for its construction was to embellish the image/popularity/glory of the powerful person who ordered the construction. So yes, it is quite common for vanity projects to be precisely those used more by the plebs than the nomenklatura.

Re: When did New York start building slowly?

#195

Post by pzone » Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 2:21 PM UTC

Scubabear68 wrote: post #43

I agree with the premise, but keep in mind we weren’t always so concerned about injuries and deaths on the job. Many of our greatest works were built on pools of blood that would not be tolerated today.

From the same Substack:

"Homebuilders don’t seem to think the burdens of OSHA and other safety regulations are all that high. Complying with OSHA is the second lowest category of perceived jobsite regulatory costs."

https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/how-much-safer-ha...

Re: When did New York start building slowly?

#196

Post by NickM » Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 2:26 PM UTC

Reminds me of the situation with intercity rail in New York state. It was faster to take a train between Buffalo and NYC in 1890 than it is today.

In 2009, NY started working on a high-speed rail study, which finally completed last month after 14 years. Now, the completed version of the study recommends a 25-year project that will increase train speed from 80MPH to...wait for it...90MPH.

Insanity.

Re: When did New York start building slowly?

#197

Post by pzone » Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 2:39 PM UTC

drchickensalad wrote: post #172

29athrowaway wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In terms of what? traffic? air quality? schools? crime rates? housing? Exactly how is it a good place to live? Probably when Frank Sinatra was alive but certainly not now. What can you get in New York that you cannot get somewhere else?

There is the widest variety of deep cultural experiences, events, and food next door to you than anywhere else in the world. You never have a reason to drive, but are still in the US; no traffic jam, instead reading hacker news on a relaxing subway ride or walk into work. Retail businesses are no bullshit fast and efficient. Every type of job opportunity surrounds you. It's the safest comparable city in the US.

It’s one of the safest places to live in the US, period.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-06-07/is-new...

Re: When did New York start building slowly?

#198

Post by tastyfreeze » Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 2:44 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #173

machina_ex_deus wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key is having an accountable "dictator". There are two interpretations to democracy: you can emphasize "representation", and parliamentary system, or you can emphasize "accountability" and singular leaders. The idea being, if you rolled the dictatorship dice badly, you minimize damage and reroll it. The U.S. was clearly designed with the second interpretation in mind. The revolution was a result of taxation by th…

The US design was a bit more than that. It was designed, first, so that the entire system had strictly limited power. Second, it was designed so that within the system, there was nobody who had power that someone else could not block. It was very much not a "dictator" design. For example, the President could appoint the cabinet and judges, but the Senate has to approve them. The president could negotiate treaties, bu…

The president has become more of a dictator because Congress has abdicated a majority of their law making authority to the executive by creating administrative agencies. There is no real check on administrative agency rule making. The judiciary can block a rule but often defer to the expertise of the administrative agencies making the rules.

Re: When did New York start building slowly?

#199

Post by foolswisdom » Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 2:49 PM UTC

machina_ex_deus wrote: post #131

nicbou wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of what Dan Carlin called "rolling the monarchy dice" in his Hardcore History podcast. If you get a good dictator, things get done with little friction, because the power rests on a single person's shoulders. But if you get a bad one, you're stuck with it. Democracy might be slower and less inefficient, but it's reliably slower and less efficient.

The key is having an accountable "dictator". There are two interpretations to democracy: you can emphasize "representation", and parliamentary system, or you can emphasize "accountability" and singular leaders. The idea being, if you rolled the dictatorship dice badly, you minimize damage and reroll it. The U.S. was clearly designed with the second interpretation in mind. The revolution was a result of taxation by th…

I agree the design wasn't about representation, and does seem to have been designed with being able to kick people out being important, rather than representation (think about the fact that per the original constitution, the only federal office voted for by citizens was the House of Representatives). However, describing it as optimizing for concentration of power in comparison to British parliament seems to be incorrect (as others in this thread have pointed out). From my readings of The Federalist Papers, it seems more that they were trying to design a system which forced cooperation between its members instead of individuals with massive power. The executive is an individual, however, because actual execution is always better done with an individual on top. Of course, changes to the constitution and the world in the meantime have massively weakened the original design.

Re: When did New York start building slowly?

#200

Post by tastyfreeze » Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 3:07 PM UTC

yellow_lead wrote: post #121

kneebonian wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly this kind of reminds me how a large application grows. You get a polished application out and discover a bug, but you can't rewrite the whole app so you put a patch in. Then another bug is found, so another patch gets pushed out. Over time legitimate bugs and requirements at the time fall by the wayside but the code remains. I don't know how we fix that problem when it comes to legal code though.

I think there's been some writing on this - where others have suggested we need to regularly "refactor" the legal code. I mostly agree, and you could think of courts/case law in this way. However, there isn't much incentive for it. A law getting struck down has no negative effect on Congress or state legislatures. That's a problem IMO

I like the idea of expiration dates on laws. Another good idea is requiring Congress to remove old laws in order to pass new laws. But, the second idea is much easier to game.