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

Banned in California

bannedincalifornia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 749 posts

Re: Banned in California

#131

Post by autoexec »

no-dr-onboard wrote: post #98
richwater wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> has an agenda Everyone has an agenda. Is anything on this site false? Is it incorrect information?

Maybe reworded as “He has skin in the game” > so obviously his point can’t be true > so obviously he’s biased and we can’t do the mental work of sifting > so obviously I can dismiss this as teleologically false. Please don’t be so lazy you guys. There is something to be gained here.

> so obviously he’s biased and we can’t do the mental work of sifting

This guy, with an obvious bias, created a website that misrepresents the situation in California (by implying things are banned or "nearly impossible" when in actuality they just take time/effort), while also failing to show the specific regulations or requirements for any of it. Without supplying that kind of information this website is little better than "It's banned. trust me bro". It's not our responsibility to try to dig up evidence to support or verify this guys claims just because he can't be bothered to do it.

His motivations, his framing of the problem, and his failure to back up his own statements makes the site pretty damn easy to dismiss and I don't even doubt that there might be instances where bad regulation exists, especially regulation that protects the profits of established players in certain industries by keeping out competition. I'm entirely sympathetic to the idea that it might be happening, but if there is something to be gained you aren't going to find it on this guys website. Serious coverage on this topic would include actionable information we can use to identify and solve specific problems. This is just anti-regulation propaganda.

Re: Banned in California

#132

Post by jjmarr »

thephyber wrote: post #107
encoderer wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a self fulfilling profecy. For a long time, it was jobs and the promise of a better future for your family. By killing that all we have is weather.

You act as though California is no longer one of the largest populations or one of the largest economies. The “snowball fallacy” is a fallacy because there is no reason California s can’t swing the regulatory pendulum back the other direction if there is too much economy / freedom impacted.

When I took a machining course, the instructor sat in the corner and showed us YouTube videos in Mandarin with English subtitles to teach us the equipment.

We are never going to catch up.

Re: Banned in California

#133

Post by amluto »

teaearlgraycold wrote: post #80
richwater wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> has an agenda Everyone has an agenda. Is anything on this site false? Is it incorrect information?

I don't think it makes a good case for itself. No automotive paint shops sounds kind of ridiculous. I don't know anything about that industry but there has to be a way to paint cars in a safe way, right?? But lumping that in with semiconductor fabs, which are extremely toxic, makes me wonder how many of these banned industries I don't want in my state. I think if we want to build them in the US maybe don't build them…

I would imagine a paint booth with negative pressure and particle and carbon filters on the exhaust would work fine.

I go by a paint shop every now and then. It’s not nearly as smelly as a quite of a few of the nearby restaurants.

Re: Banned in California

#134

Post by overfeed »

ixtli wrote: post #105
Take8435 wrote: post #32

[flagged]

Ya a lot of people on this site are ideologically positioned in a way that required demonizing CA. I don’t have any skin in that game but it seems pretty clearly A Thing to me from the other side of the country.

The Silicon Valley founderati is chock-full of (right wing) libertarians. I can't tell if they were always that way, or are increasingly disgruntled by state-taxes the wealthier they get.

Re: Banned in California

#135

Post by [deleted] »

rbliss wrote: post #125
mparkms wrote: post #48

The creator of the website is the CEO of a battery-powered induction cooktop company. ( https://x.com/sdamico ) He clearly has an agenda against what he perceives as onerous environmental regulations: https://x.com/sdamico/status/2026536815902208479 https://x.com/sdamico/status/2026552845294792994

I've been following Sam for awhile, his business model makes heavy use of outsourcing production of components to skilled partners. It's no sweat off him if he makes the Impulse stove in California or not. His point is that it's impossible to manufacture much of anything in California if you aren't grandfathered in. Seems pretty important for economic and security issues. The electric induction cooktop he and his tea…

[deleted]

Re: Banned in California

#136

Post by hunterpayne »

jasongill wrote: post #50
crawshaw wrote: post #30

Lot of things could be added to this list. Good luck getting permission to start a hospital, or permission to mine/refine anything with a slightly messy process (e.g. rare earth metals). You can't build a new port. The California Coastal Commission won't let you open a new hotel anywhere on the water. You can't even keep a bar open late in San Francisco.

I just searched "new hospital opened in CA" on Google and see that there were two new hospitals opened in Irvine in December, half of a new hospital complex in Santa Clara opened in October, more being built and slated to open this year or next...

Now look up when those projects were started...I will wait.

Re: Banned in California

#137

Post by WD-42 »

bmelton wrote: post #52
ryanobjc wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paint VOCs sounds fine, until it's done at industrial scale, and it's also your neighbor, and also all the children in the neighborhood have asthma, and also healthcare is a lot more expensive... This list isn't things you "cant do in california" but "polluting things you can't do in highly populated cities". I'm not sure what the conclusion here is other than health is not important.

Are they only banned in the cities, or are they banned in the state, which -- even in California, should have rural areas far enough away from cities to be tenable? It's an interesting conundrum though, because in many cases, the cities could not exist without the things that are being banned in the cities. It's a curious goal of populations to centralize, then ostracize all the things that enabled that centralizatio…

Everywhere in California that isn't a giant population center is growing food for the rest of the country, or is a mountain where these things can't be built anyway.

Re: Banned in California

#138

Post by bruce343434 »

Ifkaluva wrote: post #55
crawshaw wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you also want smart phones, electric cars, and a navy. There needs to be a path towards doing things other than foisting them on people who are out of sight.

What if, hear me out, what if we did these things… in space?!

Assemble a navy in space then just airdrop it through the atmosphere?

Re: Banned in California

#139

Post by ashdksnndck »

teaearlgraycold wrote: post #80
richwater wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> has an agenda Everyone has an agenda. Is anything on this site false? Is it incorrect information?

I don't think it makes a good case for itself. No automotive paint shops sounds kind of ridiculous. I don't know anything about that industry but there has to be a way to paint cars in a safe way, right?? But lumping that in with semiconductor fabs, which are extremely toxic, makes me wonder how many of these banned industries I don't want in my state. I think if we want to build them in the US maybe don't build them…

I assume you use semiconductors yourself, since you are posting here. But you want their manufacture to be banned in your state.

So the right thing is to outsource the dirty jobs to countries that can’t afford to be picky?

Wouldn’t it be better for the world if we used our wealth to develop methods of safe semiconductor manufacturing with low environmental impact, and proudly built those facilities in California?

Re: Banned in California

#140

Post by WD-42 »

ashdksnndck wrote: post #139
teaearlgraycold wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it makes a good case for itself. No automotive paint shops sounds kind of ridiculous. I don't know anything about that industry but there has to be a way to paint cars in a safe way, right?? But lumping that in with semiconductor fabs, which are extremely toxic, makes me wonder how many of these banned industries I don't want in my state. I think if we want to build them in the US maybe don't build them…

I assume you use semiconductors yourself, since you are posting here. But you want their manufacture to be banned in your state. So the right thing is to outsource the dirty jobs to countries that can’t afford to be picky? Wouldn’t it be better for the world if we used our wealth to develop methods of safe semiconductor manufacturing with low environmental impact, and proudly built those facilities in California?

Well that's the whole problem isn't it?

It's not like the laws are simply "you can't make semiconductors here". The laws ban the harmful externalities of the process. The companies that want to make semiconductors don't want to find a way to make the processes less harmful: it's cheaper and easier to just go somewhere where they can pollute instead.

Post reply on HN