Live data from Hacker News

Banned in California

bannedincalifornia.org

181–190 of 749 posts

Re: Banned in California

#181
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I obviously mean that you can filter out and properly dispose of and neutralize what would be emissions, so that they are not emitted. I cant see your comment as anything but bad faith, why are you responding like this?

I have no idea what you obviously meant because what you’re describing doesn’t actually exist for anything on that page. I’m not privvy to whichever science fiction you’ve applied here, so it all sounds like rambling to me.

Re: Banned in California

#182
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

When you read a paragraph you have to read all the sentences in that paragraph.

The rest of the paragraph doesn’t say anything useful either. It’s the inane ramblings of someone who’s describing an imaginary scenario because they haven’t a clue what they’re actually talking about other than the woes of businesses that weren’t allowed to profit by destroying the local ecosystem.

Re: Banned in California

#183

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…

> No automotive paint shops Wait, hold on - I watched all the seasons of "Rust To Riches" on Netflix, about a small shop that flips cars. They routinely painted cars. They'd paint in this sealed-up room/garage thingee, the guy would wear and industrial-grade mask, and the camera would slide past as he expertly painted the car. The 30 second montages looked awesome! That show took place in Temecula, California. So the…

It’s not claiming: you can’t have an automotive paint shop. It’s claiming you can’t start a new paint shop. Specifically, if you don’t have one for your car manufacturing line already, you can’t set one up. Wikipedia shows 13 pages for auto plants in CA. Most of them have the verb “was” in the opening sentence. There are two current plants: Tesla Fremont and Toyota California. Both of these plants are over 50 years old, and only one of them produces actual cars instead of parts.

Re: Banned in California

#184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not care to try to make things ethically fair for oil refineries. Call me a hypocrite, I do not care, as these companies similarly do not care. "Ya got me!", yup, moving on, I am still glad oil refineries are effectively banned.

My point wasn't about fairness towards oil refinery companies, it was that supporting a ban on refineries in your local area while still benefiting from the downstream outputs of oil refineries is hypocritical nimbyism. If oil refineries are bad in California, they're bad everywhere, and if they're bad everywhere, we ought to stop using them altogether, which will make for some unwelcome lifestyle changes.

I'm fine if other states want to ban them too. I'm also fine if ultimately running oil refineries is uneconomical. I do not care if this is nimbyism; other communities are free to set their own rules.

Re: Banned in California

#185
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume you're being a little obtuse. The comparison to wherever manufacturers phones and EVs is implicit. They are manufactured somewhere with looser environmental regulation than California, where they are purchased en masse. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

I saw complaints that amounted to “it’s more expensive to build out large industrial facilities in bay area than in Reno” okay what’s different in Reno hmmm I could be like the website and try to imply it’s only environmental regulations… or I could acknowledge that land price and availability is drastically different and also labor costs…. But then that wouldn’t help my contrived argument that it’s all the pesky reg…

It's providing a single geographic data point to you, for free. You're welcome to do your own research if you want a complete picture.

Re: Banned in California

#186
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Texans seem more than happy to host these industries. Let them, they have no public land left to protect anyway. The environment is arguably California’s most valuable asset. May as well preserve it so people continue to want to actually live here.

Texans often try to regulate these industries at the local level. The state government has tried to put a stop to most of that by passing the Texas Regulatory Consistency Act which took away the ability of local communities to protect themselves. The state has ruled that Texans will be exploited by industry in order to protect profits and the citizens aren't allowed to vote to save themselves.

Who votes for the state government?

Re: Banned in California

#187
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most of the comp sci videos on youtube are indian, but is India the cutting edge producing of comp sci innovations?

Re: Banned in California

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point wasn't about fairness towards oil refinery companies, it was that supporting a ban on refineries in your local area while still benefiting from the downstream outputs of oil refineries is hypocritical nimbyism. If oil refineries are bad in California, they're bad everywhere, and if they're bad everywhere, we ought to stop using them altogether, which will make for some unwelcome lifestyle changes.

I'm fine if other states want to ban them too. I'm also fine if ultimately running oil refineries is uneconomical. I do not care if this is nimbyism; other communities are free to set their own rules.

So you're okay with no refineries after all.

So, no combustion-based private or public transportation, no detergents, no aspirin, paracetamol or ibuprofen.

It would still be possible to drive an EV, though. You could keep it lubricated with whale oil.

Re: Banned in California

#189
post #142
post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm not sure I agree. Unless you believe there needs to be a plan for CA to secede in the future and thus it needs to be self-sufficient, why does manufacturing need to be in CA? As you stated, the Impulse stove makes heavy use of outsourced manufacturing to other parties; as long as those parties are within the US (which I'm not claiming they are, but there are states like TX that are far less concerned about enviro…

It makes no sense to say "oh, we need to manufacturer this stuff... just not here." That's basically NIMBYism for electronics.

You either make it doable or you don't.

Re: Banned in California

#190
post #126
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you also want smart phones, electric cars, and a navy This is kind of disingenuous. I mean, not everything used in California, needs to be manufactured in California. Why not manufacture it in New Mexico? Or Arkansas for that matter? What you're implying, is that Wisconsin, Nebraska, Maine, Florida, etc, etc, etc, should all build out the manufacturing base to manufacture things that are used in those states. Tha…

> I mean, not everything used in California, needs to be manufactured in California. Not the parent but nobody is implying that. Just that most Californians consume or want these things and thus expect other states to build them.

Which is no different than any other state.
Post reply on HN