NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video] • Hacker News Board

Re: NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video]

#201

Post by Jon_Lowtek » Sat, Dec 31, 2022, 1:12 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #83

COGlory wrote: post #66

I don't understand. The bill was passed with an overwhelming, veto-proof majority. Then it sat on the Governor's desk until she made changes (after intense lobbying)? But the NY legislature is not in session, but the bill is signed? So how were the changes approved by the legislature? What is the precise legal mechanism here? Is this legal? My initial impression is that this is an illegal act of tyranny and should be…

The amendment happened back in May 2022, apparently.[1] You can read the pre-amendment and post-amendment versions there. It was pretty much gutted. Right to repair for farm equipment was removed entirely, and rights involving digital devices made far weaker. That got press coverage in June 2022.[2] Other than cell phone screen and case repair, it doesn't seem too useful. [1] https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill…

The current debate is about an agreement mentioned in memorandum 93 ( https://twitter.com/JonCampbellNY/status/1608327624526548993 ), which describes changes that were not part of the amendment in May 2022. I also thought it may just be a bad summary of those changes, but it details changes that were not done in may. So it is either a very badly written memo, or there is something more going on than can not currently be seen in the public paper trail on the senate website.

Re: NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video]

#202

Post by sandworm101 » Sat, Dec 31, 2022, 1:15 PM UTC

noisy_boy wrote: post #192

smnrchrds wrote: post #44

I believe the analysis. Here in Canada, the government passed a law not that long ago (during the pandemic) to enshrine rights of passengers for delayed and cancelled flights, which included right to specific amounts of monetary compensation in those scenarios. The law, however, had an exception, where no compensation is due if the flight is delayed or cancelled due to a safety issue. Lo and behold, the airlines have…

> Lo and behold, the airlines have started classifying almost every delay and cancellation as a safety issue Then the regulators should be asking why there are so many safety issues? Seems like by the airlines' own admission, this is a perfect ground for a full investigation and penalties in case the issues are found to be misclassified under the category of safety.

They only care about safety issues during flight. Flights that dont happen are not a "flight safety" issue. The safest trip is always the one that doesnt try to leave the ground.

Re: NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video]

#203

Post by sandworm101 » Sat, Dec 31, 2022, 1:18 PM UTC

ammar2 wrote: post #69

causi wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law, however, had an exception, where no compensation is due if the flight is delayed or cancelled due to a safety issue. This makes no sense at all. If I order a pizza and it doesn't show up the reason it doesn't show up is completely irrelevant; they still owe me my money back.

I think the reasoning would be to disincentivize airlines from potentially flying a plane that is unsafe to avoid paying out.

The safety issues have nothing to do with the planes. They are to do with lack of crew to fly the planes. The airlines are not maintaining a sufficient reserve of backup crews because doing so costs money. The is profiteering under the guises of "safety".

Re: NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video]

#204

Post by heywhatupboys » Sat, Dec 31, 2022, 1:23 PM UTC

xg15 wrote: post #182

HWR_14 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They want to avoid the following situation. X% of the time a plane crashes and costs $Y. It costs $Z to cancel/delay a flight due to penalties and compensation. $Z > X% of $Y, therefore fly the unsafe flight. So they lower $Y in the case that it's a safety issue to save lives.

The free market at work. "Do you want me to provide plain bad service or bad service that also puts the customers' lives at risk? The choice is yours, dear regulator!" But more seriously, I think the sibling posts are right here: A plane crash is more than a monetary risk: In the worst case, managers of the airline could be criminally liable for lost lives.

> The free market at work.

Do you have any clue how dangerous Soviet passenger aircraft and their flights were, compared to their Western counterparts?

Re: NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video]

#205

Post by butlerm » Sat, Dec 31, 2022, 1:24 PM UTC

Jon_Lowtek wrote: post #20

Louis Rossmann claims in this video that the bills text was changed in the last few days, an argument that hinges solely on the text of the memorandum attached to the governor signing it, which mentions an "agreement" between Governor and legislative, and hints at the content of said agreement. The document number mentioned in the memorandum as the signed bill is S4104-A According to the New York State Senate[1] the…

As you might expect, the Constitution of New York states: "nor shall any bill be passed or become a law, except by the assent of a majority of the members elected to each branch of the legislature" (Art. III S.14).

"Every bill which shall have passed the senate and assembly shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the governor; if the governor approve, he or she shall sign it; but if not, he or she shall return it with his or her objections to the house in which it shall have originated, which shall enter the objections at large on the journal, and proceed to reconsider it" (Art IV S.7).

So if a governor doesn't want to sign a bill, he/she may veto it and explain why, come to an agreement about what is acceptable, and then a revised version would have to be adopted in identical form by both houses before it was ready to sign again.

Re: NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video]

#206

Post by fallingknife » Sat, Dec 31, 2022, 1:29 PM UTC

codekansas wrote: post #125

college_physics wrote: post #96

Every such event reminds me of that celebrated fraud of an academic who argued that corporations exist to maximize profit within the applicable legal framework and that it is how things should be. The fact that corporate entities actively shape the legal framework to suit narrow interests that frequently undermine collective welfware somehow escaped him. When intellectual dishonesty and amoral behavior reach such sys…

I'm not sure I understand what the alternative is - should you pretend that corporations are not ruthless profit maximizers, and allow them to have undue sway over our legislative system all the same? It seems like the root of the problem is that we've let the institutions which are supposed to hold our politicians to account when they exhibit blatant corruption fall into disrepair.

The problem is that while corporations are in fact ruthless profit maximizers, government officials are ruthless power maximizers. So not sure how to manage the interaction between them. The goal should be to keep them fighting, though.

Re: NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video]

#207

Post by ericmay » Sat, Dec 31, 2022, 1:35 PM UTC

xg15 wrote: post #182

HWR_14 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They want to avoid the following situation. X% of the time a plane crashes and costs $Y. It costs $Z to cancel/delay a flight due to penalties and compensation. $Z > X% of $Y, therefore fly the unsafe flight. So they lower $Y in the case that it's a safety issue to save lives.

The free market at work. "Do you want me to provide plain bad service or bad service that also puts the customers' lives at risk? The choice is yours, dear regulator!" But more seriously, I think the sibling posts are right here: A plane crash is more than a monetary risk: In the worst case, managers of the airline could be criminally liable for lost lives.

The free market at work also generated the airlines and travel industry that so many enjoy. We created the FAA and other entities to regulate the market participants to make sure we get the outcome we desire while balancing generating economic activity. If something isn’t working right, it’s the responsibility of regulators to fix the problem, or ultimately the people to elect representatives who will.

This casual cynicism regarding markets is dangerous and infectious because instead of focusing on fixing problems that have solutions via the levers of government, people give up completely and then nothing is ever made better. We need more participation in government, not less. When you toss up anything bad as “that’s the free market folks!”, people have no recourse. They can’t vote away airlines. So you end up directing action toward something that can’t be actioned upon. It’s misdirection.

Also claiming that “this is the free market” ignores the vast civilian infrastructure that is built and maintained by the State and regulatory agencies and practices that have been created. Not to mention bailouts in the past of bankrupted airlines and such. Airlines in particular are not a good example of “that’s the free market”, and even so markets don’t operate in a vacuum, they serve at the behest of the people and the government.

Re: NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video]

#208

Post by fallingknife » Sat, Dec 31, 2022, 1:36 PM UTC

Drakim wrote: post #170

themitigating wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US Surpreme court ruled they are people. https://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-companies-...

The funny thing is that corporations have a bunch of advantages like limited liability on top of the US Supreme court ruling them to have the same rights as people, which means that corporations actually have more rights than regular people.

People also have limited liability. You can't be sued for the actions of another person, or held responsible for the debt of another person.

Re: NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video]

#209

Post by nemo44x » Sat, Dec 31, 2022, 1:44 PM UTC

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #101

COGlory wrote: post #66

I don't understand. The bill was passed with an overwhelming, veto-proof majority. Then it sat on the Governor's desk until she made changes (after intense lobbying)? But the NY legislature is not in session, but the bill is signed? So how were the changes approved by the legislature? What is the precise legal mechanism here? Is this legal? My initial impression is that this is an illegal act of tyranny and should be…

Really wish Zeldin wasn't an election denier. That's what made me vote for governor sellout.

That’s such a weird thing to not vote for someone for. I mean, I get it - it’s a principled stance and all. But you should never vote on principal. You should vote to win so that the real issues you care about are reified. Principal could make you feel good but you still lost. Winning is the only thing that matters.

Re: NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video]

#210

Post by danaris » Sat, Dec 31, 2022, 1:53 PM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #207

xg15 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The free market at work. "Do you want me to provide plain bad service or bad service that also puts the customers' lives at risk? The choice is yours, dear regulator!" But more seriously, I think the sibling posts are right here: A plane crash is more than a monetary risk: In the worst case, managers of the airline could be criminally liable for lost lives.

The free market at work also generated the airlines and travel industry that so many enjoy. We created the FAA and other entities to regulate the market participants to make sure we get the outcome we desire while balancing generating economic activity. If something isn’t working right, it’s the responsibility of regulators to fix the problem, or ultimately the people to elect representatives who will. This casual cy…

> This casual cynicism regarding markets is dangerous and infectious because instead of focusing on fixing problems that have solutions via the levers of government, people give up completely and then nothing is ever made better.

I don't think this follows, and I think it's because you're missing a piece of what's going on here.

You seem to be coming to this from a perspective of "obviously, a healthy system has a market with sensible regulations on it."

That's a world away from where most people (or at least, the loudest people) who criticize regulations are coming from, which is basically, "Unregulated free markets solve all problems, and government only creates problems."

If you feel like you're seeing a lot of cynicism directed at "free markets", this is likely why: it's a reaction against these extremely vocal "drown-government-in-a-bathtub" types.

Thing is, there are generally two different things that people can mean when they say "free market":

1. A "market economy", as contrasted with a "command economy"—ie, more or less the way the US does things, as opposed to the way the Soviet Union did things.

2. An "ideal free market", as described by Adam Smith, which can, in theory, ensure that many systems find a stable, efficient equilibrium that balances consumer desires with producer desires.

The problem is that, however much many (particularly of the Libertarian bent) wish to believe in it, the latter is not real. It is a thought experiment, and it requires a bunch of conditions that don't always apply (eg, perfect information, commoditization, etc). The other problem, of course, is that as I said, the two are often called "free markets" interchangeably without clarification, which leads to much confusion.