So thieves broke into your storage unit again • Hacker News Board

Re: So thieves broke into your storage unit again

#221

Post by crazygringo » Sun, Oct 06, 2024, 7:27 PM UTC

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #213

crazygringo wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate? My understanding is that overfishing and climate change are prime and valid examples of the tragedy of the commons. You seem to be claiming that the problem is with systems of management, but the entire point of the tragedy of the commons is that it happens when there isn't management. Which is abundantly the case at the global level of international waters and a shared atmosphere, because there is…

If you go and study the actual history of fishing territories, it invariably turns out that they all came/come with complex systems for managing yields. There wasn't ever "a big sea full of fish and anyone could just do whatever they want". For example, if you catch fish with impunity because there is nobody at sea to stop you, you still need to sell them which means interacting the people (in some way) close to wher…

I guess I don't understand your motive in what you call a "subtle shift" of trying to redefine away the concept of the tragedy of the commons.

You say 'There wasn't ever "a big sea full of fish and anyone could just do whatever they want".' But to the contrary, that's basically always been the case. Fishing boats were limited by technology and the size of their local markets, but once those limitations disappeared because of inevitable technological progress, then that's exactly what happened. And we see this happening especially with Chinese overfishing today.

You're claiming that supposed "systems of control" existed in the first place and then were attacked, but that seems entirely counterfactual to me. There was no system of control for a problem that technological progress hadn't created yet -- humans don't see that far enough into the future. And if four countries that border a sea want to limit fishing but a fifth one says I'm going to overfish as much as I want, well then what do you think is going to happen?

I don't see what benefit there is in attacking the concept of tragedy of the commons. It's not some kind of fatalistic viewpoint of what must happen (which you seem to be claiming -- "that people/communities cannot manage resources held in common"), but rather a warning of what will happen when resources aren't properly managed. Claiming the tragedy doesn't exist seems like it would only benefit the people who want to to exploit our shared resources. By recognizing its validity, we can do our best to create and improve systems of management (especially international systems) to prevent the tragedies from occurring.

Re: So thieves broke into your storage unit again

#222

Post by praptak » Sun, Oct 06, 2024, 7:35 PM UTC

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #199

praptak wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where I live the "accidental" part doesn't really get you off the hook. Negligence is better than intention but still. If it kills someone or causes grievous bodily harm, it's still on you. Yes, even if it's a burglar. You also have to think about the fully legal situations when it's firefighter or a cop with a warrant. Or an edge case like a stupid kid.

> If it kills someone or causes grievous bodily harm, it's still on you. Yes, even if it's a burglar. Honestly, the laws in your locale are unjust and need to be rewritten. There should be absolutely no liability to the owner (or renter) of a property if someone burglarizing it gets hurt accidentally.

Well it kind of depends on what exactly happened. For example there are building codes, like "no deadly drops without guardrails". If you leave something like this then you are breaking the law. If somebody dies because of this then it's on you, even if they were breaking another law.

I'm not sure how you could rewrite self defense law to cover this case.

Re: So thieves broke into your storage unit again

#223

Post by crazygringo » Sun, Oct 06, 2024, 7:38 PM UTC

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #214

crazygringo wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure if I would call them a commons. I don't understand why not. That's the literal definition of a commons in the political economy sense -- a public resource everyone can take from freely. (As opposed to a public resource that is managed via licenses, auctions, limits, etc.) On what basis would you not call them a commons, in political economy? The entire point of the "tragedy of the commons" is the trage…

> That's the literal definition of a commons in the political economy sense -- a public resource everyone can take from freely. Part of Ostrom's point is that this sort of commons has rarely, if ever, existed. It's a misunderstanding that Hardin's work created or amplified. Resources held in common are in fact always managed and not "free for the taking".

Well if modern-day climate change and overfishing in international waters fall into these "rare" examples where the concept is true, then the concept certainly seems important enough to me. I mean, it's mathematically true from a game-theory perspective in the first place. I don't see why you'd want to throw it out.

Re: So thieves broke into your storage unit again

#224

Post by 9x39 » Sun, Oct 06, 2024, 7:39 PM UTC

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #219

9x39 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Independent of any discussion on deterrence or incarceration's purpose, I think you misinterpret parent point as being about absolute numbers, but I read their point as per capita crime rates being higher, and thus per capita incarceration rates are as well being downstream of a population committing higher per capita offenses. America has measurably larger underclass than, say, EU measurable in absolute and per capi…

If incarceration is always "downstream" of per-capita crime rates, then it presumably has little effect on the upstream causes of crime. And yes, the US has a larger underclass than the EU, which just might have something to do with why we have more crime, no? And if so, increasing incarceration rates is not likely to help much, is it?

I think I see where the discussion frequently diverges on these threads - you're pointing out that incarceration does not appear to decrease offenses, while myself and others are pointing out why more incarceration is an outcome (desired, if we're being opinionated) of more offenses.

I think you're onto something in calling your point out, but at the same time, it's daring commenters to ask you what any society's response to crimes should be.

Rather than be coy, I'll stick my neck out and claim incarceration is about optimizing for outcomes among the peaceful/orderly middle and higher classes. We don't have to worry about the philosophical question of why crime occurs, or whether incarceration will work overall, it works well enough to deflect crimes away from certain locally policed areas and demographics and that flawed approach is good enough to keep the unkind, leaky system going.

Re: So thieves broke into your storage unit again

#225

Post by hansvm » Sun, Oct 06, 2024, 7:49 PM UTC

pkteison wrote: post #120

hansvm wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Off-topic, I find people have a similar misunderstanding of FAANG compensation. Functionally, the salary + RSU + bonus + refresh structure is equivalent to a larger salary (enough to cover fees for the following procedure) where you take out 4-yr loans every year to invest in the company stock. With that in mind, listing the realized stock growth when describing total compensation always felt a bit disingenuous.

Nobody will give you an unsecured loan for 100 percent of your salary, but tech companies will happily grant you rsus for that much.

100% is a bit uncommon. Take that at face value though. BigCo tech companies have much lower salaries than what you can get elsewhere. Compare a salary of X/yr plus a 4-yr RSU grant of X/yr to a salary of 3X. You absolutely can get a 50% partially secured loan for 4X to obtain similar payment characteristics to the BigCo offering (speaking in round numbers to keep the math simple, and ignoring fees, hedging, ... because they change exact thresholds and other minutiae rather than the core of the argument).

Re: So thieves broke into your storage unit again

#226

Post by CrazyStat » Sun, Oct 06, 2024, 7:49 PM UTC

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #195

tshaddox wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The paradox is that the monthly cost of a unit will quickly exceed the value of whatever is stored there unless the items have sentimental value or are very expensive. This is a tough one to manage psychologically, although it’s almost certainly also true of nearly anything you are storing in your own home. The difference of course is that home space is bundled inflexibly—you usually don’t have the option of paying…

That's why it isn't true of your home. The cost of storing an item in your home (assuming you didn't buy a bigger house just to store the thing) is 0.

Not actually zero. Closets stuffed full of stuff means more time wasted trying to find what you need and more time spent finding a place to store a new item.

Re: So thieves broke into your storage unit again

#227

Post by _dain_ » Sun, Oct 06, 2024, 7:51 PM UTC

9x39 wrote: post #224

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If incarceration is always "downstream" of per-capita crime rates, then it presumably has little effect on the upstream causes of crime. And yes, the US has a larger underclass than the EU, which just might have something to do with why we have more crime, no? And if so, increasing incarceration rates is not likely to help much, is it?

I think I see where the discussion frequently diverges on these threads - you're pointing out that incarceration does not appear to decrease offenses, while myself and others are pointing out why more incarceration is an outcome (desired, if we're being opinionated) of more offenses. I think you're onto something in calling your point out, but at the same time, it's daring commenters to ask you what any society's res…

> incarceration is about optimizing for outcomes among the peaceful/orderly middle and higher classes.

Actually I focus more on protecting the peaceful/orderly poor. Poor people are overwhelmingly law-abiding, but they suffer from the overwhelming majority of crime. On the other hand it's mostly naive rich people who subscribe to these theories that put the blame on everyone except the criminal, and they most of all can afford to insulate themselves from the predictable chaos when those theories are put into practice. Poor people don't have that luxury.

Re: So thieves broke into your storage unit again

#228

Post by AStonesThrow » Sun, Oct 06, 2024, 8:11 PM UTC

snovv_crash wrote: post #128

smeeger wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Sounds like trains in your area need to have better security and ticket checkers.

Those workers couldn't maintain an urban apartment near transit, so they are all homeless and too busy with their clinic appointments to work.

Re: So thieves broke into your storage unit again

#229

Post by FireBeyond » Sun, Oct 06, 2024, 8:18 PM UTC

dimensi0nal wrote: post #170

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What laws do you believe would be more effective a catching and punishing criminals? AFAIK, there is reasonably clear evidence that deterrence has a very low impact on this sort of crime, so laws based on deterring through fear-of-sentence would not seem to be likely to have much effect. What is it that you're proposing/desiring?

Incapacitation, not deterrence? If someone is in prison, they can't reoffend.

We already have the highest incarceration rates in the developed world - I'm not sure that more people in prison is the right solution.

Re: So thieves broke into your storage unit again

#230

Post by FireBeyond » Sun, Oct 06, 2024, 8:22 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #119

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US already incarcerates vastly more people than most comparable nations. And yet this level of incarceration does not seem to have had the effect you want. It seems that you imagine that the crime is somehow intrinsic to the current group of people committing it, and that by removing them from society, their behavior would not recur. While there are arguments for this sort of thing, it is also based on a wilfull…

Explain to me why someone that's been arrested 15 times should be let go to terrorize others. That person that has been arrest 15 times before cannot continue to commit crime if he's behind bars. You don't need to "read" the data to come to this conclusion. People commit crime in large part because they can get away with it. It's not complicated.

> why someone that's been arrested 15 times should be let go to terrorize others

First, correct the assumption that multiple arrests mean you're just living your life "terrorizing" society. Perhaps start with using words that are objective and neutral, not just to fan the flames of passionate rhetoric.