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

221–230 of 749 posts

Re: Banned in California

#221

Post by raddan »

mjamil wrote: post #146
mjamil wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And, yes, it's a really neat stove... for wealthy people. At an installed cost of ~$8k (more if you're having to replace a standalone oven/cooktop since you need the stand for it), it's competing with lower-end Viking gas ranges that include an oven, and those have an extensive service network that Impulse doesn't (yet) have.

I saw this being hyped on YouTube the other day. My main concern is that there is a large lithium ion battery in a machine that is designed to get things hot. You do not want thermal runaway to happen with a battery that large inside your kitchen.

Their website says

> We’re designing and manufacturing the stovetop, battery pack, and key internal components to comply with all relevant UL standards and other applicable compliance requirements.

but this device appears to be for sale, right now. Either it is designed for safety already or it isn’t. WHICH UL safety standards? Is there an emergency shutoff? A regular old fire extinguisher probably is not going to cut it.

Re: Banned in California

#222

Post by inigyou »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #196
ryanobjc wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the thing, often when people say stuff like "its banned" what they really mean is: - the cost of mitigating the human health risk is too high - competitors in low-environmental regulation places don't pay for those costs - ongoing verification is expensive I mean, let's face it, "self-regulation" of industries isn't really working that great. And for things that are health hazards that are basically borne by s…

You know what the V in VOC stands for right? Hint: It doesn't stand for "there forever" Nobody here wants to just let big business do whatever and turn the rivers weird colors again or go back to smog but it's very clear that the current regulatory system is not suitable and is hurting us. It boggles the mind that someone could honestly (by which I mean dishonestly and malice are far simpler explanations) step into t…

The V in VOC stands for "evaporates at room temperature" which means that if you use it, people breathe it in.

Re: Banned in California

#223

Post by inigyou »

akoboldfrying wrote: post #174
wewtyflakes wrote: post #95

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.

Would it be hypocritical nimbyism if I wanted to use semiconductors containing arsenic, but didn't want my living room to be an arsenic warehouse? Or how far away does the arsenic warehouse have to be before it starts being hypocritical nimbyism for me to not like it there?

Re: Banned in California

#224

Post by littlexsparkee »

scoofy wrote: post #189
mjamil wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

it's just specialization, in most cases it's not efficient to do locally

Re: Banned in California

#225

Post by soco »

ineedaj0b wrote: post #207
kgwxd wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It proves it's pointlessness. CA doesn't want manufacturing like that in their state. Period. They're saying you are not welcome to destroy our environment, go to Texas, they love that shit. States Rights, right?

You don’t have to destroy the state to produce these things. With aligned talent you can make the process neutral. I’m assuming lots of ‘eco conscious’ engineers would love to implement better practices and get paid for it.

"you can" is a very different thing from "you do". To do you need to want, to plan, and to execute. To can is just that, something in the clouds. So this is not contradicting the argument it's trying to contradict.

Re: Banned in California

#226

Post by inigyou »

tokenless wrote: post #43
themafia wrote: post #19

The newest thing I've seen: "compostable - except in CA"

Why? The microbes don't get along with sourdough starter bacteria?

It's because CA has stricter regulations about what can be labeled compostable. Whatever had this label was never compostable to begin with, but called itself that on a technicality.

Re: Banned in California

#227

Post by danlitt »

scoofy wrote: post #189
mjamil wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is too strong of a statement. There are perfectly sensible reasons to NIMBY certain activities. For instance, burning wood is probably ok in general, but a horrible idea in heavily populated cities.

Obviously, California is not composed exclusively of heavily populated cities. But it does contain a lot of them! So it is not completely insane that the regulation is skewed in favour of this.

Of course, for things that are equally polluting no matter where you do them (like burning fossil fuels), moving production outside of the location but still buying produced materials is simply passing the buck. But it's not totally clear to me that's what's happening here.

Re: Banned in California

#228

Post by BoredPositron »

trinsic2 wrote: post #214
BoredPositron wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Manufacturing,design and engineering need highly different skill sets it's just not feasible to have both in one location because of the workforce required. It's the same in every other country some parts are industrial hubs and some design/engineering.

If this were really the case, you wouldn't need to ban the practice. You could just offer recommendations

Despite the catchy url none of the examples from the site are bans...

Re: Banned in California

#229

Post by kortilla »

vampirical wrote: post #162
no-dr-onboard wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why do you think there's something to be gained here? There are a lot of cheap and easy checks this content fails that it represents a well formed argument based on reality.

Post these “checks” that failed. Don’t hide behind some bullshit about the author being motivated

Re: Banned in California

#230

Post by Gracana »

ortusdux wrote: post #45

They lost me at "vacuum deposition - impossible" without justification. As far as processes go it's one of the safest (everything happens in a sealed vacuum chamber). Maybe the solvents used to clean prior to coating?

Yeah, it’s the solvents used for cleaning the chambers and parts. Very nasty stuff, and it’s probably the biggest concern for this type of facility anywhere, not just in California.
Post reply on HN