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

281–290 of 749 posts

Re: Banned in California

#281

Post by mothballed »

inigyou wrote: post #215
mothballed wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It's not a good way to get to the truth. If your aim is to spread truth then you should be able to back up everything you say.

I think it is. It keeps listeners engaged because what they love most is telling you that you might be wrong and looking ways for it. A listener should make up their own mind anyway and double check -- if what you say is 99% right better they take that away than be 100% right and not be heard at all. I also just respect people more that can be bold with their points rather than hiding behind some chicken shit nuance that always covers them if what they really meant to postulate was wrong.

Re: Banned in California

#282

Post by rcxdude »

bonsai_spool wrote: post #217
scoofy wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 makes no sense to say "oh, we need to manufacturer this stuff... just not here." That's basically NIMBYism for electronics. This statement doesn't acknowledge why NIMBYism is odious. The reason is that we all need housing, but new housing may devalue current housing. While some may wish to protect their housing values/community feel/etc, others wish and may rightly deserve, access to housing at the same levels o…

They are not fundamentally different. The underlying hypocracy of NIMBYism is wanting the positive outcomes from something (more housing, factories producing goods) with someone else having to suffer the downsides. How obnoxious it is depends on that upside/downside risk, but fundamentally if you want a thing to happen but you want it to happen near someone else, you are part of the NIMBY problem. (Note that wanting it to not happen at all, or wanting a version that is more expensive but nicer to be near, is not the same, so long as you're happy to bear the outcome of that thing being more expensive)

Re: Banned in California

#283

Post by saghm »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #171
dangus wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sure the 5th largest economy in the world is truly suffering under their draconian regulations. Everyone in California making the 5th highest median income in the country wishes they were working at a local oil refinery. To your last point, I am somewhat doubtful that this website is being honest about automotive paint shops being banned in California. Am I to believe that the 3,000 auto body shops in Southern C…

If this website’s author is correct I’m supposed to believe that no paint gets applied to cars in Canada. Existing shops get grandfathered.

Is there any reason to assume that there's a dire need for more shops to apply paint in cars in California? If not, regulating to prioritize the air quality over increasing competition isn't unreasonable.

Re: Banned in California

#284

Post by Zigurd »

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.

The notion of comparative advantage says you don't. It's not NIMBYism. And it's not a good faith argument when it comes from folks who have a bunker in New Zealand.

Re: Banned in California

#286

Post by GJim »

jdross wrote: post #278
JaggerJo wrote: post #273

[flagged]

I’m married to a Brit and she is constantly in awe of how much better our healthcare is here in the US. And she paid for private insurance there too. Quality of facilities, low wait times, quality of staff interactions, organization, etc. She even freaks out about how we have free parking at our doctors and hospitals here! We’re on corporate insurance.

So why are so many of your citizens without even basic affordable healthcare?

Re: Banned in California

#287

Post by danesparza »

kardianos wrote: post #265
Fischgericht wrote: post #243

There is a reason these kind of things are no longer possible in much of the western world and especially Europe-like US states like California: After the deindustrialization people started to enjoy healthy air and clear water. As always when it comes to "the good old times" or "make great again", your brain will remember very selectively. I used to live next to a large river for about 35 years. As a kid, it was forb…

Those are the incorrect choices. You CAN actually do these processes, and still keep the environment clean. I believe in procedural symmetry: if you ACTUALLY care about people and the environment, then you wouldn't let other poorer do these thing. The USA being richer, can afford to do it right and safer, not through regulation, but through process. There is a difference. So what would you do if you ACTUALLY cared ab…

The person you are replying to mentioned their personal experience. Have you seen this work in person? It might help to talk about those facts.

Also: I suggest rethinking your opening line. It's not very endearing.

Re: Banned in California

#288

Post by ecshafer »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #256
clarionbell wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people can't afford homes, food and medicine, environment ceases to be a priority. It's mostly a question of when, not if.

Housing and medicine is largely a political decision with little relation to environmental concerns. The political party that favours deregulation is the same one that wants to keep private health care. Food is slightly different, judging by the rates of obesity people can afford more than they need.

Which political party is for a universal healthcare system? The largest political party with universal health care on their platform is the Green party.

https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2024-Democr...

This is the current DNC platform. There are zero mentions of a universal / single payer / socialized healthcare system.

There are four mentions of "healthcare" it refers to maintaining the ACA (which is a bad law), making a more integrated health care system in the US territories (Guam, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, etc.), climate law which will improve health care nebulously, and a vague statement about the supreme court hurting healthcare decisions (which is just a statement about them supporting the murder of babies).

Re: Banned in California

#289

Post by XorNot »

seb1204 wrote: post #244
SecretDreams wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I think to be eco neutral, you would be cost prohibitive. Which would be an issue in car manufacturing and phone manufacturing. Also, the website lumps adjacent tech together and says they're all banned, but they are not. Lumping sheet metal stamping in w…

We live in a throwaway garbage generating society. Many things we use or consume should be costly and prohibitive. E.g. single use coffee cups. Pointing out that such costs have been externalised for decades should be the starting point to internalise them.

Why care about single use coffee cups? They begin their life as oil in the ground and end their life as plastic in the ground (in landfill).

I've grown rather weary of performative complaining about trash which has a waste lifecycle which ends at "stabilized landfill".

Because that's one of our best waste lifecycle processes: what's a disaster is greenhouse gas emissions, it waste which is reliably ending up in the oceans and doesn't biodegrade.

Re: Banned in California

#290

Post by temp8830 »

kardianos wrote: post #265
Fischgericht wrote: post #243

There is a reason these kind of things are no longer possible in much of the western world and especially Europe-like US states like California: After the deindustrialization people started to enjoy healthy air and clear water. As always when it comes to "the good old times" or "make great again", your brain will remember very selectively. I used to live next to a large river for about 35 years. As a kid, it was forb…

Those are the incorrect choices. You CAN actually do these processes, and still keep the environment clean. I believe in procedural symmetry: if you ACTUALLY care about people and the environment, then you wouldn't let other poorer do these thing. The USA being richer, can afford to do it right and safer, not through regulation, but through process. There is a difference. So what would you do if you ACTUALLY cared ab…

USA is already effectively priced out of manufacturing due to high labor costs. Doing things with the "correct choices" simply makes the impossible even more so.
Post reply on HN