Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 342 posts

Re: NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video]

#301

Post by phpisthebest »

Waterluvian wrote: post #296
phpisthebest wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under what basis do you have to claim those "random" inspections "work very well" Personally I believe they do almost nothing. Food born illness is pretty common and almost impossible to trace unless it is a wide spread outbreak. Many cities only inspect a food establishment every 2-3 years and in some cases as long as 5 years. I think reputation, and economics play a larger factor in safety then government inspectio…

What country are you referring to?

Given we are in a topic thread about the US State of NY, about a Law in NY State. I am referring to the US, and Specifically NY which has been famous for their health dept in come cases not inspecting places for years

Re: NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video]

#302

Post by Waterluvian »

phpisthebest wrote: post #301
Waterluvian wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What country are you referring to?

Given we are in a topic thread about the US State of NY, about a Law in NY State. I am referring to the US, and Specifically NY which has been famous for their health dept in come cases not inspecting places for years

Gotcha. My only experience is with Ontario. Fair to assume we were sticking to NY. :)

Re: NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video]

#303

Post by esarbe »

trinsic2 wrote: post #274
62346136 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Refusing to vote doesn't change the outcome if the only choices are bad ones. If anything it means you effectively voted for whoever had the majority in the end and are still guilty of supporting the greater evil if they turn out to be such.

>If anything it means you effectively voted for whoever had the majority in the end and are still guilty of supporting the greater evil if they turn out to be such. Thats red herring. Our electoral system is completely corrupt. The only way your vote would actuallycount is if all of the politicians we're replaced at once. Then maybe there would be an even playing field where it would matter. Your statement of "you ef…

I think you make it too easy for yourself to drop responsibility. "Both parties are corrupt, everything is corrupt, the system is corrupt" is just a cope out.

There are efforts to introduce alternative voting systems that make 3rd party systems viable. There are efforts to get ~~corruption~~ lobbying out of the system, ...

If you really think that the system is "totally corrupt"; do something to fix it.

Re: NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video]

#304

Post by unity1001 »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #111
unity1001 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "tyranny of masses" That's democracy. If you water down or prevent the democratic will through ANY means to empower the will of the minority over the majority for ANY reason, then you end up implementing the governance of an elite. Minority rights of the people are a different matter - they would be guaranteed by the civil law governing human rights in a country - they dont have anything to do with the democratic w…

Pure majoritarianism isn't necessarily best either, it just always takes the majority's side in disputes where a strongly-held minority opinion comes in conflict with a weakly-held majority one. Like, it's obvious that you should take the side of the majority when it's "we'd rather not be slightly inconvenienced by paying for rent-seekers" regardless of how intensely the minority of rent-seekers want to rent-seek, bu…

> it's "please spend $10000 per life saved via rare-disease research and treatment

That's an extreme extrapolation. Sure, the majority would maybe not care at all for such a minority treatment if it came to pass. But then again, the practical reality is that in a system that allows minority to override the majority, everything else goes wrong even if that one goes right.

There is an example. The US was explicitly crafted as a format that would allow the minority to override the majority to prevent 'the tyranny of the majority'. This was explicitly expressed by various founding fathers of the US, especially by de facto architect of its constutition, John Adams. And that's the reason why there is FPTP, the Senate, the supreme court, with the latter two easily able to override whatever majority vote is.

They did this because they feared the majority demanding land redistribution and passing it with their vote. The British aristocrats' lands were confiscated and redistributed after the revolution, that was ok. But the founding fathers feared that it would give ideas to the people about the lands of the now-American-but-ex-British elite like themselves.

Re: NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video]

#305

Post by unity1001 »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #114
unity1001 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> representative democracies / absolute democracies The dichotomy above is impossible to interpret. What does that even mean. So when a democracy is representative, the minority's will can override the majority's will? Then what does the representation part in the representative democracy mean.

> So when a democracy is representative, the minority's will can override the majority's will? Yes, and this is a feature, not a bug. Majority voting on issues one at a time cannot generate a deal that a majority would prefer when the compromise is presented as a block. Eg, if there are six different compatible single-issues that 10% of the people care solely about each, each individual one would get voted down 90-10…

That's not relevant. You are talking about coalition governments, in which the ensuing coalition government still represents the will of the majority. Each ~20% segment of the population represented by the 20% participant in the coalition government pushing forth ~20% supported issues and passing them does not mean that those are the will if the minority. It means that only 20% want to pass it now, but the rest do NOT object to its passing. That's still a majority government.

For a democratic majority-minority situation to occur, you must have 20% of the population wanting to pass something, but at least 20% of the population opposing it.

Re: NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video]

#306

Post by nix23 »

sandworm101 wrote: post #286
nix23 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most safety issues to planes happen on the ground...just saying.

I said try to leave the ground. Planes that never leave the gate are generally rather safe.

No...that was was my point they are not.

Re: NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video]

#307

Post by Terretta »

nemo44x wrote: post #260
macNchz wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people consider not having election deniers in government to be a “real issue” in and of itself. Having people in office who sow discord and continue to promulgate a fantasy about election integrity actively takes focus away from more important things. The winning at-all-costs attitude is what got us here in the first place: people so concerned with winning and having their people in office they don’t care if th…

It’s about outcomes. If that’s an outcome you care greatly about then that’s your decision to make. For me it ranks low on the set of outcomes I desire, especially when compared to the outcomes the opposition desires. The book “Rules for Radicals” talks about this and it has been a tool of left wing activists for 60+ years. You see it today for instance with various activists groups that plea for “our democracy” on o…

Having elections transition smoothly according to the vote is low on the set of outcomes you desire?

That seems like a meta issue, that if not supported, all other issues are moot. So I'd certainly vote against party on any given platform plank in order to maintain the meta process that applies to both present and all future parties regardless of platform planks.

Re: NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video]

#308

Post by ThrustVectoring »

unity1001 wrote: post #305
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So when a democracy is representative, the minority's will can override the majority's will? Yes, and this is a feature, not a bug. Majority voting on issues one at a time cannot generate a deal that a majority would prefer when the compromise is presented as a block. Eg, if there are six different compatible single-issues that 10% of the people care solely about each, each individual one would get voted down 90-10…

That's not relevant. You are talking about coalition governments, in which the ensuing coalition government still represents the will of the majority. Each ~20% segment of the population represented by the 20% participant in the coalition government pushing forth ~20% supported issues and passing them does not mean that those are the will if the minority. It means that only 20% want to pass it now, but the rest do NO…

In this hypothetical, the rest do object to the pet issues of others in the coalition, but only weakly. Like, I personally would vote against corn subsidies by itself, for abortion rights, and for a package of (corn subsidies plus abortion rights). The exact policies I mentioned don't particularly matter, I'm sure you can find your own set of two issues that you'd vote this way on if it came down to it - the issues you have an opinion on, but you'd hold your nose and concede the issue if it was the price of something really important to you.

And when two or more minority interest groups feel this way on each other's issues, it is a failure to enact the "will of the people" if you use strict issue-by-issue majoritarianism. After all, each individual pet issue fails on its own merits - they just aren't broadly popular enough.

Fundamentally, the issue is that strengths of preferences do not show up in a referendum on a topic. Furthermore, there's no way to credibly commit to a compromise that gets you something important in exchange for a relatively unimportant concession. I'm not saying these issues outweigh the benefits of direct democracy, they're just problems that can get solved by a representative system.

Re: NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video]

#309

Post by college_physics »

abigail95 wrote: post #239
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…

There should be some rule against calling a Nobel prize winner a fraud, without a very convincing argument. Go away.

> Go away.

As your amoral ideology masquerading as science ruins society and the planet you will find increasingly more "unconvincing folks" annoying your pristine reasoning

Re: NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video]

#310

Post by Terretta »

nemo44x wrote: post #284
armada651 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say that it doesn't work. It has been a major part of the anti-abortion and pro-gun movements as well and it has been very effective there. However your quality of life in society is much more important than any single issue. Knowingly voting for a candidate who is not competent just because you agree with them on a single issue will not solve any of the larger issues in society.

It comes down to pragmatism, not ideology. Consider you have to 2 groups, A and B, and a set of issues. Each issue has different importance to me and each group has a generally opposing stance on each issue. One group may have a stance on a subset of issues I generally prefer but more importantly the other group could have a stance on issues that terrify me. Their stance would lead to negative outcomes much worse tha…

You're misunderstanding issues versus the mechanism of issue management. You're saying ability to manage issues is less important than any issue being managed, which makes no sense.

Unless, of course, you don't believe in democracy and an election process.

Post reply on HN