311–320 of 320 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should call a professional and ask them what else they’d do.
Here's an out there suggestion: See if you have a paintball store near you, call them up, and ask them where they send their air tanks for testing/inspection. Last place I sent my paintball gun air tank to get inspected, they also did fire extinguishers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Cutting corners on boarding houses will lead to fire catastrophes. Nobody denies this. The question is whether said fire catastrophes really claim more lives than homelessness and wintering on the street. (Obviously fire catastrophes are a bigger PR problem and get more media attention, but is that really the appropriate metric for human suffering?)
They don't, but fire catastrophes are one of the most gruesome ways to die - and worse, a fire can always spread around and endanger even more people. There are reasons why fire codes are among the oldest laws in humanity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Free markets would eventually find a cost-effective solution Yeah Norfolk Southern really showed the dang gubmint how it's done. Raise your glass of contaminated Ohio River water to private enterprise!
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are finite resources. Resources used to comply with overzealous regulations are not spent in other ways. Some of these other ways save lives. Pick whichever ones you want - additional smoke detectors, pollution reduction, etc., etc. It's ridiculous to advocate arbitrary, putative, safety enhancing measures without an argument about why that way of spending resources is better than many of the other alternatives…
"* There are people who are killed or hurt by overzealous code who you don't know about.*" So you cannot name anyone. This is a completely hypothetical argument.
Thank god Turkey doesn’t have nuclear power plants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_earthquake_vulne...
They actually have the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant but I think it is not completed yet. However it was very close to the areas affected.
"In May 2010, Russia and Turkey signed an agreement that a subsidiary of Rosatom would build, own, and operate a power plant at Akkuyu comprising four 1,200 MWe VVER1200 units." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkuyu_Nuclear_Power_Plant)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
look, like, vaccines are basically one of the greatest accomplishments of humankind, this assertion is pretty obvious from any reasonable review of the relevant science and/or facts of the stuff, and so it's difficult to take seriously anyone who comes to a different conclusion like, if someone would believe you if you told them a vaccine is 99.9% safe, but would refuse to take that vaccine if you told them it was 10…
Exactly. And it's higher than 4 nines, it's 5-6 nines. I feel like only fringes of society would refuse the vaccine at that point. But what we do is lie and say it's 100%, losing all trust and making more antivaxxers in the process. The original ones that didn't want it at 5 nines wouldn't get it anyway, you're not winning them over by lying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"skipping permitting" is probably better described as "breaking the law" if you can't afford to meet construction requirements then you can't afford to construct, i guess
It doesn’t matter what you call it, or whether you agree with the choice, the end result of overly burdensome requirements like these is a decrease in the safety of housing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn’t matter what you call it, or whether you agree with the choice, the end result of overly burdensome requirements like these is a decrease in the safety of housing.
"overly burdensome" isn't an objective measure, and certainly isn't whatever you judge to be beyond your own level of acceptability
Building codes and related permitting regulations were established to ensure safety, and accepted by the public under those auspices.
The addition of novel, non-safety related political requirements exceeds this original remit and undermines the entire telos of residential building codes.
This inescapably leads to reduced compliance with the regulatory process, and thus, less-safe housing.
So, yes, “overly burdensome”.
I was just a teenager during 1988 Armenian earthquake that leveled entirety of city of Stepanakert ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Armenian_earthquake ) but I remember one of the most damning pictures on the TV and newspapers (even in USSR!) was a huge piece of load-bearing concrete from the collapsed panel building with "БРАК" (FAULTY or didn't pass QA) written on it in black marker/spray paint. Yet it was stil…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"overly burdensome" isn't an objective measure, and certainly isn't whatever you judge to be beyond your own level of acceptability
Forty-two years ago, homes here didn’t have to be permitted at all. Building codes and related permitting regulations were established to ensure safety, and accepted by the public under those auspices. The addition of novel, non-safety related political requirements exceeds this original remit and undermines the entire telos of residential building codes. This inescapably leads to reduced compliance with the regulato…