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

321–330 of 342 posts

Re: NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video]

#321

Post by nyrulez »

EricE wrote: post #319
nyrulez wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Election denier vs right to repair denier. If you consider the former less evil, good luck to you.

Election denier is such a stupid phrase - right now Democrats like to act like they have never disputed an election, which is a total crock. Hell Stacy Abrams had to be defeated twice before she finally conceded. And then you have people like some of those in this thread that not only buy into it, but feel morally superior at being duplicitous. Sigh.

If you really can't see the difference between Trump's fraudulent "election was stolen" claims that led to a whole attack on capitol and that he still can't get over it to this day vs Stacy Abrams recount or whatever, there is nothing that can be be done to persuade your kind. It's like being too far gone to see any logic.

Re: NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video]

#322

Post by unity1001 »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #308
unity1001 wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 y…

> In this hypothetical, the rest do object to the pet issues of others in the coalition, but only weakly

That means that the majority wants those issues. If 20% of the population wants something, 10% opposes it, and 70% doesnt care if it passes, it means that a majority wants that policy to pass. The majority does not need to be for something explicitly for it to be a majority decision. There has to be more people in a society wanting something than those who dont, and the rest not objecting to that policy. Its still a majority decision.

Re: NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video]

#323

Post by autoexec »

vlovich123 wrote: post #251
Waterluvian wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to be very very very careful not to disincentivize people declaring safety issues. They should really just unwind the wrong incentive and handle it differently.

Random spot checks of declared safety incidents + serious penalties for fraud (which this is if the companies are lying about safety incidents to avoid paying out compensation) is probably sufficient without changing any regulations in any meaningful way. No regulation is perfect but it’s quite surprising how effective regulations become when you start spot checking whether everyone is being honest.

Enforcement, transparency, and accountability are critical to regulations working correctly, which is why companies lobby against them at every opportunity. If they can get a toothless regulation on the books companies and politicians can all pretend something has been done to address the problems while the people can continue to be endangered/exploited.

Re: NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video]

#324

Post by ThrustVectoring »

unity1001 wrote: post #322
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 y…

> In this hypothetical, the rest do object to the pet issues of others in the coalition, but only weakly That means that the majority wants those issues. If 20% of the population wants something, 10% opposes it, and 70% doesnt care if it passes, it means that a majority wants that policy to pass. The majority does not need to be for something explicitly for it to be a majority decision. There has to be more people in…

> If 20% of the population wants something, 10% opposes it, and 70% doesnt care if it passes

That isn't the hypothetical I'm using to make my point. Obviously if you change the hypothetical you come up with different results, but then it isn't the scenario I'm using as an intuition pump.

Like, what I'm getting at is that there are sometimes policies you want your government to pass, even though more people oppose it than support it and nobody being truly undecided. Not all policy choices are equally important, and not everyone considers all policy choices equally important. A referendum is structurally incapable of enacting policies with minority support, for good or for bad. It's usually for good, true, but there are circumstances where you can do better by making sure that people think that the important policies are implemented, even at the cost of the majority not getting their way on relatively unimportant matters.

Re: NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video]

#325

Post by 71a54xd »

Right to repair is quickly starting to enter similar territory as the 'free software' absolutists. Basically, people who refuse to basically look at the current environment of software / hardware realistically and decry their outdated ideals onto everyone else.

All I generally care about is that I can get my data off of a device after some kind of failure or having a reasonably priced solution from the manufacturer. If the company I purchase from doesn't hold up their side of the bargain - I just buy somewhere else. I have five machines I've built in the past three years, admittedly I've only changed things in those maybe once a year. Never actually ended up needing an upgrade in any of my laptops.

Independent repair shops have done more damage than good to every device I brought them in most cases, I've legitimately never had an issue getting devices fixed or replaced by Apple.

Granted, as a prior fan of Louis' content, after meeting him in person and being treated awfully (after just saying hi and being chastised for living in the wrong part of NYC) I again have less respect for this "movement".

Re: NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video]

#326

Post by unity1001 »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #324
unity1001 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In this hypothetical, the rest do object to the pet issues of others in the coalition, but only weakly That means that the majority wants those issues. If 20% of the population wants something, 10% opposes it, and 70% doesnt care if it passes, it means that a majority wants that policy to pass. The majority does not need to be for something explicitly for it to be a majority decision. There has to be more people in…

> If 20% of the population wants something, 10% opposes it, and 70% doesnt care if it passes That isn't the hypothetical I'm using to make my point. Obviously if you change the hypothetical you come up with different results, but then it isn't the scenario I'm using as an intuition pump. Like, what I'm getting at is that there are sometimes policies you want your government to pass, even though more people oppose it…

> even though more people oppose it than support it

In no case in which sufficient amount of people oppose something, a policy can pass. Of course, Im talking about proportional representation systems. In first past the post, what you speak of is possible if that issue is not so critical to that amount of people that they may not vote on it as their #1 issue. Then the opposing party can win with a low margin on some other issue in which they have majority, meanwhile passing that other policy as well. This is an ill of the FPTP system. In proportional representation, that does not happen.

Of course, FPTP itself is something that was implemented to avoid the democracy of the majority, so that's no surprise.

Re: NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video]

#327

Post by dragonwriter »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #324
unity1001 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In this hypothetical, the rest do object to the pet issues of others in the coalition, but only weakly That means that the majority wants those issues. If 20% of the population wants something, 10% opposes it, and 70% doesnt care if it passes, it means that a majority wants that policy to pass. The majority does not need to be for something explicitly for it to be a majority decision. There has to be more people in…

> If 20% of the population wants something, 10% opposes it, and 70% doesnt care if it passes That isn't the hypothetical I'm using to make my point. Obviously if you change the hypothetical you come up with different results, but then it isn't the scenario I'm using as an intuition pump. Like, what I'm getting at is that there are sometimes policies you want your government to pass, even though more people oppose it…

> A referendum is structurally incapable of enacting policies with minority support, for good or for bad.

With a single-subject rule, that’s often (but not always) true; without it, it is less true, because policies can be packaged to achieve a combined majority, so long as there isn’t a majority that thinks it is important enough to defeat any part to overcome any support within that majority for other parts. (Even with a single-subject rule, this can sometimes be done, so long as the policies packaged relate to sufficiently closely related subject matter as to fit within the way the rule is applied.)

This is common in legislative bodies, and it works with citizen-legislators, too.

Re: NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video]

#328

Post by noisy_boy »

diffxx wrote: post #290
mjhay wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I think aircraft safety regulations do plenty of good.

I'm inclined to agree, but I am somewhat curious about this. The Boeing 737 max crashes certainly demonstrate that the industry does not universally prioritize safety above all. At the same time, there are strong incentives for any airline to not have a catastrophic safety incident. I recently flew on a 737 max and was willing to do so not so much because the FAA cleared them to fly but because I assume the pilots ar…

> The Boeing 737 max crashes certainly demonstrate that the industry does not universally prioritize safety above all

There is regulation and there are consequences of not following the spirit of the regulation (most focus seems to be on compliance to the letter of the law and avoiding to do anything beyond that ignoring the spirit of the law). Consequences don't seem to be particularly deterring in much cases; the offending company pays a penalty, no executive goes to jail and people forget about it soon. Unless these executives get jail time, there won't be any fear of consequences.

Re: NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video]

#329

Post by ThrustVectoring »

dragonwriter wrote: post #327
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If 20% of the population wants something, 10% opposes it, and 70% doesnt care if it passes That isn't the hypothetical I'm using to make my point. Obviously if you change the hypothetical you come up with different results, but then it isn't the scenario I'm using as an intuition pump. Like, what I'm getting at is that there are sometimes policies you want your government to pass, even though more people oppose it…

> A referendum is structurally incapable of enacting policies with minority support, for good or for bad. With a single-subject rule, that’s often (but not always) true; without it, it is less true, because policies can be packaged to achieve a combined majority, so long as there isn’t a majority that thinks it is important enough to defeat any part to overcome any support within that majority for other parts. (Even…

Even without a single-subject rule, there's zero enforcement mechanism to prevent other interest groups from reneging on the packaging agreement and defeating one or more parts in detail. There's no stable point you can get via referenda if (policy A + policy B), (policy not-A), and (policy not-B) all would garner majority votes.

Re: NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video]

#330

Post by vlovich123 »

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

Ok. But a state being disfunctional in a specific way surely means we should be looking externally for places where it’s not that disfunctional to figure out how to fix the disfunction. No? Am I taking crazy pills?
Post reply on HN