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

Why do they still make car alarms? (2015)

popularmechanics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 535 posts

Re: Why do they still make car alarms? (2015)

#461

Post by athms »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #162
fortran77 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will not hesitate in San Francisco to break a $300 window to steal the change out of your ashtray.

That's just a figment of local law enforcement policy and doesn't really speak to broader trends. Places like Boston and DC have car break ins but they're not rampant like in SF Edit: For those unaware SF downgraded a ton of (formerly felony I believe) property crime to low level misdemeanors with very light sentencing guidelines (termed "catch and release" by many) which results in nearly zero law enforcement action…

In San Francisco, those types of property crimes were going up before Prop 47. That is not to say 47 didn't exasperate the problem. The city also had diversion programs for non-violent crimes, both misdemeanor and felony, before the proposition was enacted. SF has had an epidemic of car break-ins for the last decade and the organized shoplifting rings have been a thing for generations.

I never experienced drug or grocery stores locking up merchandise until I was visiting a friend in SF in 2007. Then again that was also the first time I saw used condoms and needles in the gutter, a person taking a dump between two parked cars, and two men humping in the bushes of Golden Gate Park.

Re: Why do they still make car alarms? (2015)

#462

Post by uCantCauseUCant »

loyukfai wrote: post #264
ineedasername wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It amazes me that, in wealthy countries, there are significant homelessness problems due to economic displacement. I consider it an existence-proof of the idea that a free market cannot solve all problems. I think homelessness due to other causes-- mental health for example-- are more complex but similarly demonstrate fundamental flaws in the framework of society. Only once was I able to give a homeless person a meal…

A free market has no morals, it's up to the participants to instill some.

A free market also has no senses for lost potential. It only sees the local optimum. External Events and competition between systems enable societys with free markets to move to larger local optimums, but the free market is incapable of doing so by itself. Proof - the mountains of cash at mountainview going nowhere.

Re: Why do they still make car alarms? (2015)

#463

Post by grogenaut »

olyjohn wrote: post #204
thelean12 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK, people don't really steal stock radios anymore. Or at least, it's not very common. Your trunk should also be empty of anything valuable. There's no reason to keep much back there overnight. I guess thieves could steal my tire chains and donut right now, but that hardly seems worth the trouble.

Thieves stole my chains, first aid kit, and my cheap ass toolkit that I kept in the trunk. No value on any of that shit so I’m not sure why they took it. But they also left an envelope that had a piece of paper in it with scribbles in it, and a roof rack mount from a different car. Thieves aren’t always stealing things because it’s logical.

had someone smash my window and rifle through my stuff. Window was $70. I found a uncached $375 check on the passenger seat I had lost in all of the checks from work (back when you got physical checks). So... yay!

Re: Why do they still make car alarms? (2015)

#464

Post by TeMPOraL »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #313
Skunkleton wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is much easier to do when there is real competition and transparency. Unfortunately my only high speed ISP is Comcast and I had no idea that parts of my phone were made by slaves until just recently. Until business has less power, we cannot instill morals in a meaningful way.

I don't know the specifics but I feel like that is not the result of a free market. I believe the government gave Comcast money to build out networks they own? In a free market you'd accomplish that by starting public collectives that do that build out, and then have the property owned in public trust. User/owners are unlikely to overcharge themselves for services.

There is no free market and there can't be - it's a theoretical ideal whose actual implementation is impossible, and we can only get so close to it without starting to incur extreme humanitarian costs. But since we can speculate about the outcome of a truly free market, here's my view:

In a free market, the first entrepreneur to get a loan from the bank to build up some of the infrastructure would beat all the public collectives - they could just build up, sell at a loss until the local collective gives up, and jack up prices as most users switch to their offering. Rinse and repeat, and with every iteration it only gets easier - because wealth and power compound, much like interest in the bank.

A free market structurally favors larger companies. Unlike what some people say, government intervention is neither necessary nor sufficient to enable monopolies - all that's required is the positive feedback loop on capital. The more you have, the easier it is to get more.

Re: Why do they still make car alarms? (2015)

#465

Post by imtringued »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #313
Skunkleton wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is much easier to do when there is real competition and transparency. Unfortunately my only high speed ISP is Comcast and I had no idea that parts of my phone were made by slaves until just recently. Until business has less power, we cannot instill morals in a meaningful way.

I don't know the specifics but I feel like that is not the result of a free market. I believe the government gave Comcast money to build out networks they own? In a free market you'd accomplish that by starting public collectives that do that build out, and then have the property owned in public trust. User/owners are unlikely to overcharge themselves for services.

What you suggested is definitively a good idea and closer to the spirit of the free market.

But lets take a closer look at the Comcast subsidy. Why is that not a solution based on the free market? It's because there is no reason for Comcast to actually provide the value it promised. It's a monopoly and if there must be a monopoly then it should be in control of the government. Did the government become an investor in Comcast and receive voting shares to steer the company on the right path? No? You just donated money to the owners of that business. Don't expect anything in return.

Re: Why do they still make car alarms? (2015)

#466

Post by imtringued »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #464
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know the specifics but I feel like that is not the result of a free market. I believe the government gave Comcast money to build out networks they own? In a free market you'd accomplish that by starting public collectives that do that build out, and then have the property owned in public trust. User/owners are unlikely to overcharge themselves for services.

There is no free market and there can't be - it's a theoretical ideal whose actual implementation is impossible, and we can only get so close to it without starting to incur extreme humanitarian costs. But since we can speculate about the outcome of a truly free market, here's my view: In a free market, the first entrepreneur to get a loan from the bank to build up some of the infrastructure would beat all the public…

Monopolies form because there is no upper bound to how big a company can grow. Eventually it will be as big enough to serve the entire market.

In a free market you can still have the government as a market participant of last resort. You don't have to mess with the market itself. If only one company is needed to serve the entire market there is no reason for the government to not own a large share in it and steer it. The threat of government control should be a good incentive for companies to not grow too large relative to their competitors.

Re: Why do they still make car alarms? (2015)

#467

Post by imtringued »

ineedasername wrote: post #404
everyone wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you need evidence to refute the idea that 'a free market can solve all problems' That would be an insane thing to assume in the 1st place. Where would you even get that notion from?

Because there's a certain subset here on HN that believe just about any problem could be solved if only the free market was allowed to operate without restriction or government intervention. I have on occasion run into them like running into a brick wall.

It's the opposite. You don't need to regulate the free market itself. You have to properly regulate society itself so that the free market can actually align incentives with desired results.

Government intervention can be fully compatible with the free market if the government acts as a market participant.

Re: Why do they still make car alarms? (2015)

#468

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

ineedasername wrote: post #261
spiritplumber wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It prevents the fuel pump in the engine from working (I had to add an electric fuel pump because the original one isn't doing very well). Yes on the hot meal. I've been homeless and it stinks.

It amazes me that, in wealthy countries, there are significant homelessness problems due to economic displacement. I consider it an existence-proof of the idea that a free market cannot solve all problems. I think homelessness due to other causes-- mental health for example-- are more complex but similarly demonstrate fundamental flaws in the framework of society. Only once was I able to give a homeless person a meal…

> I think homelessness due to other causes-- mental health for example-

While this is not a uniquely USA thing, it is much worse in the USA: Your search terms are "Reagan mental hospital homeless" (although President Reagan doesn't actually personally carry all the blame for this)

https://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_leg...

Re: Why do they still make car alarms? (2015)

#469

Post by 2rsf »

Loud alarms are illegal in Israel, OTH car theft is a big problem there.

The solutions range from immobilizers to GPS trackers being mandatory by insurers, but thieves became smart as well, they know how to bypass an immobilizer in seconds, tear off the GPS tracker moments after they reached an unpopulated area and the best ones come with a replacement engine computer to bypass other built in safeguards.

Post reply on HN