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

661–670 of 749 posts

Re: Banned in California

#661

Post by someguydave »

Animats wrote: post #618
harimau777 wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, I don't see anywhere that the parent post said that there shouldn't be plating plants in San Jose, just that they are dangerous.

Yes. It's a miserable business. Look at the pictures from the inspection of a plating plant. Everything near the process is corroded and covered with crud. Such plants have to be regulated and inspected, to prevent them from becoming a hazard both to the neighborhood and downstream. Plants which do chemistry on an industrial scale tend to need their own waste processing, which gets the waste products down to a reason…

ok but I'm willing to have occasionally poisoned water in exchange for an industrial society

Re: Banned in California

#662

Post by tonymet »

epistasis wrote: post #603
tonymet wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you own a factory and the legislators make your factory illegal, that's a ban. "well you can just upgrade" is no consolation. one day your factory is allowed, the next day it's not. Why mince words?

I was advocating specifically against mincing words so that appropriate remedies can be pursued. "Unbanning" coal isn't going to make coal appear again! If there's a specific regulation on one aspect of a factory, as you describe, then "unbanning" the factory isn't going to help either, one must specifically unban that which was banned. Mincing words would be saying "Factories doing X are banned" when in fact an exis…

[flagged]

Re: Banned in California

#663

Post by jandrewrogers »

cryptoneo wrote: post #634
jandrewrogers wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crude oil floating in the ocean used to be a big nuisance in parts of California. It is a natural phenomenon, created by oil deposits on the ocean floor leaking into the environment. Santa Barbara was particularly famous for it. Extraction of that oil via commercial wells greatly reduced the natural seepage, which is why there is so little crude oil floating in that ocean water today. Oil drilling actually made the w…

To me this "drilling is good for the environment narrative" sounded a bit misleading. And not far down the rabbit whole one finds: The author of the study often cited by oil companies for above narrative, felt impelled to publish a clarifying statement: https://luyendyk.faculty.geol.ucsb.edu/Seeps%20pubs/Luyendyk... Maybe stricter guidelines against operational "routine" spills led to a reduction of the sticky spots,…

Per NOAA and USGS, ~20 million liters of crude oil naturally seeps into that part of the California ocean each year. That is more crude oil each year than the worst oil spill in California history[0].

You are projecting your biases. There was no "drilling is good for the environment" narrative. I was recounting an interesting fact about the environment there.

Many of these seeps are under considerable pressure as there is substantial natural gas mixed in. The seepage rate of each has been mapped and studied for many decades. It has long been observed that the introduction of drilling appears to substantially reduced the seepage rate at many of these underwater sites. Drilling wells significantly reduces natural pressure in these reservoirs, likely leading to the observed reductions in seepage.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Santa_Barbara_oil_spill

Re: Banned in California

#664

Post by Dig1t »

archagon wrote: post #614
Dig1t wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By “these people” do you mean the people who actually make things? These banned industrial processes sum to making almost every physical object. The net effect is that it’s nearly illegal to make anything physical. Do you think that the state or country will do well in the long term if it’s basically illegal to actually make things? Also funny that you Musk derangement people will never actually engage with the conte…

What’s funny is how much the chuds try to frame revulsion at white supremacy as “political disagreement” and “derangement.” As I was raised, this is actually just deadass “normal.” I see no reason to engage in any way with the mental flatulations of this virulently racist Epstein fanboy. The quicker his empire can be dismantled and the sooner he gets utterly shunned from polite society, the better off we’ll all be. T…

Again, very little engagement on ideas, but full paragraphs of derangement about "white supremacy" and "racism". Nobody cares man, you spent the last 10 years calling everything you disagreed with racism and now those words mean nothing.

>Go fuck up Texas if you like.

Indeed, Texas is taking a net inflow of builders and entrepreneurs, California has a net outflow. The state is booming and the future is being built in Texas. The most advanced rocket in the world, something that puts governments to shame, is being built there. Massive semiconductor manufacturing plants, electric cars, financial companies, tons of new housing (look at Austin, 25% price reduction because of new supply in recent years), all happening there.

But I really do think that your train of thought is sort of misanthropic. Anti-progress, anti-science, and just generally being "anti-building" does not play out well in the long term. I supposed it's a lesson that generations have to re-learn.

Re: Banned in California

#665

Post by aidenn0 »

saalweachter wrote: post #650
AshleyGrant wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The desert is not a "barren wasteland." It is a valuable, vibrant ecosystem no different than any other.

The desert is an ocean with its life underground, and the perfect disguise up above.

Under the cities lies a heart made of ground, but the humans will give no love.

Re: Banned in California

#666

Post by archagon »

Dig1t wrote: post #664
archagon wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s funny is how much the chuds try to frame revulsion at white supremacy as “political disagreement” and “derangement.” As I was raised, this is actually just deadass “normal.” I see no reason to engage in any way with the mental flatulations of this virulently racist Epstein fanboy. The quicker his empire can be dismantled and the sooner he gets utterly shunned from polite society, the better off we’ll all be. T…

Again, very little engagement on ideas, but full paragraphs of derangement about "white supremacy" and "racism". Nobody cares man, you spent the last 10 years calling everything you disagreed with racism and now those words mean nothing. >Go fuck up Texas if you like. Indeed, Texas is taking a net inflow of builders and entrepreneurs, California has a net outflow. The state is booming and the future is being built in…

Millions upon millions of people very clearly care. You don’t care. :)

And doubling down on puerile trigger words like “derangement” does absolutely nothing aside from reflecting poorly on the author. It’s a strange sentiment to preserve in the Internet amber, I must say.

Re: Banned in California

#667

Post by mint5 »

renjimen wrote: post #654
mint5 wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“The question is whether the data is accurate, not whether it is complete” Oh so Lies of omission don’t exist? Deception researchers will be very keen to hear how that works. So if someone Mormon bubbles a photo of you that also has a kid in it, you’re fine being arrested for indecency and registering as a sex offender? After all, that’s just omitting a few pixels, not a lie or deception in your book.

Agree to disagree, I guess. Not everything interesting has to be comprehensive. I think I'm done with this conversation now you're comparing a website about manufacturing to child porn. That's in bad taste.

Bad taste started with you calling me obtuse

Re: Banned in California

#668

Post by aidenn0 »

archagon wrote: post #614
Dig1t wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By “these people” do you mean the people who actually make things? These banned industrial processes sum to making almost every physical object. The net effect is that it’s nearly illegal to make anything physical. Do you think that the state or country will do well in the long term if it’s basically illegal to actually make things? Also funny that you Musk derangement people will never actually engage with the conte…

What’s funny is how much the chuds try to frame revulsion at white supremacy as “political disagreement” and “derangement.” As I was raised, this is actually just deadass “normal.” I see no reason to engage in any way with the mental flatulations of this virulently racist Epstein fanboy. The quicker his empire can be dismantled and the sooner he gets utterly shunned from polite society, the better off we’ll all be. T…

Please tell me what "If I wanted to build a new car factory, I literally couldn't paint the cars." has to do with white supremacy?

Maybe the regulations for new car factories are good, maybe they are bad, maybe Musk was exaggerating or making things up whole cloth, but the veracity of these things is mostly unrelated to Musk's views on race.

Re: Banned in California

#669

Post by testbjjl »

ixtli wrote: post #111
SunshineTheCat wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California is one of the only states in the union seeing a population decline year over year (while surrounding states are seeing population growth). https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2026/demo/stat... And that doesn't even take in to account the major businesses fleeing the state as well.

Now do economic growth?

Some people like to pick cherries and some are cherry pickers. California is amazing. If we lose some employers and our economy falters okay. Happy to take it as it comes personally. Growing up here was can remember when it was a quiet place I would come home to from college breaks. Those were the good old days for me. Today’s days are pretty good too.

Re: Banned in California

#670

Post by coryrc »

zdp7 wrote: post #570
coryrc wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That grant is only for nonprofits and only for "pilot manufacturing and testing", not useful mass manufacturing.

It is a battery cell manufacturing line and with the intent to facilitate providing research resources to California battery business. Considering the claim was that you couldn't make lithium batteries in CA, having a new manufacturing line shows that's incorrect. It also shows the state sees it as a need. I haven't seen anyone provide any info showing it isn't possible.

It's a pilot program, nobody said you can't uneconomically do research, but you can't build things in quantity.
Post reply on HN