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

691–700 of 749 posts

Re: Banned in California

#691

Post by avs733 »

tptacek wrote: post #343
cogman10 wrote: post #340

The article is just factually incorrect. It says, for example, that it's impossible to manufacture batteries in California and cites Tesla moving to Texas as the example. But Telsa still makes batteries in California in Fremont. They last did expansions on their battery manufacturing plants in 2023. It cites all the dangerous chemicals used in manufacturing, but those aren't banned in California. CA has safety requir…

You might be right, but the site is explicit about the Fremont plant being exempted, and opens with the claim that there are facilities grandfathered in.

The site is wrong about the Fremont plant being exempted as detailed here:

https://dailykanban.com/2016/09/29/docs-reveal-teslas-produc...

(With things like…links to their permit applications, I.e., sources)

Re: Banned in California

#692

Post by avs733 »

timefirstgrav wrote: post #675

Operating systems are now updating legal docs so people in california can't use them. California has gone full retard. https://github.com/MidnightBSD/src/commit/7d956a27123f2d77a0...

Or the person writing this has?

Just because it’s in GitHub doesn’t mean it’s more credible than the stuff my mother posts on Facebook about mark zuckerberg not having permission to use her photos.

Re: Banned in California

#693

Post by tptacek »

avs733 wrote: post #691
tptacek wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be right, but the site is explicit about the Fremont plant being exempted, and opens with the claim that there are facilities grandfathered in.

The site is wrong about the Fremont plant being exempted as detailed here: https://dailykanban.com/2016/09/29/docs-reveal-teslas-produc... (With things like…links to their permit applications, I.e., sources)

Neat, thanks!

Re: Banned in California

#694

Post by avs733 »

_2d30 wrote: post #147
MikeTheGreat wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No automotive paint shops Wait, hold on - I watched all the seasons of "Rust To Riches" on Netflix, about a small shop that flips cars. They routinely painted cars. They'd paint in this sealed-up room/garage thingee, the guy would wear and industrial-grade mask, and the camera would slide past as he expertly painted the car. The 30 second montages looked awesome! That show took place in Temecula, California. So the…

The website is extremely clear about this being about _new_ automotive paint shops, so nothing you said here refutes the website.

He doesn’t need to refute it he just needs to offer an alternate claim.

The site provides no citations, no evidence, so there’s no need to defend the count argument or honestly even make it.

The sit isn’t just false, it is flat out disrespectful to all the workers, engineers, founders, and everyone else involved in the industries he says don’t exist that actually do exist. The site is basically “I think this is hard so no one else could possibly do it”.

Re: Banned in California

#695

Post by Qwertious »

coryrc wrote: post #493
mint5 wrote: post #88

Oh I didn’t realize pineapple farms were banned in California and Alaska. I thought they hadn’t been built for other reasons over the last decade. But according to this, not being built means banned. TIL! Started reading this site but the massive gaps in logic and reasoning are like nails on a chalkboard. No new fabs being built in CA means fabs are banned?! Okay well fabs are banned in pretty much the whole country…

> Why can’t we build a new nuclear plant in Manhattan We should, it would replace significant amounts of natural gas usage for space heating. Not doing so is literally cooking the planet.

I think a nuclear plant in Manhattan would cost far more than just building the plant in outer NY, and then running a big power line in to Manhattan. Sure, the power line would take up space, but so would the nuclear plant's cooling system.

Re: Banned in California

#696

Post by avs733 »

DoneWithAllThat wrote: post #448
mparkms wrote: post #48

The creator of the website is the CEO of a battery-powered induction cooktop company. ( https://x.com/sdamico ) He clearly has an agenda against what he perceives as onerous environmental regulations: https://x.com/sdamico/status/2026536815902208479 https://x.com/sdamico/status/2026552845294792994

Feel free to point out any inaccuracies.

Feel free to provide sources for the claims

Re: Banned in California

#697

Post by avs733 »

seltzered_ wrote: post #328

" Building an EV requires metal forging, battery manufacturing, painting, and chip fabrication — all processes that drove Tesla to build in Nevada and Texas. Tesla's Fremont factory was the former NUMMI plant (GM/Toyota, operating since 1962). It was grandfathered in." This website misses talking about all the Tesla Fremont paint shop violations (see https://www.baaqmd.gov/en/news-and-events/page-resources/202... ) a…

To be clear ….violations of their, repeatedly update, permit to paint cars. Something the website labels impossible.

Re: Banned in California

#698

Post by epistasis »

tonymet wrote: post #662
epistasis wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

Great, me too! Trying to play semantics rather than clearly stating reality, or trying to make a picture fuzzy so that inaccurate generalizations take priority over reality, is not a a good way to run a democracy.

Re: Banned in California

#699

Post by avs733 »

tptacek wrote: post #693
avs733 wrote: post #691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The site is wrong about the Fremont plant being exempted as detailed here: https://dailykanban.com/2016/09/29/docs-reveal-teslas-produc... (With things like…links to their permit applications, I.e., sources)

Neat, thanks!

As just a statement of bias…the guys at that site have a pretty clear distaste for Tesla. They are industry experts and that’s where their analysis comes from, but it’s palpable. I would call it evidence versus politically based but noting it. The difference in bias though is ther snark has citations to primary sources not just wild generic claims.

Re: Banned in California

#700

Post by nailer »

bilbo0s wrote: post #190
nailer wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I mean, not everything used in California, needs to be manufactured in California. Not the parent but nobody is implying that. Just that most Californians consume or want these things and thus expect other states to build them.

Which is no different than any other state.

No, other states build these things. It it a point specially about California.
Post reply on HN