4 ms·

Regarding an equal playing field, if all actors in the same space have the same constraints, I don't see how it distorts anything. There are already plenty of s

by seren 11y ago

Regarding an equal playing field, if all actors in the same space have the same constraints, I don't see how it distorts anything. There are already plenty of standards for aeronautics, healthcare, automotive, (MISRA, DO178,...) that don't apply to other fields. Does it creates an unequal playing field ?

xchaotic 11y ago
For small businesses it does. There's a huge cost to be compliant with the regulations in medical and aviation space, so you don't see many successful startups and not much progress as a result. We are still flying WWII rockets and use crude antibiotics.
- seren 11y ago
  Some fields are more capital intensive than other. It is much easier to launch a mobile app than an oil refinery. It does not distort the competition between companies who have to follow the same rule book. I understand where you are coming from but you need to have a minimum threshold for software that is going to be a matter of life and death.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Regulations are not what is responsible for us flying WWII rockets and using crude antibiotics; they're responsible for those rockets not exploding too often or those antibiotics not killing us in most painful ways imaginable. Rocketry and medicine are hard.
- simoncion 11y ago
  > There's a huge cost to be compliant with the regulations in ... aviation space, so you don't see many successful startups and not much progress as a result. We are still flying WWII rockets... SpaceX would like to have a word with you. IIRC, they've designed and built -from the ground up- their own rockets that get payloads to orbit at 1/3 the cost of anyone else. The other players are still flying rockets either largely designed in or actually from the 1960's [0] because not many of the folks who need things in space understand how to build rockets. This means that -much like the telecommunications "market" in the US- incumbent players can put next-to-nothing into R&D and new tech and just sit around and watch the fat paychecks come in. It's an industry that's in dire need of a shakeup. [0] WWII was from 1939 to 1945. ICBMs [1] are substantially more sophisticated than any rocket from WWII. [1] Which are effectively what was transporting the astronauts in the Apollo program.
something123 11y ago
Well I'd argue that in general companies that have been able to shift their business into remote servers are doing much better. In fact I can't think of something that runs native on a device and is better than all it's competitors that run "in the cloud" B/c the biggest difference is that by having the secret sauce physically in the hands of competitors, you aren't able to create a vast difference in the quality of your product. Following standards creates horrible barriers to entry and to innovation, but at the end of the day you aren't spilling the beans on how you do all your tricks. You can't make some fancy new valve control system no one will ever figure out. Then you look at someone like Google, and it's 100% driven by secret recipes no one knows about Maybe there should be indignation about trade secrets, but I feel like the physical distance to the code you are running is irrelevant. When I search for a word or phrase on Google, I'm running code remotely on their server. Yet no one feels like I should have the right to see that code. Why?
- Programmatic 11y ago
  > When I search for a word or phrase on Google, I'm running code remotely on their server. Yet no one feels like I should have the right to see that code. Why? Because I have not paid money to Google purchasing a tangible thing. If I buy any tangible thing, it should honor the doctrine of first sale, and I should be able to modify my tangible thing as I see fit. It is my property. Google is akin to a remote service provider; I send in a thing, modifications to my thing are made, and then I get the thing back. I don't ask my warranty repair firm or any other entity that provides a remote service how they did it. I simply make a request at an agreed-upon price (or agreed upon terms: you'll provide ads in exchange for the service) and if the terms are not satisfied I will not hold up my end.

by seren 11y ago

xchaotic 11y ago

For small businesses it does. There's a huge cost to be compliant with the regulations in medical and aviation space, so you don't see many successful startups and not much progress as a result. We are still flying WWII rockets and use crude antibiotics.

seren 11y ago
Some fields are more capital intensive than other. It is much easier to launch a mobile app than an oil refinery. It does not distort the competition between companies who have to follow the same rule book. I understand where you are coming from but you need to have a minimum threshold for software that is going to be a matter of life and death.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
Regulations are not what is responsible for us flying WWII rockets and using crude antibiotics; they're responsible for those rockets not exploding too often or those antibiotics not killing us in most painful ways imaginable. Rocketry and medicine are hard.
simoncion 11y ago
> There's a huge cost to be compliant with the regulations in ... aviation space, so you don't see many successful startups and not much progress as a result. We are still flying WWII rockets... SpaceX would like to have a word with you. IIRC, they've designed and built -from the ground up- their own rockets that get payloads to orbit at 1/3 the cost of anyone else. The other players are still flying rockets either largely designed in or actually from the 1960's [0] because not many of the folks who need things in space understand how to build rockets. This means that -much like the telecommunications "market" in the US- incumbent players can put next-to-nothing into R&D and new tech and just sit around and watch the fat paychecks come in. It's an industry that's in dire need of a shakeup. [0] WWII was from 1939 to 1945. ICBMs [1] are substantially more sophisticated than any rocket from WWII. [1] Which are effectively what was transporting the astronauts in the Apollo program.

something123 11y ago

Well I'd argue that in general companies that have been able to shift their business into remote servers are doing much better. In fact I can't think of something that runs native on a device and is better than all it's competitors that run "in the cloud" B/c the biggest difference is that by having the secret sauce physically in the hands of competitors, you aren't able to create a vast difference in the quality of your product. Following standards creates horrible barriers to entry and to innovation, but at the end of the day you aren't spilling the beans on how you do all your tricks. You can't make some fancy new valve control system no one will ever figure out. Then you look at someone like Google, and it's 100% driven by secret recipes no one knows about Maybe there should be indignation about trade secrets, but I feel like the physical distance to the code you are running is irrelevant. When I search for a word or phrase on Google, I'm running code remotely on their server. Yet no one feels like I should have the right to see that code. Why?

Programmatic 11y ago
> When I search for a word or phrase on Google, I'm running code remotely on their server. Yet no one feels like I should have the right to see that code. Why? Because I have not paid money to Google purchasing a tangible thing. If I buy any tangible thing, it should honor the doctrine of first sale, and I should be able to modify my tangible thing as I see fit. It is my property. Google is akin to a remote service provider; I send in a thing, modifications to my thing are made, and then I get the thing back. I don't ask my warranty repair firm or any other entity that provides a remote service how they did it. I simply make a request at an agreed-upon price (or agreed upon terms: you'll provide ads in exchange for the service) and if the terms are not satisfied I will not hold up my end.