17 ms·

The point of not including this is that every time it is mentioned people cherry-pick sentences from that regulation without context just as you do. What we see

The point of not including this is that every time it is mentioned people cherry-pick sentences from that regulation without context just as you do. What we see here is a regulation of cucumber labels not cucumbers itself. Your quotes are minimum standards for certain classes of cucumbers. It's still fine to sell other cucumbers but you just can't sell them as e.g. "Class 1". The regulation was abolished in 2009 because it was mentioned in every debate the public had about the EU. Guess what happened then? Almost every contract of cucumber merchants now contains a verbatim copy of that regulation. Merchants love that kind of standardization (and if not, they were free to ignore it by not using the defined labels). It makes it easier to transport produce and allow for better planning. If there is no central definition of quality classes everybody is creating their (likely slightly incompatible) ones. That's not less bureaucratic, it's more bureaucratic. Now every small business has to deal with dozens of different company-made regulations. Because we are on HN think of it as an RFC standard with the addition of being legally bound to it as soon as you declare conformity.

JoshTriplett 10y ago
> Guess what happened then? Almost every contract of cucumber merchants now contains a verbatim copy of that regulation. > Merchants love that kind of standardization. Indeed; so much so that (as you've demonstrated) they can establish it themselves without needing government help to do so.
- germanier 10y ago
  Please read the rest of the paragraph.
  - JoshTriplett 10y ago
    I did. Your post provided a specific example where merchants have standardized on a compatible standard despite the regulation no longer existing. What evidence do you have that merchants will standardize on incompatible sets of standards? Compatible standards benefit them.
    - germanier 10y ago
      Of course they are standardizing on that. It's what they have been using for 20 years. Naturally compatible standards benefit them as a whole. But that does not mean someone is actually going to develop them. In fact, trade groups specifically asked the EU to create that cucumber standard. It's also important note that such standards don't fall from heaven. They are the result of long consultations (often taking up to a decade) with all stakeholders. It's also not an EU-exclusive thing. I would be very surprised if there were no similar standards in the US. A one-minute search has led me to this US government standard from which I can cherry-pick similar sentences: https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Cucumber_Standard%5B1%5D.pdf https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Cucumber_... > The maximum diameter of each cucumber shall be not more than 2-3/8 inches and the length of each cucumber shall be not less than 6 inches > "Injury caused by scars" means scars which aggregate more than the area of a circle three-eighths inch in diameter on a cucumber 6 inches in length, or correspondingly greater areas of scars on larger cucumbers. Implementation of that is (as far as I understand) voluntary but if you label your cucumbers "U.S. Fancy." you have to adhere to those standards. That's exactly the same as with the quoted EU regulation. There is a reason why countries around the world develop such standards and it's not their love of bureaucracy.
      - fixermark 10y ago
        A deep, significant secret of modern society as we know it, all around us: Modern technological society is not a product of technology alone. We've had relatively intricate mechanical devices dating back to the Roman Coliseum, and before. Suits of armor had hasps, fasteners, catches, and wingnuts. Modern society is a product of technology crossed with cheap flow of information crossed with interoperability standards. The suits of armor had wingnuts, but the wingnuts had individual faces carved onto them, because not even the left and right shoulder wingnuts were swappable. Common standards have built the shipping, transportation, telecommunications, and computing infrastructures that heavily define modern society today.
- octo_t 10y ago
  Because if it is decided that (example off the top of my head) "cucumbers grown in the pesticide Toxiciomosis cannot be sold as 'Class 1' cucumbers", there is just one place which needs updating, rather than K contracts. DRY applies to more than code.

JoshTriplett 10y ago

> Guess what happened then? Almost every contract of cucumber merchants now contains a verbatim copy of that regulation. > Merchants love that kind of standardization. Indeed; so much so that (as you've demonstrated) they can establish it themselves without needing government help to do so.

germanier 10y ago
Please read the rest of the paragraph.
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  I did. Your post provided a specific example where merchants have standardized on a compatible standard despite the regulation no longer existing. What evidence do you have that merchants will standardize on incompatible sets of standards? Compatible standards benefit them.
  - germanier 10y ago
    Of course they are standardizing on that. It's what they have been using for 20 years. Naturally compatible standards benefit them as a whole. But that does not mean someone is actually going to develop them. In fact, trade groups specifically asked the EU to create that cucumber standard. It's also important note that such standards don't fall from heaven. They are the result of long consultations (often taking up to a decade) with all stakeholders. It's also not an EU-exclusive thing. I would be very surprised if there were no similar standards in the US. A one-minute search has led me to this US government standard from which I can cherry-pick similar sentences: https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Cucumber_Standard%5B1%5D.pdf https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Cucumber_... > The maximum diameter of each cucumber shall be not more than 2-3/8 inches and the length of each cucumber shall be not less than 6 inches > "Injury caused by scars" means scars which aggregate more than the area of a circle three-eighths inch in diameter on a cucumber 6 inches in length, or correspondingly greater areas of scars on larger cucumbers. Implementation of that is (as far as I understand) voluntary but if you label your cucumbers "U.S. Fancy." you have to adhere to those standards. That's exactly the same as with the quoted EU regulation. There is a reason why countries around the world develop such standards and it's not their love of bureaucracy.
    - fixermark 10y ago
      A deep, significant secret of modern society as we know it, all around us: Modern technological society is not a product of technology alone. We've had relatively intricate mechanical devices dating back to the Roman Coliseum, and before. Suits of armor had hasps, fasteners, catches, and wingnuts. Modern society is a product of technology crossed with cheap flow of information crossed with interoperability standards. The suits of armor had wingnuts, but the wingnuts had individual faces carved onto them, because not even the left and right shoulder wingnuts were swappable. Common standards have built the shipping, transportation, telecommunications, and computing infrastructures that heavily define modern society today.
octo_t 10y ago
Because if it is decided that (example off the top of my head) "cucumbers grown in the pesticide Toxiciomosis cannot be sold as 'Class 1' cucumbers", there is just one place which needs updating, rather than K contracts. DRY applies to more than code.