7 ms·

It reminds me of an article I read years ago in a magazine about solar power. A guy decided to go off grid with solar panels and battery back up. He was living

by Mz 9y ago

It reminds me of an article I read years ago in a magazine about solar power. A guy decided to go off grid with solar panels and battery back up. He was living in Chicago. He called around to find out who regulated this sort of thing, where he needed to apply for permits or whatever. He learned that there wasn't a governing body. So he realized that as long as he didn't do anything stupid (a la burn the building down), he was pretty much free to do as he pleased. If you are responsible, freedom of that sort is empowering. If you are not, you wind up being the jerk that causes regulations to be written and permitting processes to be created, ruining it for everyone.

Maxious 9y ago
Similar story about net metering, power companies didn't initially have policies one way or another about feeding solar back in to the grid to reduce power bills https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/reversing-the-grid/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/reversing-the-grid/
Declanomous 9y ago
We have a bunch of regulations on that stuff in Chicago now. I don't know if it was the same guy, but some people got upset because they thought solar panels were super ugly. Here's a pdf (warning) of all of the hoops you need to jump through to install solar in Chicago: https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/bldgs/general/Solar/Photovoltaic_Guidelines.pdf https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/bldgs/g... Disclaimer: This is off the top of my head from stuff I read in the paper five or more years ago. I can't find any articles now, but I have looked into the permitting process and it looks like a pain in the butt.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  > I don't know if it was the same guy, but some people got upset because they thought solar panels were super ugly. This is a sad aspect of living in a high-density society. A lot of people are not only boring themselves, but they excessively want everyone else to be boring too.
  - blackbagboys 9y ago
    Another way of saying this is that they have preferences about their immediate living environment and express those preferences through the political process, as is their right.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      Yues. I'm not saying they're not in their rights to do it; I'm saying they're assholes for doing it.
  - jandrese 9y ago
    This is why I bought a home in a neighborhood without a HOA. Number of problems I have had thus far (8 years) that a HOA would have helped with: 0. Previous house that I lived in for 5 years: Number of stupid time wasting problems I had with the HOA: 3. Number of problems that I tried to get the HOA to help with unsuccessfully: 2. Number of times the HOA actually helped: 0.
indescions_2017 9y ago
Without some risk, however. You may never succeed in breaking the binds that keep us in the dark. I think the canonical example is something like the Wright Brothers first flight in Kitty Hawk, NC. Of course living in more agrarian times helps when you have an impromptu airport runway in your backyard. But the "permissionless innovation" theory probably concludes the reason we are not driving around in flying cars just yet is precisely due to government hamstringing the great inventor. Particularly with strong AI the proposal comes up often: why not create a sandbox? Let the risk takers run their experiments and insulate the general public from their consequences. Allocate a few abandoned oil rigs off the coast of Venezuela and let anyone with a rocket design attempt a launch ;)
- ThrustVectoring 9y ago
  Things similar to the Wright Flyer are still allowed by default in the US in similar geographic areas. The weight limit under FAA regulation part 103 is lower - 254 pounds empty weight, rather than the Wright Flyer's 605 pounds empty weight - but material science has advanced since then, so the restriction isn't that severe. Ultra-light aircraft is very much regulated under philosophy of "if you aren't endangering others, well, it's your funeral". Source: I've halfway convinced myself to shell out the $10k or so for a motorized paraglider rig + lessons. Pretty much what I'd need to do is sign up for lessons, buy gear, and make sure I stay out of the way of big planes and protected wilderness areas. I don't technically need to sign up for lessons, but, well, it's my funeral.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    The funeral could cost more than the lessons...
  - countryslicker 9y ago
    Tell that to people trying to fly any drone in the USA weighing more than 1 kg.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  > But the "permissionless innovation" theory probably concludes the reason we are not driving around in flying cars just yet is precisely due to government hamstringing the great inventor. I don't think the "permissionless innovation" theory is something to be applied in isolation. It only covers some aspects of human endeavour. The reason we're not all in flying cars right now are twofold: 1. Flying is much less energy-efficient than driving on a solid surface, since you need to expend additional energy to maintain altitude. 2. Humanity as a whole has proven beyond doubt that regular people are nowhere near responsible enough to safely operate regular cars, and the kind of accidents that happen on the roads every day would have much more disastrous consequences if they happened in the air. Self-driving tech might eventually solve 2., but we're not there yet today, so one can't blame governments for not allowing things that can not be done safely with today's technology. And even with 2. solved, the market still likely won't accept flying cars due to 1. A better/cheaper solution for vertical stacking of transport is the boring one[0]. > Particularly with strong AI the proposal comes up often: why not create a sandbox? Let the risk takers run their experiments and insulate the general public from their consequences. With strong AI this proposal is particularly dumb for all the reasons covered under the search terms of "AI alignment problem", "AI control problem" and "unfriendly AI". > Allocate a few abandoned oil rigs off the coast of Venezuela and let anyone with a rocket design attempt a launch ;) See: Copenhagen Suborbitals. If you want to experiment with aerospace, it's generally doable, though expensive due to the nature of the task (and the fact that the difference between an orbital rocket and an ICBM is only in payload). -- [0] - https://www.boringcompany.com https://www.boringcompany.com
drdeadringer 9y ago
I can't remember if it was on HN or reddit, but there was a comment//post about how a job site operated similar to this. To heavily paraphrase over the gist of the second-hand account from the boss: "Our workplace will be rule-free until people start abusing it. When someone goes overboard, a rule against their abuse will be created under their name which will be applicable to everybody; if you think that rule bullshit, go thank that person and a talk with your manager will always be welcome. We do this out of respect for you, our employees; you have our trust until you prove we don't."
- Mz 9y ago
  I am a big believer in "That government is best which governs least." I raised two 2xE sons (gifted plus special needs) and one of the best things I did was to only create minimal, very logical rules that they could respect and understand. For example: "I need to be able to walk to the dresser and closet without hurting myself so I can put clothes away." This was clear and sensible instructions for deciding for themselves where they could leave toys out and where they couldn't. The reason for it was also readily grasped and something they could agree with. It wasn't just abstract "I am in charge, you will do as you are told!" type BS.
- tonyedgecombe 9y ago
  The problem with this is as organisations get older they accrete more and more rules until you aren't allowed to do anything.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    It's sometimes called organizational scar tissue. But what about making it an organizational scab instead? Have the damage-control rules in an organization be time-limited? Those freedoms people keep abusing would get repeated temporary restrictions and eventually a permanent ruling, but one-time problems would not weigh down the organization forever.
    - specialist 9y ago
      I'm starting to get metaphysical about IP leases. (Request, grant, revokation, expiration.) As in: leases are a cure all for all of societial and organizational woes. I'm having trouble articulating my thoughts. But the basic notion is give all the cruft a TTL, after which the cruft cleans itself up. --- Want a new tax, or tax break? Sure. It expires in 36 months. Want an extension? Then ask again and we'll reassess. Want to bring dogs into the office? Sure. Let's try it for 6 months. Want to provision a new customer of a critical service? Sure. Here's your token. It expires in 2 days. -- Hat tip to Bill Joy, Jini, JXTA, etc for lifting the lease notion up the OSI stack. Hat tip to The Utopia of Rules by David Graeber for describing how organizational scars/scabs come to be. I'm not yet sure how, if ZeroTrust Networking extends this model, metaphor.

by Mz 9y ago

Maxious 9y ago

Similar story about net metering, power companies didn't initially have policies one way or another about feeding solar back in to the grid to reduce power bills https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/reversing-the-grid/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/reversing-the-grid/

Declanomous 9y ago

We have a bunch of regulations on that stuff in Chicago now. I don't know if it was the same guy, but some people got upset because they thought solar panels were super ugly. Here's a pdf (warning) of all of the hoops you need to jump through to install solar in Chicago: https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/bldgs/general/Solar/Photovoltaic_Guidelines.pdf https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/bldgs/g... Disclaimer: This is off the top of my head from stuff I read in the paper five or more years ago. I can't find any articles now, but I have looked into the permitting process and it looks like a pain in the butt.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
> I don't know if it was the same guy, but some people got upset because they thought solar panels were super ugly. This is a sad aspect of living in a high-density society. A lot of people are not only boring themselves, but they excessively want everyone else to be boring too.
- blackbagboys 9y ago
  Another way of saying this is that they have preferences about their immediate living environment and express those preferences through the political process, as is their right.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Yues. I'm not saying they're not in their rights to do it; I'm saying they're assholes for doing it.
- jandrese 9y ago
  This is why I bought a home in a neighborhood without a HOA. Number of problems I have had thus far (8 years) that a HOA would have helped with: 0. Previous house that I lived in for 5 years: Number of stupid time wasting problems I had with the HOA: 3. Number of problems that I tried to get the HOA to help with unsuccessfully: 2. Number of times the HOA actually helped: 0.

indescions_2017 9y ago

Without some risk, however. You may never succeed in breaking the binds that keep us in the dark. I think the canonical example is something like the Wright Brothers first flight in Kitty Hawk, NC. Of course living in more agrarian times helps when you have an impromptu airport runway in your backyard. But the "permissionless innovation" theory probably concludes the reason we are not driving around in flying cars just yet is precisely due to government hamstringing the great inventor. Particularly with strong AI the proposal comes up often: why not create a sandbox? Let the risk takers run their experiments and insulate the general public from their consequences. Allocate a few abandoned oil rigs off the coast of Venezuela and let anyone with a rocket design attempt a launch ;)

ThrustVectoring 9y ago
Things similar to the Wright Flyer are still allowed by default in the US in similar geographic areas. The weight limit under FAA regulation part 103 is lower - 254 pounds empty weight, rather than the Wright Flyer's 605 pounds empty weight - but material science has advanced since then, so the restriction isn't that severe. Ultra-light aircraft is very much regulated under philosophy of "if you aren't endangering others, well, it's your funeral". Source: I've halfway convinced myself to shell out the $10k or so for a motorized paraglider rig + lessons. Pretty much what I'd need to do is sign up for lessons, buy gear, and make sure I stay out of the way of big planes and protected wilderness areas. I don't technically need to sign up for lessons, but, well, it's my funeral.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  The funeral could cost more than the lessons...
- countryslicker 9y ago
  Tell that to people trying to fly any drone in the USA weighing more than 1 kg.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
> But the "permissionless innovation" theory probably concludes the reason we are not driving around in flying cars just yet is precisely due to government hamstringing the great inventor. I don't think the "permissionless innovation" theory is something to be applied in isolation. It only covers some aspects of human endeavour. The reason we're not all in flying cars right now are twofold: 1. Flying is much less energy-efficient than driving on a solid surface, since you need to expend additional energy to maintain altitude. 2. Humanity as a whole has proven beyond doubt that regular people are nowhere near responsible enough to safely operate regular cars, and the kind of accidents that happen on the roads every day would have much more disastrous consequences if they happened in the air. Self-driving tech might eventually solve 2., but we're not there yet today, so one can't blame governments for not allowing things that can not be done safely with today's technology. And even with 2. solved, the market still likely won't accept flying cars due to 1. A better/cheaper solution for vertical stacking of transport is the boring one[0]. > Particularly with strong AI the proposal comes up often: why not create a sandbox? Let the risk takers run their experiments and insulate the general public from their consequences. With strong AI this proposal is particularly dumb for all the reasons covered under the search terms of "AI alignment problem", "AI control problem" and "unfriendly AI". > Allocate a few abandoned oil rigs off the coast of Venezuela and let anyone with a rocket design attempt a launch ;) See: Copenhagen Suborbitals. If you want to experiment with aerospace, it's generally doable, though expensive due to the nature of the task (and the fact that the difference between an orbital rocket and an ICBM is only in payload). -- [0] - https://www.boringcompany.com https://www.boringcompany.com

drdeadringer 9y ago

I can't remember if it was on HN or reddit, but there was a comment//post about how a job site operated similar to this. To heavily paraphrase over the gist of the second-hand account from the boss: "Our workplace will be rule-free until people start abusing it. When someone goes overboard, a rule against their abuse will be created under their name which will be applicable to everybody; if you think that rule bullshit, go thank that person and a talk with your manager will always be welcome. We do this out of respect for you, our employees; you have our trust until you prove we don't."

Mz 9y ago
I am a big believer in "That government is best which governs least." I raised two 2xE sons (gifted plus special needs) and one of the best things I did was to only create minimal, very logical rules that they could respect and understand. For example: "I need to be able to walk to the dresser and closet without hurting myself so I can put clothes away." This was clear and sensible instructions for deciding for themselves where they could leave toys out and where they couldn't. The reason for it was also readily grasped and something they could agree with. It wasn't just abstract "I am in charge, you will do as you are told!" type BS.
tonyedgecombe 9y ago
The problem with this is as organisations get older they accrete more and more rules until you aren't allowed to do anything.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  It's sometimes called organizational scar tissue. But what about making it an organizational scab instead? Have the damage-control rules in an organization be time-limited? Those freedoms people keep abusing would get repeated temporary restrictions and eventually a permanent ruling, but one-time problems would not weigh down the organization forever.
  - specialist 9y ago
    I'm starting to get metaphysical about IP leases. (Request, grant, revokation, expiration.) As in: leases are a cure all for all of societial and organizational woes. I'm having trouble articulating my thoughts. But the basic notion is give all the cruft a TTL, after which the cruft cleans itself up. --- Want a new tax, or tax break? Sure. It expires in 36 months. Want an extension? Then ask again and we'll reassess. Want to bring dogs into the office? Sure. Let's try it for 6 months. Want to provision a new customer of a critical service? Sure. Here's your token. It expires in 2 days. -- Hat tip to Bill Joy, Jini, JXTA, etc for lifting the lease notion up the OSI stack. Hat tip to The Utopia of Rules by David Graeber for describing how organizational scars/scabs come to be. I'm not yet sure how, if ZeroTrust Networking extends this model, metaphor.