5 ms·
So I originally studied chemical engineering, and one of the common catchphrases is, "regulations are written in blood." The reason there's a requirement to put
by diafygi 7y ago
So I originally studied chemical engineering, and one of the common catchphrases is, "regulations are written in blood." The reason there's a requirement to put a pressure relief valve on that tank is because at some point a tank like it didn't have one and it blew up and killed people. However, safety in chemical engineering has been evolving over centuries as we have understood more about the dangers and consequences of dealing with chemical manufacturing.
For software, it feels like we're only at the beginning of understanding the dangers and consequences of the software, business models, and technology our industry has created. Unfortunately, if it follows the same path as other engineering disciplines, we likely will experience decades or centuries of bloodshed before it is regulated appropriately.
- diminoten 7y agoAnother interpretation of that catchphrase is that once it's written, it can't be unwritten, and that's true with laws, or at least they've very difficult to change once on the books. We need to understand the full scope of the problem, rather than try to fix what isn't fully grasped, and honestly I have very little faith in the US government to accurately grasp the subtleties and nuances of the advertising and privacy problems.
- crooked-v 7y agoBut that's not an interpretation of that phrase at all.
- cgag 7y agoIt makes me think of signing inescapable contracts with demons, which seem convenient but ultimately doom you for eternity.
- diminoten 7y agoIt's not up for debate whether or not what I wrote is an interpretation, what might be up for debate is how valid the interpretation is, and even still, you could strike all reference to the phrase from my comment and the point I made would stand.
- paulmd 7y ago"libertarian rants about regulations put in place after people died to keep more people from dying" then engages in semantic debate to attempt to give his viewpoint validity (And not like, a specific overbearing regulation that you dislike... just any hypothetical regulation at all. Just the whole idea of ever improving occupational safety.)
- diminoten 7y agoWhat the hell are you talking about? I'm not libertarian or ranting, I'm saying this is a complex issue and the "LETS REGULATE IT" feels premature given how complex and subtle the issue is, and how hard laws are to change once they're on the books. Methinks you're projecting more than a little bit. Also your comment is some of the most toxic I've seen on HN in a little while, and I'm not exactly a ray of sunshine on here... Definitely getting a flag from me, and I think that might be a first.
- autoexec 7y ago> I'm saying this is a complex issue and the "LETS REGULATE IT" feels premature given how complex and subtle the issue is, and how hard laws are to change once they're on the books. There is a difference between "This specific regulation fails to take X into account" or even "This is a complex issue which requires carefully crafted regulation" and your stance which seems to be that regulation is impossible or undesirable due to the complexity of the issue or because it might be annoying to change later. That very much suggests your problem is with regulation itself. Just out of curiosity, if you think regulating this is a bad idea, what do you propose to fix the problem? Appealing to the good will of companies who would gladly exploit us to make money?
- vastoi 7y agoNot familiar with that interpretation, though there is another similar one that refers to what you mentioned: “written in stone”