7 ms·

But that's not an interpretation of that phrase at all.

cgag 7y ago
It makes me think of signing inescapable contracts with demons, which seem convenient but ultimately doom you for eternity.
- crooked-v 7y ago
  Nothing about 'regulations are written in blood' is about convenience. Regulations specifically exist to make things less convenient. The reason such regulations exist is because people did the convenient thing and it killed somebody.
  - cgag 7y ago
    they are convenient solutions
diminoten 7y ago
It'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 ago
    What 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?
      - diminoten 7y ago
        Why do you think I said regulation is impossible or undesirable?
        autoexec 7y ago
        I suppose it was somewhere between when you said that government shouldn't regulate or try to fix the problem until they have a better understanding of it ("this is a complex issue and the "LETS REGULATE IT" feels premature given how complex and subtle the issue is...We need to understand the full scope of the problem, rather than try to fix what isn't fully grasped") and that you don't think the government is capable of doing exactly that. ("I have very little faith in the US government to accurately grasp the subtleties and nuances of the advertising and privacy problems") I acknowledge that you may have just worded things poorly, or intended your words to mean something else which is why I prefaced by question with "If". If you actually do think the US government should regulate this, how should that be done given your concerns of their inability to understand the issue and taking into account the fact that any mistakes they make will take effort to correct once it's been put into law?

cgag 7y ago

It makes me think of signing inescapable contracts with demons, which seem convenient but ultimately doom you for eternity.

crooked-v 7y ago
Nothing about 'regulations are written in blood' is about convenience. Regulations specifically exist to make things less convenient. The reason such regulations exist is because people did the convenient thing and it killed somebody.
- cgag 7y ago
  they are convenient solutions

diminoten 7y ago

It'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 ago
  What 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?
    - diminoten 7y ago
      Why do you think I said regulation is impossible or undesirable?
      - autoexec 7y ago
        I suppose it was somewhere between when you said that government shouldn't regulate or try to fix the problem until they have a better understanding of it ("this is a complex issue and the "LETS REGULATE IT" feels premature given how complex and subtle the issue is...We need to understand the full scope of the problem, rather than try to fix what isn't fully grasped") and that you don't think the government is capable of doing exactly that. ("I have very little faith in the US government to accurately grasp the subtleties and nuances of the advertising and privacy problems") I acknowledge that you may have just worded things poorly, or intended your words to mean something else which is why I prefaced by question with "If". If you actually do think the US government should regulate this, how should that be done given your concerns of their inability to understand the issue and taking into account the fact that any mistakes they make will take effort to correct once it's been put into law?