4 ms·

I'm not sure that's all that convincing given none of the prototypes have an accurate cost build. Also, the article below has some further detail that no other

by bmitc 5y ago

I'm not sure that's all that convincing given none of the prototypes have an accurate cost build. Also, the article below has some further detail that no other city has such requirements, so it's confusing why San Francisco does. And it doesn't address the question of will it actually help anything. One of the biggest problems seems to be people just dump trash next to existing trash cans or even where no trash cans are. This doesn't seem to address that. The requirements also address a symptom, homeless rummaging. My original point stands in that it's not blown out of proportion and should be discussed. > https://missionlocal.org/2021/08/san-franciscos-proposed-trash-cans-at-2000-to-3000-a-pop-far-costlier-than-other-cities-bins/ https://missionlocal.org/2021/08/san-franciscos-proposed-tra... The actual three prototypes: > https://sfpublicworks.org/trashcanredesign https://sfpublicworks.org/trashcanredesign

ZeroGravitas 5y ago
You've not demonstrated this is actually costing more than a plausible alternative, just moved quickly on to complaining that it's an outrage to be spending so much and that they should be spending it on other things. Lots of sensible ideas have components that cost more than the cheapest available alternative component e.g. if for example they introduced electric garbage trucks, it would be short-sighted to focus on just the up front cost of that vehicle versus a standard diesel alternative. If other aspects (quiet operation, maintenance costs, fuel expenses, longevity) are counted then it may cost less overall, which is the only figure we should care about. Yes, I can't prove that my hypothetical EV truck will deliver those future cost savings but if you're arguing against it without even mentioning those, then that's a very poor quality of argument and highly suggests you don't have anything better to use as your argument. I'm also highly dubious, of why that article, from the same source, keeps referring to "primarily" and "most" of the bins that other cities use. Either they have a really strong case, and they have no idea how bad their presentation makes them look, or they are using these weasel words because they don't have an actual case. Since it seems to be some local civic government feud, I'm leaning towards the latter. edit: reading further around this, the actual corruption seems to mostly stem from the trash collection being given to a monopoly in 1938, and there being no laws against that monopoly from giving gifts to the city employees that oversee them. Which seems insane, but also run of the mill for the US, where they often manage to be less market-oriented than European governments, while at the same time offering less benefits to the actual people paying for them. One of the drawbacks of living in an oligarchy rather than a democracy I guess.
- bmitc 5y ago
  > You've not demonstrated this is actually costing more than a plausible alternative. Of course I haven’t, how could I? That’s up to the people running the project. My entire point was that this does not seem blown out of proportion to me and should actually be something for San Franciscans to push on. My personal opinion is that this does indeed seem like a vanity project on the outset but without more details, it’s hard to know. I think enough are there to not write it off though. This comment seems relevant regarding what problem they are actually trying to solve, if there is one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28639600 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28639600 > One of the drawbacks of living in an oligarchy rather than a democracy Agreed there.
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    That linked comment just repeats the lie that they didn't even look at off-the-shelf options in an angrier tone. It's still just as easily refuted by reading to the end of the article. Maybe there really is a rotten core to SF refuse collection, maybe there really is something going on with Bill Gates and Covid Vaccines, but angry people on the internet saying things that are demonstrabaly not true in an outraged tone is not a good basis for believing either proposition.

by bmitc 5y ago

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

You've not demonstrated this is actually costing more than a plausible alternative, just moved quickly on to complaining that it's an outrage to be spending so much and that they should be spending it on other things. Lots of sensible ideas have components that cost more than the cheapest available alternative component e.g. if for example they introduced electric garbage trucks, it would be short-sighted to focus on just the up front cost of that vehicle versus a standard diesel alternative. If other aspects (quiet operation, maintenance costs, fuel expenses, longevity) are counted then it may cost less overall, which is the only figure we should care about. Yes, I can't prove that my hypothetical EV truck will deliver those future cost savings but if you're arguing against it without even mentioning those, then that's a very poor quality of argument and highly suggests you don't have anything better to use as your argument. I'm also highly dubious, of why that article, from the same source, keeps referring to "primarily" and "most" of the bins that other cities use. Either they have a really strong case, and they have no idea how bad their presentation makes them look, or they are using these weasel words because they don't have an actual case. Since it seems to be some local civic government feud, I'm leaning towards the latter. edit: reading further around this, the actual corruption seems to mostly stem from the trash collection being given to a monopoly in 1938, and there being no laws against that monopoly from giving gifts to the city employees that oversee them. Which seems insane, but also run of the mill for the US, where they often manage to be less market-oriented than European governments, while at the same time offering less benefits to the actual people paying for them. One of the drawbacks of living in an oligarchy rather than a democracy I guess.

bmitc 5y ago
> You've not demonstrated this is actually costing more than a plausible alternative. Of course I haven’t, how could I? That’s up to the people running the project. My entire point was that this does not seem blown out of proportion to me and should actually be something for San Franciscans to push on. My personal opinion is that this does indeed seem like a vanity project on the outset but without more details, it’s hard to know. I think enough are there to not write it off though. This comment seems relevant regarding what problem they are actually trying to solve, if there is one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28639600 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28639600 > One of the drawbacks of living in an oligarchy rather than a democracy Agreed there.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  That linked comment just repeats the lie that they didn't even look at off-the-shelf options in an angrier tone. It's still just as easily refuted by reading to the end of the article. Maybe there really is a rotten core to SF refuse collection, maybe there really is something going on with Bill Gates and Covid Vaccines, but angry people on the internet saying things that are demonstrabaly not true in an outraged tone is not a good basis for believing either proposition.