4 ms·

Reading charging standards as "weights and measures" is on par with classifying bumblebees as fish. Not only aren't these strict readings, they aren't even sen

Reading charging standards as "weights and measures" is on par with classifying bumblebees as fish. Not only aren't these strict readings, they aren't even sensible.

kube-system 4y ago
Standardization of metering devices used in commerce is directly in the purview of Weights and Measures regulation. For example, NIST Weights and Measures division regulates the nozzle on the dispenser used for gasoline in the US. > Each retail dispensing device from which fuel products are sold shall be equipped with a nozzle spout having a diameter that conforms with the latest version of SAE J285, “Dispenser Nozzle Spouts for Liquid Fuel Intended for Use with Spark-Ignition and Compression Ignition Engines.” https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2019/12/06/00-20-h130-iv-g-final-12.pdf https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2019/12/06/00-20... A metering devices that dispenses electrical power is no different. https://www.nist.gov/pml/weights-and-measures/legal-metrology-devices/electric-vehicle-fueling-and-submetering https://www.nist.gov/pml/weights-and-measures/legal-metrolog...
- golemotron 4y ago
  It's an overreach. "A pound is 16 ounces" is not the same as "cakes shall only be 5 ounces," i.e., a standard of measure does not extend to regulation of what is measured and what measures are permitted. An originalist court could fix this.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    That analogy does not hold up. A fuel dispenser is a metering device. The scale at your grocery store that measures the weight of the cake is, likewise, an NTEP scale: https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/national-type-evaluation-program-ntep https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/national-type-evaluat... These are very fundamental consumer protection regulations that have been solidly cemented in western civilization for many centuries now. >not extend to regulation of [...] what measures are permitted. That was exactly the point of that clause. The colonies all had their own system of measurement and it was a mess trying to do business. Now, congress did very little about it, but the founders intentionally reserved the right for them to fix that problem.
    - golemotron 4y ago
      The problem with your formulation is that there is no limiting principle. Perversely, the government could rule that a pregnant person is a metering device for gestation and establish standards.
      - kube-system 4y ago
        No, a pregnancy does not meter any commercial exchange of goods.
- nybble41 4y ago
  Ensuring accurate metering in the context of commerce is within the scope of "To … fix the Standard of Weights and Measures". The specific form of the nozzle clearly is not, but they might justify it on the basis of some other enumerated power—the interstate commerce clause is frequently (ab)used for this sort of thing. Nothing technically requires every regulation produced by the NIST Weights and Measures division to be grounded exclusively in the Weights and Measures clause, though one could be forgiven for making that assumption. As dpratt remarked earlier[0], any interpretation which would deem nozzle size—or the specific form of an electrical connector—to be covered by the Weights and Measures clause of the Constitution would effectively cede unlimited power to the federal government. What couldn't they regulate under such broad rules? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31654558 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31654558
  - kube-system 4y ago
    I'm not saying that the regulatory power in this case is derived solely from the weights and measures clause, I'm countering golemotron's suggestion that it's a wholly unrelated topic. It's a topic so closely relevant to weights and measures that the regulatory division that currently regulates them bears that title.
Dylan16807 4y ago
> on par with classifying bumblebees as fish So you're saying it's quite reasonable when you look at what actually happened? The law defined a handful of categories. "fish" is actually "fish and miscellaneous". Invertebrates are explicitly part of that miscellaneous.
astrange 4y ago
> par with classifying bumblebees as fish Society claiming this is wrong and being correct is exactly balanced by society claiming whales aren't fish and being incorrect. (Whales are fish because they're descendants of fish and are more closely related to salmon than sharks are. The same goes for you. You're also a fish.)

Reading charging standards as "weights and measures" is on par with classifying bumblebees as fish. Not only aren't these strict readings, they aren't even sensible.

kube-system 4y ago

Standardization of metering devices used in commerce is directly in the purview of Weights and Measures regulation. For example, NIST Weights and Measures division regulates the nozzle on the dispenser used for gasoline in the US. > Each retail dispensing device from which fuel products are sold shall be equipped with a nozzle spout having a diameter that conforms with the latest version of SAE J285, “Dispenser Nozzle Spouts for Liquid Fuel Intended for Use with Spark-Ignition and Compression Ignition Engines.” https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2019/12/06/00-20-h130-iv-g-final-12.pdf https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2019/12/06/00-20... A metering devices that dispenses electrical power is no different. https://www.nist.gov/pml/weights-and-measures/legal-metrology-devices/electric-vehicle-fueling-and-submetering https://www.nist.gov/pml/weights-and-measures/legal-metrolog...

golemotron 4y ago
It's an overreach. "A pound is 16 ounces" is not the same as "cakes shall only be 5 ounces," i.e., a standard of measure does not extend to regulation of what is measured and what measures are permitted. An originalist court could fix this.
- kube-system 4y ago
  That analogy does not hold up. A fuel dispenser is a metering device. The scale at your grocery store that measures the weight of the cake is, likewise, an NTEP scale: https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/national-type-evaluation-program-ntep https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/national-type-evaluat... These are very fundamental consumer protection regulations that have been solidly cemented in western civilization for many centuries now. >not extend to regulation of [...] what measures are permitted. That was exactly the point of that clause. The colonies all had their own system of measurement and it was a mess trying to do business. Now, congress did very little about it, but the founders intentionally reserved the right for them to fix that problem.
  - golemotron 4y ago
    The problem with your formulation is that there is no limiting principle. Perversely, the government could rule that a pregnant person is a metering device for gestation and establish standards.
    - kube-system 4y ago
      No, a pregnancy does not meter any commercial exchange of goods.
nybble41 4y ago
Ensuring accurate metering in the context of commerce is within the scope of "To … fix the Standard of Weights and Measures". The specific form of the nozzle clearly is not, but they might justify it on the basis of some other enumerated power—the interstate commerce clause is frequently (ab)used for this sort of thing. Nothing technically requires every regulation produced by the NIST Weights and Measures division to be grounded exclusively in the Weights and Measures clause, though one could be forgiven for making that assumption. As dpratt remarked earlier[0], any interpretation which would deem nozzle size—or the specific form of an electrical connector—to be covered by the Weights and Measures clause of the Constitution would effectively cede unlimited power to the federal government. What couldn't they regulate under such broad rules? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31654558 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31654558
- kube-system 4y ago
  I'm not saying that the regulatory power in this case is derived solely from the weights and measures clause, I'm countering golemotron's suggestion that it's a wholly unrelated topic. It's a topic so closely relevant to weights and measures that the regulatory division that currently regulates them bears that title.

Dylan16807 4y ago

> on par with classifying bumblebees as fish So you're saying it's quite reasonable when you look at what actually happened? The law defined a handful of categories. "fish" is actually "fish and miscellaneous". Invertebrates are explicitly part of that miscellaneous.

astrange 4y ago

> par with classifying bumblebees as fish Society claiming this is wrong and being correct is exactly balanced by society claiming whales aren't fish and being incorrect. (Whales are fish because they're descendants of fish and are more closely related to salmon than sharks are. The same goes for you. You're also a fish.)