9 ms·

Regardless of who you are in the government, the safest answer to anything is no. Permit housing? No. Permit power lines? No. Permit a nuclear plant? No. Permit

Regardless of who you are in the government, the safest answer to anything is no. Permit housing? No. Permit power lines? No. Permit a nuclear plant? No. Permit an aviation fuel? No. Permit cross-laminated timber? No. Nobody gets fired for saying no. This is how greatness fades away and a nation becomes uselessly sclerotic and irrelevant.

devmor 4y ago
> This is how greatness fades away and a nation becomes uselessly sclerotic and irrelevant. It's also how stability is maintained and a nation remains safe and trustworthy.
- Sargos 4y ago
  Historically this has not been true. The more ossified the bureaucracy becomes the less able it is to adapt and innovate which eventually leads to replacement or revolution.
  - vajrabum 4y ago
    Do you have some historical examples?
- cnlevy 4y ago
  The Roman Empire would like to have a word with you https://fee.org/articles/bureaucracy-kills-a-lesson-from-rome/ https://fee.org/articles/bureaucracy-kills-a-lesson-from-rom...
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    Who is FEE? They look like a libertarian advocacy organization, complete with an 'education' wing.
    - retcon 4y ago
      The Fabian Extend and Embrace Society?
    - devmor 4y ago
      They absolutely are. https://fee.org/about/board-of-trustees https://fee.org/about/board-of-trustees
- api 4y ago
  Ossification leads to instability for numerous reasons, not the least of which being that it encourages people to just ignore authorities and go around them. This leads to a culture of routine corruption where people break the law just to get things done, which can lead to a full-blown mafia state or to collapse and revolution.
  - vajrabum 4y ago
    Is that really true though? Do you have an example of bureaucratic ossification leading to a mafia state? Is there evidence that is how any mafia or mafia state has arises? Is there any evidence that bureaucracy has played a role in a revolution or was a causal factor?
    - throwawaylinux 4y ago
      I'd be interested to know if you do get examples. Also interested to know whether you were able to find evidence and examples for the prior claim that "It's also how stability is maintained and a nation remains safe and trustworthy."
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
onphonenow 4y ago
Spot on. I've worked govt adjacent. It's basically a "can't do" mentality vs a "can do" mentality. Politically same issue. Endless politicians "outraged" and "offended" by various things - so keeping your head down, doing it the same way you've done it before is seen as the safest internally. Now layer in a ton of non-performance or deliverables oriented goals and things just grind down to a total halt.
PaulHoule 4y ago
Aviation is ground zero for that. Is is telling that aviation’s “sustainable fuel” vision is the same Fischer-Tropsch chemistry that’s been abandoned for everything else because the capital cost of the machinery is too damn high. Ground transportation has moved on to single-entity fuels that are synthesizable like 1-butanol and dimethyl ether. I can’t for the life of me see why the industry isn’t developing methane as an aviation fuel as it could even be the low cost solution in 2022 if Airbus had developed that instead of the thoroughly pizzled A380.
- p_l 4y ago
  Methane was investigated as aviation fuel, and was found to be more problematic than Hydrogen - in fact, it's even less forgiving than hydrogen due to taking longer to dissipate and having worse side effects in case of accidental tank rupture. In fact, the only viable use of Methane in aviation fuels was by 2007 considered to be... feedstock for Fischer-Tropsch chemistry, which also can make carbon-neutral syntin that will require no complete rebuilds of planes and engines.
btrettel 4y ago
> Regardless of who you are in the government, the safest answer to anything is no. This is not always true. I'm a former patent examiner. At the US patent office, sometimes granting a patent (answering yes) is the safest response. If an examiner can't find a reason to reject the application in the time they are given, what choice do they have? Their decisions can't be arbitrary.
- whatshisface 4y ago
  That's actually an example in favor of the OP's point, because patents are restrictive in nature rather than permissive. Accepting the patent doesn't permit anyone to do anything, it represents the government removing the ability of anyone but the claimant to do what they're claiming. (Aside: I wonder what the effects would be of inventing and patenting environment-destroying technologies, then refusing to license them to delay their implementation. The patent system allows anyone to ban a technology, if they can convince the examiner they invented it.)
  - btrettel 4y ago
    Could be semantics, I guess. Patent examiners permit operation of monopolies in my view. > (Aside: I wonder what the effects would be of inventing and patenting environment-destroying technologies, then refusing to license them to delay their implementation. The patent system allows anyone to ban a technology, if they can convince the examiner they invented it.) I imagine polluting companies would ignore the patents ("efficient infringement") and/or try to invalidate the patents.
    - whatshisface 4y ago
      >Patent examiners permit operation of monopolies in my view. The operation of a monopoly was already possible before the patent via trade secrets (typical contemporary example, SpaceX), what the patent does is make it illegal to break the monopoly by re-inventing the technology.
metacritic12 4y ago
It all makes much more sense if you consider the world from the following hypothetical utility function of the FAA: to maximize net present value of funding. If they are 50% efficient, or even 10% efficient, they won't be eliminated. They're still needed for certain basic operations in aviation. However, if they do something with a 30% chance of a great outcome from aviation, and 1% chance of a negative scandal, that negative risk outweighs any positivity.
_moof 4y ago
In my experience (decades of direct interaction) most of the FAA is a model of professionalism in civil service. But there are pockets of sheer insanity, usually due to perverse incentives like what you're describing. This whole fiasco has all the hallmarks of pathological risk-aversion. No one wants to be the one who said "yes" because there's no punishment for saying "no." The FAA's approach to risk management is, in general, second-to-none, but when it isn't paired with a mission assurance mindset, you get pathological outcomes like this.
- KennyBlanken 4y ago
  Allowing two inspectors to pursue personal grudges against one of the most beloved figures in US aviation: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=FAA+bob+hoover https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=FAA+bob+hoover Five hundred and thirty seven people killed from the 737 max scandal, which showed the FAA was basically not providing any oversight of Boeing whatsoever, and even worse, was complicit in coverups: https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/18/22189609/faa-boeing-737-max-senate-report-coverup-tests-whistleblowers https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/18/22189609/faa-boeing-737-... Furthermore, the FAA was the last national agency in the world to ban the 737 Max from flying. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/business/boeing-737-crashes.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/business/boeing-737... That lack of supervision included the FAA providing little or no oversight over Boeing using lithium ion batteries without sufficient testing, resulting in several fires on airliners. Treating air traffic controllers so poorly - including underpaying them by nearly thirty percent, that they went on strike, and refusing to give them a shorter work week to compensate for the high stress nature of the job: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Contr... and since then, we've had decades upon decades of overworked, overstressed, understaffed air traffic controllers, which results in problems ranging from crashes due to errors to falling asleep to substance abuse: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=FAA+air+traffic+controllers+sleeping https://duckduckgo.com/?q=FAA+air+traffic+controllers+sleepi... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=FAA+air+traffic+controllers+drunk https://duckduckgo.com/?q=FAA+air+traffic+controllers+drunk A controller in Las Vegas has a stroke and was speaking gibberish for half an hour before anyone in the control tower noticed, likely because she was working alone and unsupervised. Am I forgetting anything? "Model of professionalism in civil service" my ass. This debacle over fueling is just yet another way the FAA has pointlessly stood in the way of progress to protect vested industry interests. FAA regulations are rife with all sorts of absurd shit barring a private pilot from modernizing their planes in cost effective manner or enhancing them with greater avionics capabilities.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
wolverine876 4y ago
> Nobody gets fired for saying no. This is how greatness fades away and a nation becomes uselessly sclerotic and irrelevant. Where does this come from? Things are permitted and developed all the time. In fact, many perceive government as overly lenient to big business, leading to disasterous results (like the Boeing plane crashes).
- zbrozek 4y ago
  There's a wide gap between zero regulation and a bureaucracy that always says 'no'. A lot of our problems right now are the result of 'no'. Nationally we're short almost 4 million homes because zoning law has said 'no' to more and more-diverse housing. California suffers rolling blackouts in part because regulations have simultaneously made it difficult to maintain existing transmission lines or build new ones. Maine residents just voted down building a transmission line to bring low-carbon hydro power in from Canada. We've been suffering a self-inflicted baby shortage formula for many reasons, but not least because we made it difficult to import the stuff. Where are you seeing a overabundance of 'yes'?
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    I'm from Maine. The transmission line was voted down because CMP (a widely hated organization) was basically getting free use of land for no reason. The power was strictly going to Massachusetts
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    A few instances (even if supported by evidence, and where the benefits didn't outweight the costs) says zero about the overall situation in an enormous country. Is there evidence of the overall situation? The small government / empower big business lobby likes to use the rhetoric of repetition-until-it-seems-like-fact, but that doesn't make it true.

devmor 4y ago

> This is how greatness fades away and a nation becomes uselessly sclerotic and irrelevant. It's also how stability is maintained and a nation remains safe and trustworthy.

Sargos 4y ago
Historically this has not been true. The more ossified the bureaucracy becomes the less able it is to adapt and innovate which eventually leads to replacement or revolution.
- vajrabum 4y ago
  Do you have some historical examples?
cnlevy 4y ago
The Roman Empire would like to have a word with you https://fee.org/articles/bureaucracy-kills-a-lesson-from-rome/ https://fee.org/articles/bureaucracy-kills-a-lesson-from-rom...
- wolverine876 4y ago
  Who is FEE? They look like a libertarian advocacy organization, complete with an 'education' wing.
  - retcon 4y ago
    The Fabian Extend and Embrace Society?
  - devmor 4y ago
    They absolutely are. https://fee.org/about/board-of-trustees https://fee.org/about/board-of-trustees
api 4y ago
Ossification leads to instability for numerous reasons, not the least of which being that it encourages people to just ignore authorities and go around them. This leads to a culture of routine corruption where people break the law just to get things done, which can lead to a full-blown mafia state or to collapse and revolution.
- vajrabum 4y ago
  Is that really true though? Do you have an example of bureaucratic ossification leading to a mafia state? Is there evidence that is how any mafia or mafia state has arises? Is there any evidence that bureaucracy has played a role in a revolution or was a causal factor?
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    I'd be interested to know if you do get examples. Also interested to know whether you were able to find evidence and examples for the prior claim that "It's also how stability is maintained and a nation remains safe and trustworthy."
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

onphonenow 4y ago

Spot on. I've worked govt adjacent. It's basically a "can't do" mentality vs a "can do" mentality. Politically same issue. Endless politicians "outraged" and "offended" by various things - so keeping your head down, doing it the same way you've done it before is seen as the safest internally. Now layer in a ton of non-performance or deliverables oriented goals and things just grind down to a total halt.

PaulHoule 4y ago

Aviation is ground zero for that. Is is telling that aviation’s “sustainable fuel” vision is the same Fischer-Tropsch chemistry that’s been abandoned for everything else because the capital cost of the machinery is too damn high. Ground transportation has moved on to single-entity fuels that are synthesizable like 1-butanol and dimethyl ether. I can’t for the life of me see why the industry isn’t developing methane as an aviation fuel as it could even be the low cost solution in 2022 if Airbus had developed that instead of the thoroughly pizzled A380.

p_l 4y ago
Methane was investigated as aviation fuel, and was found to be more problematic than Hydrogen - in fact, it's even less forgiving than hydrogen due to taking longer to dissipate and having worse side effects in case of accidental tank rupture. In fact, the only viable use of Methane in aviation fuels was by 2007 considered to be... feedstock for Fischer-Tropsch chemistry, which also can make carbon-neutral syntin that will require no complete rebuilds of planes and engines.

btrettel 4y ago

> Regardless of who you are in the government, the safest answer to anything is no. This is not always true. I'm a former patent examiner. At the US patent office, sometimes granting a patent (answering yes) is the safest response. If an examiner can't find a reason to reject the application in the time they are given, what choice do they have? Their decisions can't be arbitrary.

whatshisface 4y ago
That's actually an example in favor of the OP's point, because patents are restrictive in nature rather than permissive. Accepting the patent doesn't permit anyone to do anything, it represents the government removing the ability of anyone but the claimant to do what they're claiming. (Aside: I wonder what the effects would be of inventing and patenting environment-destroying technologies, then refusing to license them to delay their implementation. The patent system allows anyone to ban a technology, if they can convince the examiner they invented it.)
- btrettel 4y ago
  Could be semantics, I guess. Patent examiners permit operation of monopolies in my view. > (Aside: I wonder what the effects would be of inventing and patenting environment-destroying technologies, then refusing to license them to delay their implementation. The patent system allows anyone to ban a technology, if they can convince the examiner they invented it.) I imagine polluting companies would ignore the patents ("efficient infringement") and/or try to invalidate the patents.
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    >Patent examiners permit operation of monopolies in my view. The operation of a monopoly was already possible before the patent via trade secrets (typical contemporary example, SpaceX), what the patent does is make it illegal to break the monopoly by re-inventing the technology.

metacritic12 4y ago

It all makes much more sense if you consider the world from the following hypothetical utility function of the FAA: to maximize net present value of funding. If they are 50% efficient, or even 10% efficient, they won't be eliminated. They're still needed for certain basic operations in aviation. However, if they do something with a 30% chance of a great outcome from aviation, and 1% chance of a negative scandal, that negative risk outweighs any positivity.

_moof 4y ago

In my experience (decades of direct interaction) most of the FAA is a model of professionalism in civil service. But there are pockets of sheer insanity, usually due to perverse incentives like what you're describing. This whole fiasco has all the hallmarks of pathological risk-aversion. No one wants to be the one who said "yes" because there's no punishment for saying "no." The FAA's approach to risk management is, in general, second-to-none, but when it isn't paired with a mission assurance mindset, you get pathological outcomes like this.

KennyBlanken 4y ago
Allowing two inspectors to pursue personal grudges against one of the most beloved figures in US aviation: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=FAA+bob+hoover https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=FAA+bob+hoover Five hundred and thirty seven people killed from the 737 max scandal, which showed the FAA was basically not providing any oversight of Boeing whatsoever, and even worse, was complicit in coverups: https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/18/22189609/faa-boeing-737-max-senate-report-coverup-tests-whistleblowers https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/18/22189609/faa-boeing-737-... Furthermore, the FAA was the last national agency in the world to ban the 737 Max from flying. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/business/boeing-737-crashes.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/business/boeing-737... That lack of supervision included the FAA providing little or no oversight over Boeing using lithium ion batteries without sufficient testing, resulting in several fires on airliners. Treating air traffic controllers so poorly - including underpaying them by nearly thirty percent, that they went on strike, and refusing to give them a shorter work week to compensate for the high stress nature of the job: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Contr... and since then, we've had decades upon decades of overworked, overstressed, understaffed air traffic controllers, which results in problems ranging from crashes due to errors to falling asleep to substance abuse: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=FAA+air+traffic+controllers+sleeping https://duckduckgo.com/?q=FAA+air+traffic+controllers+sleepi... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=FAA+air+traffic+controllers+drunk https://duckduckgo.com/?q=FAA+air+traffic+controllers+drunk A controller in Las Vegas has a stroke and was speaking gibberish for half an hour before anyone in the control tower noticed, likely because she was working alone and unsupervised. Am I forgetting anything? "Model of professionalism in civil service" my ass. This debacle over fueling is just yet another way the FAA has pointlessly stood in the way of progress to protect vested industry interests. FAA regulations are rife with all sorts of absurd shit barring a private pilot from modernizing their planes in cost effective manner or enhancing them with greater avionics capabilities.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

wolverine876 4y ago

> Nobody gets fired for saying no. This is how greatness fades away and a nation becomes uselessly sclerotic and irrelevant. Where does this come from? Things are permitted and developed all the time. In fact, many perceive government as overly lenient to big business, leading to disasterous results (like the Boeing plane crashes).

zbrozek 4y ago
There's a wide gap between zero regulation and a bureaucracy that always says 'no'. A lot of our problems right now are the result of 'no'. Nationally we're short almost 4 million homes because zoning law has said 'no' to more and more-diverse housing. California suffers rolling blackouts in part because regulations have simultaneously made it difficult to maintain existing transmission lines or build new ones. Maine residents just voted down building a transmission line to bring low-carbon hydro power in from Canada. We've been suffering a self-inflicted baby shortage formula for many reasons, but not least because we made it difficult to import the stuff. Where are you seeing a overabundance of 'yes'?
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  I'm from Maine. The transmission line was voted down because CMP (a widely hated organization) was basically getting free use of land for no reason. The power was strictly going to Massachusetts
- wolverine876 4y ago
  A few instances (even if supported by evidence, and where the benefits didn't outweight the costs) says zero about the overall situation in an enormous country. Is there evidence of the overall situation? The small government / empower big business lobby likes to use the rhetoric of repetition-until-it-seems-like-fact, but that doesn't make it true.