4 ms·

So is that to say all regulations are bad?

by mint2 4y ago

amalgamated_inc 4y ago
Yes
- mint2 4y ago
  I like how regulations got rid of lead paint, got rid of LA’s pea soup smog, stopped rivers from being so polluted they’d catch fire, and brought back the American eagle. Just a few examples. a reactionary “all regulation bad” view is too simplistic and doesn’t make for good discourses. but what do I know, I must be biased because I’m not a fan of asbestos.
  - amalgamated_inc 4y ago
    If you hate freedom so much, why don't you move to North Korea? I hear their government is real good at regulations.
    - mint2 4y ago
      Actually thats not correct. even if they have environmental regs on paper countries like that don’t have them in practice due to lack of enforcement. What is the purpose of those comments?
      - User23 4y ago
        I assume it was to make me laugh, which it did. Nobody actually thinks "regulations are bad." The point that is being humorously made is that these things have significant trade-offs and you're pretending not to get it. And I have to compliment you on playing the straight man in the exchange, it wouldn't have been nearly so funny without your participation! We saw the same thing in early LAN engineering when Ethernet fought it out with Token Ring. Oversimplifying a bit: Token Ring provided a highly regulated guaranteed delivery protocol with lots of complexity and overhead and Ethernet just spurted packets out onto the wire and let the nodes figure out collisions. Can you guess which one is considerably more performant and easier to implement? Even so, Ethernet still has plenty of rules and complexity, just considerably less than Token Ring.
        amalgamated_inc 4y ago
        > I assume it was to make me laugh, which it did. Sure let's go with that :) I'd summarize it like so: while it is theoretically possible fore regulation to be net-positive, it is vastly net-negative on average and especially cumulative. And we aren't able or willing to figure out which ones are positive/negative beforehand, so zero new regulation would be the optimal strategy.
        User23 4y ago
        I think for the sake of the Science we should try random regulation too. Maybe one state could use USDA regulations and another could use whatever ChatGPT comes up with and we A/B test.
        amalgamated_inc 4y ago
        Exactly. Plus, we need to hold all other variables equal, so we can be sure what the causation is. And best of all we should use the gold standard, randomized controlled trials. With this method, some states/countries get randomly selected to implement a policy, but they don't even know about it, and to make it double blind, we also don't know about it until after the trial. Anything less is unscientific, frankly.
        mint2 4y ago
        Literally half the political commentary in the nation talks like all regs are bad, not just a matter of trade offs. Thanks for the negging, makes for intelligent comments just like posting one line regan slogans for “humor”
        User23 4y ago
        > Literally half the political commentary in the nation talks like all regs are bad, not just a matter of trade offs. Don't be so condescending and you might notice that commenters here are quite a bit above that level. Since you mention, "Yes" could be a nuclear tier rhetorical slogan. "What do you stand for?" "Yes!" Who can't get behind that positive can do attitude!? I don't know what a regan is, but I'm happy to help him, her, or it out at my standard consulting rate.

So is that to say all regulations are bad?

by mint2 4y ago

So is that to say all regulations are bad?

amalgamated_inc 4y ago

Yes

mint2 4y ago
I like how regulations got rid of lead paint, got rid of LA’s pea soup smog, stopped rivers from being so polluted they’d catch fire, and brought back the American eagle. Just a few examples. a reactionary “all regulation bad” view is too simplistic and doesn’t make for good discourses. but what do I know, I must be biased because I’m not a fan of asbestos.
- amalgamated_inc 4y ago
  If you hate freedom so much, why don't you move to North Korea? I hear their government is real good at regulations.
  - mint2 4y ago
    Actually thats not correct. even if they have environmental regs on paper countries like that don’t have them in practice due to lack of enforcement. What is the purpose of those comments?
    - User23 4y ago
      I assume it was to make me laugh, which it did. Nobody actually thinks "regulations are bad." The point that is being humorously made is that these things have significant trade-offs and you're pretending not to get it. And I have to compliment you on playing the straight man in the exchange, it wouldn't have been nearly so funny without your participation! We saw the same thing in early LAN engineering when Ethernet fought it out with Token Ring. Oversimplifying a bit: Token Ring provided a highly regulated guaranteed delivery protocol with lots of complexity and overhead and Ethernet just spurted packets out onto the wire and let the nodes figure out collisions. Can you guess which one is considerably more performant and easier to implement? Even so, Ethernet still has plenty of rules and complexity, just considerably less than Token Ring.
      - amalgamated_inc 4y ago
        > I assume it was to make me laugh, which it did. Sure let's go with that :) I'd summarize it like so: while it is theoretically possible fore regulation to be net-positive, it is vastly net-negative on average and especially cumulative. And we aren't able or willing to figure out which ones are positive/negative beforehand, so zero new regulation would be the optimal strategy.
        User23 4y ago
        I think for the sake of the Science we should try random regulation too. Maybe one state could use USDA regulations and another could use whatever ChatGPT comes up with and we A/B test.
        amalgamated_inc 4y ago
        Exactly. Plus, we need to hold all other variables equal, so we can be sure what the causation is. And best of all we should use the gold standard, randomized controlled trials. With this method, some states/countries get randomly selected to implement a policy, but they don't even know about it, and to make it double blind, we also don't know about it until after the trial. Anything less is unscientific, frankly.
      - mint2 4y ago
        Literally half the political commentary in the nation talks like all regs are bad, not just a matter of trade offs. Thanks for the negging, makes for intelligent comments just like posting one line regan slogans for “humor”
        User23 4y ago
        > Literally half the political commentary in the nation talks like all regs are bad, not just a matter of trade offs. Don't be so condescending and you might notice that commenters here are quite a bit above that level. Since you mention, "Yes" could be a nuclear tier rhetorical slogan. "What do you stand for?" "Yes!" Who can't get behind that positive can do attitude!? I don't know what a regan is, but I'm happy to help him, her, or it out at my standard consulting rate.