3 ms·

This kind of regulation is one of the most basic functions of government, without which trade between states and countries becomes much more difficult. Of all t

This kind of regulation is one of the most basic functions of government, without which trade between states and countries becomes much more difficult. Of all the things a government can do, requiring certain standards on things like connector types seems the most reasonable.

worrycue 4y ago
Does the government really knows what the market wants in a standard? Some people will benefit from their standard being chosen as the winner. This is just corruption waiting to happen. It’s fine I guess if the choices are functionally identical (although that still leaves the issue of corruption if there is money involved) or the market has already clearly chosen what it wants by mass adopting a standard (USB-C has not reached that state yet) and the government is just “making it official” - it would however leave the updating of the standard at the government’s discretion since the mandate would need to be relaxed as it would prevent a successor standard from gaining popularity. How would you feel if the US government mandated Windows for all desktops and servers and Android for all mobile devices? It improves interoperability … Or perhaps mandate all programs be written in C++ … again interoperability.
- bigDinosaur 4y ago
  It's true that governments can overreach, and frequently do. What I'm saying those is that when it comes to enforcing standards, the basic ability of a government to do so is fine as it's commonly used for immensely beneficial reasons (as in, industries often want the government to regulate a standard and to sign international agreements regulating certain standards because it often makes it way easier to sell and transfer between regions). The standard should be evaluated on its own merits as opposed to a generic opposition to the government setting standards at all, which I see as deeply flawed.
  - worrycue 4y ago
    What concerns me is the government’s ability to evaluate said merits and their responsiveness to market changes that would require a change in the standard. We have plenty of example where governments got it very wrong - see the USSR. In this case it’s easy. But the next standard, should the the choice no longer be so clear cut between competing standards with their pros and cons. It would also be interesting to see how the EU determines when we should switch to a successor. Why should a bunch of old people in Brussels who in all likelihood can barely operate a smartphone be the ones deciding these matters? There is also the issue of corruption - which is still fresh in my mind; see Qatar and the EU parliament. As such I rather nigh dictatorial power not be unnecessarily placed in the hands of governments.
- shash 4y ago
  Right… so we won’t have any regulation on wall socket design or voltages then, I guess. It’ll be great!

worrycue 4y ago

Does the government really knows what the market wants in a standard? Some people will benefit from their standard being chosen as the winner. This is just corruption waiting to happen. It’s fine I guess if the choices are functionally identical (although that still leaves the issue of corruption if there is money involved) or the market has already clearly chosen what it wants by mass adopting a standard (USB-C has not reached that state yet) and the government is just “making it official” - it would however leave the updating of the standard at the government’s discretion since the mandate would need to be relaxed as it would prevent a successor standard from gaining popularity. How would you feel if the US government mandated Windows for all desktops and servers and Android for all mobile devices? It improves interoperability … Or perhaps mandate all programs be written in C++ … again interoperability.

bigDinosaur 4y ago
It's true that governments can overreach, and frequently do. What I'm saying those is that when it comes to enforcing standards, the basic ability of a government to do so is fine as it's commonly used for immensely beneficial reasons (as in, industries often want the government to regulate a standard and to sign international agreements regulating certain standards because it often makes it way easier to sell and transfer between regions). The standard should be evaluated on its own merits as opposed to a generic opposition to the government setting standards at all, which I see as deeply flawed.
- worrycue 4y ago
  What concerns me is the government’s ability to evaluate said merits and their responsiveness to market changes that would require a change in the standard. We have plenty of example where governments got it very wrong - see the USSR. In this case it’s easy. But the next standard, should the the choice no longer be so clear cut between competing standards with their pros and cons. It would also be interesting to see how the EU determines when we should switch to a successor. Why should a bunch of old people in Brussels who in all likelihood can barely operate a smartphone be the ones deciding these matters? There is also the issue of corruption - which is still fresh in my mind; see Qatar and the EU parliament. As such I rather nigh dictatorial power not be unnecessarily placed in the hands of governments.
shash 4y ago
Right… so we won’t have any regulation on wall socket design or voltages then, I guess. It’ll be great!