4 ms·

Why people start to cry for regulation whenever they see something new these days? Hasn't been the case before, something has shifted in people's minds in the l

Why people start to cry for regulation whenever they see something new these days? Hasn't been the case before, something has shifted in people's minds in the last 10 years or so

Barrin92 3y ago
because this is a device installed in two tons of steel moving around at lethal velocities in close vicinity to human beings who didn't sign up to be unwilling beta testers. If anything 10 or 20 years ago this wouldn't have even made it on the streets. Can you imagine a factory where machines with the potential to dismember someone are installed by amateurs with no certification? This is like that except factory machines don't drive next to school yards.
- unpopular42 3y ago
  You are presenting it like "certification" is some kind of guarantee. The reality is that it isn't. Industrial accidents happen all the time and it remains to be proven that certifications and regulations actually improve anything.
- Rebelgecko 3y ago
  >Can you imagine a factory where machines with the potential to dismember someone are installed by amateurs with no certification I've got some bad news for you about human drivers, they're typically allowed to get a single certification as a teenager that lets them operate a motor vehicle for 50+ years with no recalibration other than maybe a decadal vision test. We inspect elevators more often than human drivers, despite elevator deaths being much more rare (maybe that's a cause and effect relationship?)
redox99 3y ago
People are extremely risk averse nowadays. The same way children could play outside alone before, and can't now.
- CalRobert 3y ago
  .... Because of cars...
  - beagle3 3y ago
    No. It’s because of shifting standards. The “can’t play outside” applies just as much in places with no more cars than there were 40 years ago (or even no cars at all for most kid -> playground routes) The town I grew up in has, for 95% of kids, no more than 3 internal, slow roads to cross on the way to school. There’s more traffic, but only slightly so - most cars drive away from town, so despite much more traffic in general, inner roads are only slightly more crowded. And yet, it was perfectly normal for me to walk to school 40 or so years ago as a 6 years old, and it is now illegal for anyone under 9 to do so.
    - gorbachev 3y ago
      Yes. It's because the city I raised my kids in had cars speeding everywhere, including residential areas, running red lights and stop signs constantly and when a driver killed someone with their car, they were on the road the next day with no consequences.
      - redox99 3y ago
        In the 70s and 80s there were cars everywhere, pedestrian fatalities were even higher than now. Yet kids played outside alone. So it's not that.
        kdmccormick 3y ago
        Sure, it's multifaceted. But pedestrian fatalaties have gone down at least partially because children walk to school less often, in a reaction to the huge number of pedetrian killings of the past.
    - CalRobert 3y ago
      If we're using anecdotes, cars are the reason my kids don't walk independently, and the reason we're moving to the Netherlands next month. Drivers are the leading cause of dead children in the US. Aside from directly killing children in impacts, car dependent design is usually hostile to walking anyway, for adults as well as kids. Walking to school is nice, but challenging when hundreds of parents late for work in tall, poor front visibility SUV's are running stop signs on the same streets where your child is walking.
zapnuk 3y ago
The leading causes for 'unintentional injury' deaths in the USA (age 1-44) are: 1. Drug overdose 2. Motor vehicle traffic Maybe there is a need for regulation? Especially if you consider that the USA has 2-4x more road deaths per million people compared to europe. Safe technoligies through regulations are one aspect in addressing this problem.
- unpopular42 3y ago
  > The leading causes Did you just make my point? Drugs are already very regulated. > Maybe there is a need for regulation? Probably not.
  - yardstick 3y ago
    Do you believe there will be fewer deaths if existing legal drugs were unregulated? Edit: Clarified it’s about existing legal drugs, not illegal drugs.
    - M4v3R 3y ago
      No one is advocating for no regulation at all, but there is evidence on how limited regulation and not putting people behind bars for consuming even hard drugs like heroin is actually benefitial and results in fewer deaths, look up what happened in Sweden.
      - yardstick 3y ago
        Clarification- I didn’t think they were referencing illegal drugs, rather I believed they were talking about regulations to bring medical drugs into the market. Eg cancer drugs etc, which have to go through rigorous trials and validation first.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    > Drugs are already very regulated. Enforcement is lacking, incentives for criminals are extremely high - cocaine, for example, explodes in value from $2000/kg in the jungle where it's made to $20000/kg after it's been smuggled to the US - and quite a few popular drugs can be made at home using basic tools and skills (cannabis, amphetamine, alcohol, tobacco).
CalRobert 3y ago
Because this can kill people. Lots of them. And not just the users.
- unpopular42 3y ago
  So? A shovel can kill people.
  - NeoTar 3y ago
    Consider how many people a shovel versus a car can kill in a minute.
    - unpopular42 3y ago
      I'm not sure what's your point. But the direct answer is, it's a very similar number of people, not even an order of magnitude difference.
      - ggrrhh_ta 3y ago
        I am pretty sure that it was meant "unintentionally". I would say that nobody has killed another person with a shovel unintentionally since shovels exist (maybe injure). OK maybe one since shovels exist /s
      - CalRobert 3y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack Really not sure you're correct here.
        unpopular42 3y ago
        Note: 'can kill' >= 'has killed', you have only shown the latter.
        wiseowise 3y ago
        Don’t feed the troll.
wiseowise 3y ago
> Why people start to cry for regulation whenever they see something new these days? Maybe because people care about other people instead of their tech bro cool tech feelings?

Why people start to cry for regulation whenever they see something new these days? Hasn't been the case before, something has shifted in people's minds in the last 10 years or so

Barrin92 3y ago

because this is a device installed in two tons of steel moving around at lethal velocities in close vicinity to human beings who didn't sign up to be unwilling beta testers. If anything 10 or 20 years ago this wouldn't have even made it on the streets. Can you imagine a factory where machines with the potential to dismember someone are installed by amateurs with no certification? This is like that except factory machines don't drive next to school yards.

unpopular42 3y ago
You are presenting it like "certification" is some kind of guarantee. The reality is that it isn't. Industrial accidents happen all the time and it remains to be proven that certifications and regulations actually improve anything.
Rebelgecko 3y ago
>Can you imagine a factory where machines with the potential to dismember someone are installed by amateurs with no certification I've got some bad news for you about human drivers, they're typically allowed to get a single certification as a teenager that lets them operate a motor vehicle for 50+ years with no recalibration other than maybe a decadal vision test. We inspect elevators more often than human drivers, despite elevator deaths being much more rare (maybe that's a cause and effect relationship?)

redox99 3y ago

People are extremely risk averse nowadays. The same way children could play outside alone before, and can't now.

CalRobert 3y ago
.... Because of cars...
- beagle3 3y ago
  No. It’s because of shifting standards. The “can’t play outside” applies just as much in places with no more cars than there were 40 years ago (or even no cars at all for most kid -> playground routes) The town I grew up in has, for 95% of kids, no more than 3 internal, slow roads to cross on the way to school. There’s more traffic, but only slightly so - most cars drive away from town, so despite much more traffic in general, inner roads are only slightly more crowded. And yet, it was perfectly normal for me to walk to school 40 or so years ago as a 6 years old, and it is now illegal for anyone under 9 to do so.
  - gorbachev 3y ago
    Yes. It's because the city I raised my kids in had cars speeding everywhere, including residential areas, running red lights and stop signs constantly and when a driver killed someone with their car, they were on the road the next day with no consequences.
    - redox99 3y ago
      In the 70s and 80s there were cars everywhere, pedestrian fatalities were even higher than now. Yet kids played outside alone. So it's not that.
      - kdmccormick 3y ago
        Sure, it's multifaceted. But pedestrian fatalaties have gone down at least partially because children walk to school less often, in a reaction to the huge number of pedetrian killings of the past.
  - CalRobert 3y ago
    If we're using anecdotes, cars are the reason my kids don't walk independently, and the reason we're moving to the Netherlands next month. Drivers are the leading cause of dead children in the US. Aside from directly killing children in impacts, car dependent design is usually hostile to walking anyway, for adults as well as kids. Walking to school is nice, but challenging when hundreds of parents late for work in tall, poor front visibility SUV's are running stop signs on the same streets where your child is walking.

zapnuk 3y ago

The leading causes for 'unintentional injury' deaths in the USA (age 1-44) are: 1. Drug overdose 2. Motor vehicle traffic Maybe there is a need for regulation? Especially if you consider that the USA has 2-4x more road deaths per million people compared to europe. Safe technoligies through regulations are one aspect in addressing this problem.

unpopular42 3y ago
> The leading causes Did you just make my point? Drugs are already very regulated. > Maybe there is a need for regulation? Probably not.
- yardstick 3y ago
  Do you believe there will be fewer deaths if existing legal drugs were unregulated? Edit: Clarified it’s about existing legal drugs, not illegal drugs.
  - M4v3R 3y ago
    No one is advocating for no regulation at all, but there is evidence on how limited regulation and not putting people behind bars for consuming even hard drugs like heroin is actually benefitial and results in fewer deaths, look up what happened in Sweden.
    - yardstick 3y ago
      Clarification- I didn’t think they were referencing illegal drugs, rather I believed they were talking about regulations to bring medical drugs into the market. Eg cancer drugs etc, which have to go through rigorous trials and validation first.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > Drugs are already very regulated. Enforcement is lacking, incentives for criminals are extremely high - cocaine, for example, explodes in value from $2000/kg in the jungle where it's made to $20000/kg after it's been smuggled to the US - and quite a few popular drugs can be made at home using basic tools and skills (cannabis, amphetamine, alcohol, tobacco).

CalRobert 3y ago

Because this can kill people. Lots of them. And not just the users.

unpopular42 3y ago
So? A shovel can kill people.
- NeoTar 3y ago
  Consider how many people a shovel versus a car can kill in a minute.
  - unpopular42 3y ago
    I'm not sure what's your point. But the direct answer is, it's a very similar number of people, not even an order of magnitude difference.
    - ggrrhh_ta 3y ago
      I am pretty sure that it was meant "unintentionally". I would say that nobody has killed another person with a shovel unintentionally since shovels exist (maybe injure). OK maybe one since shovels exist /s
    - CalRobert 3y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack Really not sure you're correct here.
      - unpopular42 3y ago
        Note: 'can kill' >= 'has killed', you have only shown the latter.
      - wiseowise 3y ago
        Don’t feed the troll.

wiseowise 3y ago

> Why people start to cry for regulation whenever they see something new these days? Maybe because people care about other people instead of their tech bro cool tech feelings?