9 ms·
"What we need is less regulation" source, UK government, HN comments, etc
by jimnotgym 3y ago
"What we need is less regulation" source, UK government, HN comments, etc
- lrem 3y agoWhat good is regulation without solid enforcement?
- colechristensen 3y agoThis is what is happening. Likewise with the messy spacex launch… regulation is happening in response.
- kortilla 3y agoThat’s not the same thing at all. Fraud isn’t something that needs new regulation. The existing rules are fine, they need to be enforced.
- frankreyes 3y agoWe need new rules that improve enforcement. And then enforce the enforcement with rules about enforcing enforcement!1 That's the thinking of bureocrats who see the world in terms of rules and enforce, but fail to see the bigger picture that it's easier for everyone to just relax the rules.
- olliej 3y agoThat only works if you don’t have targeted defunding of regulatory bodies - that’s what a lot of these come down to in many countries now. People vote for laws that protect them, then anti-actual-person politicians vote to defund the agencies enforcing those regulations. It’s win win for them: they get to give their friends and employers tax cuts and lower operating costs (by socializing the downstream costs), and because the agencies are under funded they slow down which feeds into “these agencies are bad because they’re slow and inefficient, so we should end them completely”
- smitty1e 3y agoDing ding ding. Capitalism is buyer, seller, and marketplace, with "enough" regulatory feedback to stabilize the system. Regulation becomes a bugaboo when too many people make their living stomping on the brakes to keep everything tidy. Regulation is a "Goldilocks" challenge.
- baz00 3y agoRegulation is there to make sure you don't do things that damage society or hurt people. If someone stomps on you, you're probably doing things to damage society or hurt people. Stop doing that.
- smitty1e 3y ago...unless and until it ventures into https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
- PM_me_your_math 3y ago[dead]
- loa_in_ 3y agoRegulation is done, ideally, with the reality of the society in mind and up to date with the zeitgeist at all times. In practice there's a lot of room for improvement in this regard.
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago“Free markets are efficient”
- jacknews 3y agoRight, the fake parts suppliers will get weeded out of the market by natural competition after a few parts fail...
- lostlogin 3y agoI wonder what Amazon would say about this, if an unfiltered comment were possible.
- lamontcg 3y agoXEUWU jackscrew assembly horizontal stabilizer trim system OVERALL PICK (highly rated, well-priced and available to ship immediately), 14% off.
- pjerem 3y agoWith a picture of a flying plane side by side with a crashed plane : "ours / theirs".
- oblio 3y ago4.2 stars out of 5 (20 reviews), a few 5 star reviews mentioning how cool the box looked and how easy it was to open and a 1 star review at the bottom with a detailed explanation how the part is made of shoddy material and after being installed everyone died.
- plagiarist 3y agoThe five star reviews are all about the comfort level of a pair of socks from before the listing was changed into an industrial part.
- 3y ago
- H8crilA 3y agoNext to noone wants less regulation in aviation. Please, no splitting.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- almostnormal 3y agoThose few "next to noone" are just only almost everyone in general aviation in Europe.
- H8crilA 3y agoShould have written "commercial transport aviation". My bad.
- thinkerswell 3y agoThis is a low content post meant to inflame. Please respect the HN guidelines.
- baz00 3y agoFirstly, it's accurate. Secondly, no community should be beyond criticism, guidelines or not. Thirdly, I'll extrapolate on the comment because it hits hard for me. I've seen a lot of dystopian capitalist thinking and reasoning on here over the years, particularly recently with self driving vehicles and ML regulation. A large proportion of users wish to get away with what the hell they like at whatever cost to society that may have as long as they get their VC funding. This peaked recently in a discussion about acceptable deaths in self driving vehicles, the comments of which made me seriously worry about my fellow citizens. The article here is a peek into a scenario which has been proven to occur when that mindset is acceptable and normalised. I can see a VC backing a second source market of unregulated aircraft parts and the justification of the corners cut because quite frankly a lot of people have no idea what they are doing and don't care about the consequences as long as the cargo cult has good marketing. This is backed up by some of the comments on this thread being a shit show. Perhaps the guidelines should regulate opinion a little better rather than comment brevity. Or HN ends up like X. Notably you can tell how healthy a community is when someone signs up a throwaway account to make a comment reminding people of the rules.
- tankenmate 3y agoSure, the article is good, but the "assertion" based on of motivations based on what someone didn't say is hardly what you'd call a sound investigation or valid criticism. If court cases were decided in a similar fashion to the OP's comments then courts would turn into a shouting match. A thorough, sober investigation of the facts should be done before attempting to attribute motivations, and maybe not even then. What truly matters is the outcome; was anyone hurt? were the uncertified parts found? is the system working to keep people safe? The motivations of the airline come in a distant second to those.
- Aeolun 3y ago> Notably you can tell how healthy a community is when someone signs up a throwaway account to make a comment reminding people of the rules. Maybe a previous lurker specifically made an account so they could post on your comment?
- sschueller 3y agoTell that to the 346 people that died on Boeing 737 Max flights. 157 of which died in the second plane that crashed with the same issue after it was decided it would be too expensive to ground all aircraft of this type.
- selfmodruntime 3y agoThis is a disingenuous argument because it does not respect all the millions of plane passengers who didn't die. You're also mixing up failing hardware parts with failing software, a subject that is famously underregulated in commercial aircraft.
- tsukikage 3y agoConsider: an argument that boils down to "MOST planes didn't fall out of the sky, it's probably fine" might perhaps not be as persuasive as one first imagines.
- sschueller 3y agoThese people didn't die in a freak accident of an unknown issue. The issue was know, it was engineered around using software, corners were cut left and right and then even after one crashed it was not taken out of service. Any properly working oversight that wasn't heavy influenced by conflicts of interest between the FAA and Boeing would have prevent the second plane from flying. The first crash was an accident that could have been prevented the second is proof of what de-regulation and "free market capitalism" looks like.
- lm28469 3y agoNah mate the invisible hand of the free market, which is very akin to a god or a children's book fairy will automagically take care of it, that's if you believe hard enough
- MrBuddyCasino 3y agoThis is simply law enforcement, committing a crime by selling forged parts is mostly orthogonal to the level of regulation of said part. You can combine supply chain verification mechanisms such as certificates of authenticity with any level of formal technical regulation of the affected parts.
- HPsquared 3y agoYep.. contracts, civil court, etc. Insurance companies have a regulatory function as well. Government regulations should be the absolute backstop.
- nvm0n2 3y agoThis problem was found by the airlines, not by regulators, so what's the relevance?
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoAirlines have people checking this stuff because of regulations. That's part of the regulations - that you have a compliance department (or several), and you get audited regularly for compliance, and the auditors can ask anything, and you'd better be able to answer, and to prove your answers. Part of the point of regulation is that you start looking, and keep looking, persistently and systematically. You don't just wait for the regulator to find it. I mean, I've been in medical instruments rather than aviation, and so I've been under the FDA rather than the FAA, but I suspect the level is the same or higher for airlines.
- nvm0n2 3y agoNo, the problem was found during "engine work by a third party", so they weren't checking it because of regulations. It was noticed during routine maintenance. Airlines do safety checking because they don't want their customers to die. That's bad for business.
- refurb 3y agoI don’t recall reading any HN comments that the regulations that should be eliminated had to do with aircraft parts. Your statement is a strawman. And it would appear your using that as an argument than more regulation is good and that all existing regulations are optimal. Seems like a very weak argument overall.
- Sebb767 3y ago> "What we need is less regulation" source, UK government, HN comments, etc We do have regulations, even quite strict ones in this case, yet it happened. Making already highly illegal actions more illegal is hardly going to help. I do get that you dislike deregulation, but this comment completely misses the topic at hand.
- radiorental 3y ago> Making already highly illegal actions more illegal. Regulation isn't stiffer penalties alone, it's oversight. If I have to pass 2 checks vs 1, the incentive to fuck around decreases.
- xcdzvyn 3y agoHonestly, I think they know that and just don't care.
- jimnotgym 3y agoBut all of the regulating agencies are defunded, so enforcement is a joke. This is the right wing approach to deregulation by stealth
- Sebb767 3y agoI'm not trying to argue against regulation. I just find it rather strange to have this dig against people calling for deregulation when, in this particular case, nobody asked for deregulation and the incident could, at best, be construed as a weak argument against regulation [0]. [0] "Excessive certification requirements made parts far too expensive, which made people willing to take the risk on counterfeit parts." - Note that I do not think we should deregulate aircraft parts, but this would be a valid point.
- RyanAdamas 3y agoRegulatory capture happens more often with greater regulation. More regulation = more funding required = more labor needed to perform; more money, more labor demand = more political power; money funnels into those managing agencies through third party avenues as a means of buying power and before you know it the regulation is just another barrier to entry that allow existing corporations (often the ones who craft the regulation) to consolidate their industry. Then we get things like the Horizon Deep oil spill.
- HPsquared 3y agoQuality over quantity.
- PM_me_your_math 3y ago[dead]
- local_crmdgeon 3y agoI run in pretty right-wing circles and have never, in my life, heard someone say this about civil or commercial aviation. Ever. Please don't strawman here, or I'll have to call you a Redditor.
- matheusmoreira 3y agoDepends. I want less than zero regulation when it comes to speech and civilian cryptography use. When it comes to aircraft though, the existing regulations aren't strict enough. It matters who and what you're regulating. I generally believe most laws and regulations should apply directly to corporations and governments in order to check their power. The activity of individuals shouldn't need much regulation beyond a basic framework for civilized society.
- pxmpxm 3y agoTwitter edge-lord level of dumb; is the idea there to make make forgery double-extra fraudulent and super-duper illegal? Someone unlawfully ignoring exist regulation does not make a great argument for more regulation...