3 ms·

> inevitably 'bad' law is backed by the politically and or financially powerful, those who oppose such law simply can never muster the critical mass necessary t

by pas 3y ago

> inevitably 'bad' law is backed by the politically and or financially powerful, those who oppose such law simply can never muster the critical mass necessary to achieve change well, I don't know, some hard data would be good to have for this discussion. to me it seems there is a big status quo bias for a lot of things, which keep bad stuff on the books, and during populist surges more bad stuff ends up on the pile (looking at the recent crazy anti-abortion laws) that said it's really strange how things seem to be falling apart while intersectionality is on the news a lot. but of course performativity is also at its peak (and there's still some steps to go before we reach a McCarthy-era hysteria), but real coalition building is rare (and hard, and requires compromises, and due to the constant one-upmanship of keyboard warriors moderates are excommunicated by the raging mobs) and due to one of the fundamental differences between progressive and reactionary ideology being conformity (and basically forced ideological homogeneity and purity) one group tends to push the needle during these populist surges not the other so, as I said, data would probably shine some light on this, but after reading slowboring.com a lot one of the takeaways is that the median voter doesn't really have amazing politics, so whether they care or not doesn't lead to big progress. but that's where persistent campaigns can make some difference, by educating people. (just as unfortunately propaganda can also make fine work of people's minds the same way.)

hilbert42 3y ago
"well, I don't know, some hard data would be good to have for this discussion." Right, it would but collating and presenting the data would be the subject of an extensive blog. I know of specific instances but explaining the background is time-consuming and often boring as the matters in question often aren't of interest to the reader whose primary interest is the broader political issue. Perhaps a recent HN story about how Musk's Starlink satellites are emitting spurious unwanted electromagnetic radiation and are causing interference to other radio services may illustrate the point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38857676 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38857676. One of the most important axioms of radio spectrum management is that one service should never interfere with another, it's one of the guiding reasons for the existence of the ITU—International Telecommunications Union—whose job it is to ensure that the electromagnetic spectrum is free from interference. Had it been technically possible before say 1980 for a Starlink system to be launched then inference of this sort would never have happened because interference regulations were strictly enforced back then. Satellites would have been strictly scrutinized for interference before launching and if a 'wayward' interfering satellite made it to space then the FCC would have required it to be scuttled. Why is this different now? Well, in the 1980s rules were relaxed, the FCC and the spectrum management departments of other governments were downsized and or outsourced and or their powers reduced because of political pressure from vested (commercial) interests who didn't want to pay extra to maintain high protection ratios on interference. Of course, this wasn't unique to spectrum management, deregulation was all the rage in the Reagan-Thatcher era, and along with deregulation came lower standards. Commercial interests argued that the standards were already too high and there'd be no problem from lowering them. In many instances that's not what happened, this Starlink problem is but just one instance of many similar interference problems. And it's not confined to something seemingly as esoteric a RF spectrum management, just look at say the disastrous deregulation of the UK's water and sewerage systems. And there are hundreds more similar instances across many countries. "there's still some steps to go before we reach a McCarthy-era hysteria), ..." That's true, as there's always inertia built into human tolerance. The trouble is tolerance doesn't mean that annoyance and frustration don't still build up, as clearly they do. As we've seen throughout history, eventually, something snaps and the mobs rage—the French Revolution, US independence, the Civil War, Kent State, etc, etc. Those in power either never see the writing on the wall in time or they reckon they can weather the storm. It's a perennial problem.

by pas 3y ago

hilbert42 3y ago

"well, I don't know, some hard data would be good to have for this discussion." Right, it would but collating and presenting the data would be the subject of an extensive blog. I know of specific instances but explaining the background is time-consuming and often boring as the matters in question often aren't of interest to the reader whose primary interest is the broader political issue. Perhaps a recent HN story about how Musk's Starlink satellites are emitting spurious unwanted electromagnetic radiation and are causing interference to other radio services may illustrate the point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38857676 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38857676. One of the most important axioms of radio spectrum management is that one service should never interfere with another, it's one of the guiding reasons for the existence of the ITU—International Telecommunications Union—whose job it is to ensure that the electromagnetic spectrum is free from interference. Had it been technically possible before say 1980 for a Starlink system to be launched then inference of this sort would never have happened because interference regulations were strictly enforced back then. Satellites would have been strictly scrutinized for interference before launching and if a 'wayward' interfering satellite made it to space then the FCC would have required it to be scuttled. Why is this different now? Well, in the 1980s rules were relaxed, the FCC and the spectrum management departments of other governments were downsized and or outsourced and or their powers reduced because of political pressure from vested (commercial) interests who didn't want to pay extra to maintain high protection ratios on interference. Of course, this wasn't unique to spectrum management, deregulation was all the rage in the Reagan-Thatcher era, and along with deregulation came lower standards. Commercial interests argued that the standards were already too high and there'd be no problem from lowering them. In many instances that's not what happened, this Starlink problem is but just one instance of many similar interference problems. And it's not confined to something seemingly as esoteric a RF spectrum management, just look at say the disastrous deregulation of the UK's water and sewerage systems. And there are hundreds more similar instances across many countries. "there's still some steps to go before we reach a McCarthy-era hysteria), ..." That's true, as there's always inertia built into human tolerance. The trouble is tolerance doesn't mean that annoyance and frustration don't still build up, as clearly they do. As we've seen throughout history, eventually, something snaps and the mobs rage—the French Revolution, US independence, the Civil War, Kent State, etc, etc. Those in power either never see the writing on the wall in time or they reckon they can weather the storm. It's a perennial problem.