12 ms·
There’s strong consensus in these comments. That gives me pause. Was the prior system good? Was it great? If so, was it optimal? If not, what does better look
by dfee 1y ago
There’s strong consensus in these comments. That gives me pause.
Was the prior system good? Was it great? If so, was it optimal? If not, what does better look like?
The discussion can splinter a thousand ways, and on HN it should as we seek truth.
- rezmason 1y agoShould we destroy the thing we're questioning before we have that conversation, or after it?
- ml-anon 1y agoEnlightened centrism at its absolute worst
- TrackerFF 1y agoTime to pull out Occam's razor again: A) The Trump admin has conducted rigorous analysis and audit of 55 years of EPA research, and concluded that it is so insignificant and ineffective that one can just dismantle the entire department. B) The Trump admin rubber stamps anything the Heritage Foundation / Project 2025 wants done, and are desperate to find money for their tax cut funding.
- slaw 1y agoBoth.
- impossiblefork 1y agoYou can't protect the environment without research. Without research you can't know what's dangerous. Even in tiny countries, for example Sweden, when we notice a statistical uptick of health problems in a particular area, we have government organizations that go there to investigate and figure out the cause.