4 ms·

The truth is somewhere in the middle. Many regulations are terrible and serve as a huge hindrance to innovation, and effectively restrict certain things to onl

The truth is somewhere in the middle. Many regulations are terrible and serve as a huge hindrance to innovation, and effectively restrict certain things to only the already-massively-rich entrepreneurs. However, (IMHO) there are a lot of regulations that are important and absolutely should be enforced up front. Finding the right balance is kind of impossible, and I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but even well-intended regulations often just create roadblocks and cement incumbents in a particular space.

3D30497420 1y ago
In some cases you are correct, however the happy middle in this case probably does not include many (most?) of their violations. One particular example: > Workers have complained of chemical burns from the waste material generated by the tunneling process, and firefighters must decontaminate their equipment after conducting rescues from the project sites. The company was fined more than $112,000 by Nevada’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration in late 2023 after workers complained of “ankle-deep” water in the tunnels, muck spills and burns. In another part, the company is accused of dumping this water directly into streets (presumably without decontamination).
- freedomben 1y ago
  Yes to be clear, my statement was meant very generally, not about any of these violations (which do sound pretty bad)
  - micromacrofoot 1y ago
    then maybe this isn't the right place to make it?
- Seattle3503 1y ago
  I agree, this case lools like cause for concern
skopje 1y ago
>> >Many regulations are terrible and serve as a huge hindrance to innovation What is an example of a regulation that was a "huge" hinderance to innovation? Looking at the past 40 years of the US technological progress and the only thing I seen hindering innovation are the tech companies themselves through monopoly, monopsony, patents, and regulatory capture. (Unless the last one is what you meant, but that's a regulation put in place by a monopoly to maintain its monopoloy and not to protect the air we breathe). EDIT: I am referring to "innovation" not "execution".
- spankibalt 1y ago
  > "What is an example of a regulation that was a 'huge' hinderance to innovation?" Not one (token) example, but "many". But I'm as curious as you are and thirsty for some well-researched and replicated numbers. ;)
- freedomben 1y ago
  Speaking from personal experience running a non-profit seeking to disrupt the entrenched prison communications industry, there have been several. FCC data reporting requirements that took an FTE 200 hours to complete, accessibility requirements that have to be in place before you can (legally) even launch a pilot or MVP, endless legalese documents to parse through, compliance requirements that have to be checked even if they don't make any sense for the application, and some of the best ones: arbitrary requirements like "to be eligible for a proposal/contract, you must be in business at least 10 years and have a minimum $50M in annual revenue" (a requirement clearly written by our incumbent competitors to exclude us that was adopted by the regulators). Oh and all of that stuff you have to deal with before you can even close your first deal.
  - thunderfork 1y ago
    [dead]
- ETH_start 1y ago
  In the U.S., McKinsey estimates that large infrastructure projects typically take 4 to 5 years to go through federal permitting before construction can begin. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our-insights/unlocking-us-federal-permitting-a-sustainable-growth-imperative https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our-insigh...
miltonlost 1y ago
> Many regulations are terrible and serve as a huge hindrance to innovation Because "Innovation" isn't the be-all-end-all of a regulation or shouldn't be one of its aims or concerns. As a hyperbole, I don't care about "innovation" if you need to throw 4000 people into an industrial shredder in order to do it.
spankibalt 1y ago
> "The truth is somewhere in the middle." Another day, another invocation of the golden mean fallacy.
- freedomben 1y ago
  Another day, another invocation of the false dichotomy fallacy. If the truth isn't somewhere in the middle, then by definition it must be on one of the two extreme edges. That's a pretty bad (and ironic) fallacy to commit, unless you think everything in this world (or at least all regulations) are binary (either perfect or completely worthless)
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > If the truth isn't somewhere in the middle, then by definition it must be on one of the two extreme edges In one dimension. If both sides are fundamentally wrong, the middle is probably also mischaracterised. Pro-and anti-phlogiston theorists [1] weren’t validated by a little phlogiston. They were superseded by oxygen theory. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
    - spankibalt 1y ago
      > "In one dimension." Not even in one dimension. But that is obviously also a categorization/composition issue and therefore subject to other, potentially fallacious and accordingly named, pitfalls.
    - capriciotrary 1y ago
      I'm no electrical engineer. But I know it's crucial to not let the phlogiston out of the wires.
  - spankibalt 1y ago
    > If the truth isn't somewhere in the middle, then by definition it must be on one of the two extreme edges. Just because accurate results aren't to be found "somewhere (unspecific!) in the middle" doesn't mean that one a) finds them precisely in the (extreme) edges, or fringes, and b) that the middle is completely excluded, especially in the analysis and comparison of dynamic systems (e. g. macroeconomic analysis).
joering2 1y ago
This is actually what we would love to have as Gov Department - DORO: Department Of Regulations Overview - a body that would asses each regulation and cut of all these that are unnecessary and were clearly created by politicians/lobbyist/lawmakers bribed by big corp. to "lawfully" eliminate competition.
- Seattle3503 1y ago
  Rather than focus on provenance, IMO a focus on cost vs benefit of regulation would be more effective.
capriciotrary 1y ago
When I moved to a developing country with very few rules and regulations, sometimes I could feel the libertarianism leaving my body. There is definitely a happy regulatory medium which doesn't involve having to check the shower with a multimeter when moving in.

3D30497420 1y ago

In some cases you are correct, however the happy middle in this case probably does not include many (most?) of their violations. One particular example: > Workers have complained of chemical burns from the waste material generated by the tunneling process, and firefighters must decontaminate their equipment after conducting rescues from the project sites. The company was fined more than $112,000 by Nevada’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration in late 2023 after workers complained of “ankle-deep” water in the tunnels, muck spills and burns. In another part, the company is accused of dumping this water directly into streets (presumably without decontamination).

freedomben 1y ago
Yes to be clear, my statement was meant very generally, not about any of these violations (which do sound pretty bad)
- micromacrofoot 1y ago
  then maybe this isn't the right place to make it?
Seattle3503 1y ago
I agree, this case lools like cause for concern

skopje 1y ago

>> >Many regulations are terrible and serve as a huge hindrance to innovation What is an example of a regulation that was a "huge" hinderance to innovation? Looking at the past 40 years of the US technological progress and the only thing I seen hindering innovation are the tech companies themselves through monopoly, monopsony, patents, and regulatory capture. (Unless the last one is what you meant, but that's a regulation put in place by a monopoly to maintain its monopoloy and not to protect the air we breathe). EDIT: I am referring to "innovation" not "execution".

spankibalt 1y ago
> "What is an example of a regulation that was a 'huge' hinderance to innovation?" Not one (token) example, but "many". But I'm as curious as you are and thirsty for some well-researched and replicated numbers. ;)
freedomben 1y ago
Speaking from personal experience running a non-profit seeking to disrupt the entrenched prison communications industry, there have been several. FCC data reporting requirements that took an FTE 200 hours to complete, accessibility requirements that have to be in place before you can (legally) even launch a pilot or MVP, endless legalese documents to parse through, compliance requirements that have to be checked even if they don't make any sense for the application, and some of the best ones: arbitrary requirements like "to be eligible for a proposal/contract, you must be in business at least 10 years and have a minimum $50M in annual revenue" (a requirement clearly written by our incumbent competitors to exclude us that was adopted by the regulators). Oh and all of that stuff you have to deal with before you can even close your first deal.
- thunderfork 1y ago
  [dead]
ETH_start 1y ago
In the U.S., McKinsey estimates that large infrastructure projects typically take 4 to 5 years to go through federal permitting before construction can begin. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our-insights/unlocking-us-federal-permitting-a-sustainable-growth-imperative https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our-insigh...

miltonlost 1y ago

> Many regulations are terrible and serve as a huge hindrance to innovation Because "Innovation" isn't the be-all-end-all of a regulation or shouldn't be one of its aims or concerns. As a hyperbole, I don't care about "innovation" if you need to throw 4000 people into an industrial shredder in order to do it.

spankibalt 1y ago

> "The truth is somewhere in the middle." Another day, another invocation of the golden mean fallacy.

freedomben 1y ago
Another day, another invocation of the false dichotomy fallacy. If the truth isn't somewhere in the middle, then by definition it must be on one of the two extreme edges. That's a pretty bad (and ironic) fallacy to commit, unless you think everything in this world (or at least all regulations) are binary (either perfect or completely worthless)
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > If the truth isn't somewhere in the middle, then by definition it must be on one of the two extreme edges In one dimension. If both sides are fundamentally wrong, the middle is probably also mischaracterised. Pro-and anti-phlogiston theorists [1] weren’t validated by a little phlogiston. They were superseded by oxygen theory. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
  - spankibalt 1y ago
    > "In one dimension." Not even in one dimension. But that is obviously also a categorization/composition issue and therefore subject to other, potentially fallacious and accordingly named, pitfalls.
  - capriciotrary 1y ago
    I'm no electrical engineer. But I know it's crucial to not let the phlogiston out of the wires.
- spankibalt 1y ago
  > If the truth isn't somewhere in the middle, then by definition it must be on one of the two extreme edges. Just because accurate results aren't to be found "somewhere (unspecific!) in the middle" doesn't mean that one a) finds them precisely in the (extreme) edges, or fringes, and b) that the middle is completely excluded, especially in the analysis and comparison of dynamic systems (e. g. macroeconomic analysis).

joering2 1y ago

This is actually what we would love to have as Gov Department - DORO: Department Of Regulations Overview - a body that would asses each regulation and cut of all these that are unnecessary and were clearly created by politicians/lobbyist/lawmakers bribed by big corp. to "lawfully" eliminate competition.

Seattle3503 1y ago
Rather than focus on provenance, IMO a focus on cost vs benefit of regulation would be more effective.

capriciotrary 1y ago

When I moved to a developing country with very few rules and regulations, sometimes I could feel the libertarianism leaving my body. There is definitely a happy regulatory medium which doesn't involve having to check the shower with a multimeter when moving in.