4 ms·

How is that only a $500,000 fine??? Stopping when inspectors are there only to restart once they leave is willful enough that you wonder why this doesn't go in

How is that only a $500,000 fine??? Stopping when inspectors are there only to restart once they leave is willful enough that you wonder why this doesn't go into criminal liability?

TulliusCicero 1y ago
It's rare for even blatant misconduct of this kind by a company to result in criminal charges. Which is stupid, obviously. If it's intentional/willful breaking of the law, send them to jail the same way you would for an individual.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
therobots927 1y ago
Corporations are never held accountable in America
- latch 1y ago
  Isn't the problem exactly the opposite? A corporation has personhood which shields its executives?
  - therobots927 1y ago
    Fair enough. That’s a more accurate way of putting it. Corporations are shields for the ruling elite to get away with pretty much anything. And in addition to that the corporation can be sued by shareholders if it doesn’t maximize shareholder value by externalizing costs. It’s the kind of policy that would be very popular among cancer cells.
charcircuit 1y ago
To be fair it's over 3 times the amount of damage they caused, so that is a pretty big profit margin on cleaning up the mess.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- hvb2 1y ago
  Profit margin? What a weird point of view. They should just follow the rules, period. And any fine should be larger than the amount of money they saved by their illegal behavior and cover the corrective actions. Here's a thought experiment. They're tunneling beneath your house and, because they skip all normal precautions, your house collapses. Sure, you don't mind as long as they're fined a decent amount, right?
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    >What a weird point of view. It's not weird. It would be bad if the government was unable to have the funds to clean up the damage. And when someone is charging you with >300% profit margins, that's a sign that you should find another way to solve the issue. >Sure, you don't mind as long as they're fined a decent amount, right? I would mind, but I would feel that I was made whole if they paid me >3x the damages to the house.
    - hvb2 1y ago
      Treating environmental law as a way to make money is, odd. If the financial Harm is minimal that implies that in your worldview it shouldn't be punished? You must view jails and prisons as a terrible outcome, since you're essentially paying money to punish someone.
      - charcircuit 1y ago
        >If the financial Harm is minimal that implies that in your worldview it shouldn't be punished? Yes. If I step on a patch of grass technically that may damage the grass, but I don't think such an action should be punished since the amount of damage is very small. >You must view jails and prisons as a terrible outcome, since you're essentially paying money to punish someone. No, I view it as a positive outcome as it removes malicous actors from the system.
lelandfe 1y ago
ProPublica's reporting has been dogging Boring's heels in Las Vegas on this, I've been reading them religiously. It appears that the city views this project as Cool™ and opts either to not fine or fine pittances for constant violations. This was their big expose back in January: https://www.propublica.org/article/elon-musk-boring-company-las-vegas-loop-oversight https://www.propublica.org/article/elon-musk-boring-company-...
- ETH_start 1y ago
  ProPublica is extremely left-wing. That doesn't imply that their journalism is low-quality or inaccurate, but it does suggest that their choice of stories will be colored by that ideological/establishment-friendly bent. You won't see them investigating the political influence exerted by public sector unions for example. Their X feed gives a pretty clear picture of that: https://x.com/propublica https://x.com/propublica
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > That doesn't imply that their journalism is low-quality or inaccurate Anecdote: in some early reporting, I noticed a citation to a paper that didn’t support the purported argument. (It said the opposite.) I emailed the author, one of the founding journalists at Pro Publica and an award winner. He basically thanked me for the feedback and then left the article unchanged. Pro Publica is reputable for a small publication. But they are not authoritative.
    - httpsoverdns 1y ago
      What exactly was thing the subject matter? Was it something he could have reasonably disagreed with?
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Was it something he could have reasonably disagreed with? No. He cited a paper showing the opposite effect from what he claimed it to be.
PeterHolzwarth 1y ago
Fines start small, then get big.
- viraptor 1y ago
  That's the idea in general, but show us how that applies to this company. They're at ~800 violations https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/elon-musks-boring-company-accused-003500531.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/elon-musks-boring-compan...
  - terminalshort 1y ago
    They didn't hire an inspector, and they counted each day they didn't hire the inspector as 700 different violations, so I don't really trust their reporting on this.
    - Larrikin 1y ago
      Isn't that atleast one violation per day? 800 assumes they were perfect and committed zero violations other than not having an inspector, so it's inaccurate because it probably is undercounting significantly.
      - viraptor 1y ago
        It's ~700 for inspections and ~100 for other things. Which I'm not sure why would anyone discount as not important. Especially since they may be avoiding more fines due to missing inspections.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
ulfw 1y ago
Do you know who runs that company???

How is that only a $500,000 fine??? Stopping when inspectors are there only to restart once they leave is willful enough that you wonder why this doesn't go into criminal liability?

TulliusCicero 1y ago

It's rare for even blatant misconduct of this kind by a company to result in criminal charges. Which is stupid, obviously. If it's intentional/willful breaking of the law, send them to jail the same way you would for an individual.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

therobots927 1y ago

Corporations are never held accountable in America

latch 1y ago
Isn't the problem exactly the opposite? A corporation has personhood which shields its executives?
- therobots927 1y ago
  Fair enough. That’s a more accurate way of putting it. Corporations are shields for the ruling elite to get away with pretty much anything. And in addition to that the corporation can be sued by shareholders if it doesn’t maximize shareholder value by externalizing costs. It’s the kind of policy that would be very popular among cancer cells.

charcircuit 1y ago

To be fair it's over 3 times the amount of damage they caused, so that is a pretty big profit margin on cleaning up the mess.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
hvb2 1y ago
Profit margin? What a weird point of view. They should just follow the rules, period. And any fine should be larger than the amount of money they saved by their illegal behavior and cover the corrective actions. Here's a thought experiment. They're tunneling beneath your house and, because they skip all normal precautions, your house collapses. Sure, you don't mind as long as they're fined a decent amount, right?
- charcircuit 1y ago
  >What a weird point of view. It's not weird. It would be bad if the government was unable to have the funds to clean up the damage. And when someone is charging you with >300% profit margins, that's a sign that you should find another way to solve the issue. >Sure, you don't mind as long as they're fined a decent amount, right? I would mind, but I would feel that I was made whole if they paid me >3x the damages to the house.
  - hvb2 1y ago
    Treating environmental law as a way to make money is, odd. If the financial Harm is minimal that implies that in your worldview it shouldn't be punished? You must view jails and prisons as a terrible outcome, since you're essentially paying money to punish someone.
    - charcircuit 1y ago
      >If the financial Harm is minimal that implies that in your worldview it shouldn't be punished? Yes. If I step on a patch of grass technically that may damage the grass, but I don't think such an action should be punished since the amount of damage is very small. >You must view jails and prisons as a terrible outcome, since you're essentially paying money to punish someone. No, I view it as a positive outcome as it removes malicous actors from the system.

lelandfe 1y ago

ProPublica's reporting has been dogging Boring's heels in Las Vegas on this, I've been reading them religiously. It appears that the city views this project as Cool™ and opts either to not fine or fine pittances for constant violations. This was their big expose back in January: https://www.propublica.org/article/elon-musk-boring-company-las-vegas-loop-oversight https://www.propublica.org/article/elon-musk-boring-company-...

ETH_start 1y ago
ProPublica is extremely left-wing. That doesn't imply that their journalism is low-quality or inaccurate, but it does suggest that their choice of stories will be colored by that ideological/establishment-friendly bent. You won't see them investigating the political influence exerted by public sector unions for example. Their X feed gives a pretty clear picture of that: https://x.com/propublica https://x.com/propublica
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > That doesn't imply that their journalism is low-quality or inaccurate Anecdote: in some early reporting, I noticed a citation to a paper that didn’t support the purported argument. (It said the opposite.) I emailed the author, one of the founding journalists at Pro Publica and an award winner. He basically thanked me for the feedback and then left the article unchanged. Pro Publica is reputable for a small publication. But they are not authoritative.
  - httpsoverdns 1y ago
    What exactly was thing the subject matter? Was it something he could have reasonably disagreed with?
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > Was it something he could have reasonably disagreed with? No. He cited a paper showing the opposite effect from what he claimed it to be.

PeterHolzwarth 1y ago

Fines start small, then get big.

viraptor 1y ago
That's the idea in general, but show us how that applies to this company. They're at ~800 violations https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/elon-musks-boring-company-accused-003500531.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/elon-musks-boring-compan...
- terminalshort 1y ago
  They didn't hire an inspector, and they counted each day they didn't hire the inspector as 700 different violations, so I don't really trust their reporting on this.
  - Larrikin 1y ago
    Isn't that atleast one violation per day? 800 assumes they were perfect and committed zero violations other than not having an inspector, so it's inaccurate because it probably is undercounting significantly.
    - viraptor 1y ago
      It's ~700 for inspections and ~100 for other things. Which I'm not sure why would anyone discount as not important. Especially since they may be avoiding more fines due to missing inspections.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]

ulfw 1y ago

Do you know who runs that company???