5 ms·
>Wild - whoever did this should lose their job. Why's that? Because a guy who's apparently friends with the owner of the company that produces these things tol
by cool_dude85 11mo ago
>Wild - whoever did this should lose their job.
Why's that? Because a guy who's apparently friends with the owner of the company that produces these things told you that it saves emissions? Doesn't it seem reasonable to verify these claims?
- some_random 11mo agoNo that doesn't seem reasonable at all if it's been proven to work _really well_ in several configurations and there's no particular reason to expect that the results would be drastically different in other very similar configurations.
- cool_dude85 11mo agoWho proved it works really well in several configurations?
- squigz 11mo agoAnd how do you codify the threshold for what "very similar" configurations don't need to be tested and those that do?
- XorNot 11mo agoThat's what regulatory exemption procedures exist for, and it would be the logical next step if you had convincing hard data. Every single regulatory process has them, so the fact that this very ranty article omits any mention of an attempt to use them is highly suspect. I've worked with plenty of systems where for all sorts of reasons exemptions are granted for the express purpose of promoting innovation or recognizing a special circumstance.
- shortrounddev2 11mo agoSome kind of testing should be required but 27mil seems egregious
- ehnto 11mo agoYeah why does the certification process cost so much is one question I have. Would this be a conversation if the cost of the test were more reasonable?
- etothepii 11mo agoMost likely it costs a lot because there isn't enough frequency of demand for it for more than one company to offer the service thus there is no supply. However, as it is a regulatory requirement the severity of demand when it appears is near infinite.
- Workaccount2 11mo agoHaving done UL certification before, this is exactly how it is. During the process we forgot/missed that the product serial needed a single letter appended to the end to denote that it was the UL compliant version. We caught this after paying $15k for just recertification with new parts, no testing, only paperwork. We went back to UL and told them about the mistake. They charged us $5k to open a new case just to append a "-5" to the name of the product on a handful of documents. It's a total fucking racket.
- appreciatorBus 11mo agoOf course we should verify such claims. Just as we should also verify claims that every regulation that has ever been written into law is by definition Good (tm) and can never be questioned. It's possible for the friend of the company owner to astroturf an online form to get a good regulation eliminated, just because it didn't benefit him. It's also possible for the such wealthy individuals to astrotruf in favour of bad regulations, just because it would benefit him.
- samdoesnothing 11mo agoThe null hypothesis is that interventions are just as if not more likely to cause harm than do good.
- aidenn0 11mo agoAren't regulations a form of intervention?
- samdoesnothing 11mo agoYeah thats my point.
- aidenn0 11mo agoAh, I read it backwards, since companies selling things to make trucks "better" is also an intervention.
- Dylan16807 11mo agoVerifying is great! How many types of truck engine do you reasonably need to test with? The number should fit on one hand. And really you should only need to do the full test with one model and limited verifications with others. That'll get it down from $27M to $200k, which would be a far more reasonable requirement.