Geisterde

Then by the standards set by government, I guess the united states isnt a first world country.

Depending on the make and model of a car, you might save money because insurance companies have determined those cars to be safer. If you have a lowjack, your location, your history, there are a lot of factors that go into insurance costs. Insurance companies adjust insurance prices based on risk. Why would you assume private insurance wouldnt also price their policies based on how safe a train is, what the risk is that it crashes, etc.?

Its about who is signing off on whats safe. The government has proven that thry are at best incompetent, they do not have the incentive. A private company has to maintain their reputation through quality of service, they dont have the seemingly endless faith of people because they are "government".

Yes, im not saying you shouldnt be able to sue. Im saying the government shouldnt set a magic bar that if companies hurdle they are without fault.

Sure, in the context of broad safety you have a point. Of course, you are more likely to die in places where police are responsible for your protection. The safest places people inhabit are their home, their work, places with private security measures.

The negligence you speak of, how widespread would you say it is? Would you say the EPA dropped the ball preventing the east Palestine Ohio train derailment? Would you say that having some hard cutoff for how many chemical train cars until the train is reclassified? I imagine you would agree, that the chemical company sending 59 (oh w/e) train cars instead of 60 so that they are under easier rules, is kind of bullshit.

If the company is following the rules then they can largely get away with it when things go wrong; if that company had actual liability for whats in the train cars, then they would have insurance. That insurance would be prorated on the safety profile of the train, and it would fix the hazzard or pay the claimants their due. These regulations only exist to cement decrepit companies monopoly over you.

I have no faith that "negligence" in the public sector will improve. The roads, the enforcement of driving conduct, that will not improve. The safety, security, and reliability of cars will improve, because there is still competition from self aware drivers.

I suggest gathering additional field observational data.

Lets see, oooo tiktok, heres the kia challenge. Or maybe google "are kias secure". Whatever format you can understand, you will be presented several sources that explain the situation quite clearly.

What world do you live in? The statistics are pretty clear and accessible. Are you so obsessed with something you cant attend to your own basic needs?

I never understand this arguement. I hear it in the form "we should just regulate cars to be safer", why dont you just buy a safer car? "What do you take me for? I got a mustang GT, the last thing that car is worried about is safety". Interesting, you bought a car because its fast, not paying any consideration to whether it could safely get you from point A to B, and this is what you rely on to get you to work?

Its not social darwinism, the lack of critical thinking skills among the general population is alarming. Americans have apparently been coddled to the point that they arent worried about basic needs; if you go to buy a car you should have some simple considerations, is this car safe? What are the typical maintenance costs? Is it common for this car to be stolen?

Things like, housing, transportation, education, those are really central aspects of peoples lives. Its all well and good that you want to draw symbols on paper and make all these things safe, but it appears to have come at a pretty serious cost. That cost, is the inability for the US population to use critical thinking.

That I can agree with, we arent there yet, make use of the tools you have.

Why is there such a pervasive crowd of people who chock this kind of thing up to a lost cause? From my prespective, if it can be done, we should, we must, do it. Is there something special about hiding something from a government thats qualitatively different than hiding it from any other criminal? That they can levy greater amounts of violence? Isnt that even greater justification to privacy?

Thats kind of what I said, the rules are hard, supply and demand, time preference, marginal utility, those are forces that cant be argued with, but it doesnt mean they have precise predictive power.

>And perhaps medication

We don’t insult each other here. Take the cheap potshots to Reddit.

>Why worry about nation-state level attacks when you can simply be hit over the head with a mallet until you give up your password?

Yes, that would be the point of obfuscation, as opposed to just encryption. End to end encryption does not prevent the $5 wrench attack, obfuscation does.

Oh, I agree completely with everything in the top paragraph, and I certainly have seen a natural trend towards central nodes/relays in all the federated networks I can think of. I think the appeal is that for the average user its about as good security as anything else available, and it has the option to work off the centralized network.

Even encrypted data is not irrelevant. The frequency of messages is relevant, as is how many messages are sent how quickly, the total package size can be revealing if they arent hella padding the data, there is a lot you can learn just from the data. Total obfuscation is ideal.

Matrix might interest you, but it doesnt solve telephone numbers (i think)

Well, I would say social sciences arent exact, economics might be a hard science of rules, but the outcomes are subject to too many factors to predict precisely, but it is still a science. Though, well, I am not really qualified to speak on such things, but I would imagine we are fairly precise in the field you guys are talking about.

You should read the creature from Jekyll island. Bailouts just make the problem bigger and more centralized. It cant fix anything, its not possible, that debt still exists on someones balance sheet, it still accrues interest.

My appologies. I think informed consent is a wonderful idea, I just am skeptical that it exists in real life. I would say if you use an electronic device today, you are being spied on (with very narrow exceptions).

Informed consent to me (take the example of a phone or many apps), based on the level I have to break it down to people for them to understand, is something like "we will see you whacking it to hentai, we will know when you take a dump, we have enough of your data to derive private information you never gave us, we have all the data necessary to totally ruin your life socially and economically, and it will all be leaked to criminals that will profit from your demise, dont worry though, we will give you a 1 year sub to mcafee antivirus as a consolation prize."

I think we can at least agree that ^^that happens to people. So, whos going to be the first company to not veat around the bush and just admit that reality? That, is why I say informed consent sounds nice, every company that can keep a skilled contract lawyer on payroll has an incentive to downplay their spying. I dont know in what version of reality informed consent could exist, because the incentive is fairly obvious.

The government doesnt spy on its cotizens, because the citizens know they are being spied on?

>Informed consent is key

sounds nice

Yes and no. The government still has to pay interest on its debt, which is paid with tax receipts. The government shouldnt be in the business of making money, yes, but it also has to spend less than it makes. In this case, these loans would have had a negative real yield, meaning they made things worse debt wise. The consequence for higher debt, is devaluation of the dollar and these massive and frequent swings in economic conditions.

"Right" is a value judgement, meaning its all about whos asking. From an economics standpoint, regulation causes higher prices, less competition/innovation, and are unethical. From the prespective of the people who pushed this policy, its "oh ** ** **, gm is dead in the water and everyone else isnt far behind, my portfolio is in the toilet, we need to loosen these restrictions!".

What hes trying to say is, WE GO GYM, WE GO NOW!!!!

Once upon a time in new york, people built bleechers on their roofs to watch baseball games. Neighbors would potluck or sell home cooked food. There was enough housing for everyone, because they had very loose regulations.

If you really want to turn this into a multiday thread, then we can start with the different theorems of value; you will come to see how even theory proves it is a terrible idea to have government trying to manage for profit endeavors. But, if you just want the magic fix to the housing shortage, you should just run with deregulation.

It is the general consensus that competition in the market place is good for consumers and propels business to find creative solutions that create value in the econony. I would say that isnt always the case, Rockefeller had something like 90% market share before litigation of antitrust began, by the time the case was adjucated their market share had already slipped; what this indicates is that even when one party holds 90% of market share (and probably total wealth for that matter), the market will eventually cut them down to size. At the same time, rockefeller was responsible for bringing a groundbreaking innovation to society. So, it was good that initially all that capital flowed to him, because he was using it to move society forward (at least in this regard), and it was also good to see that capital flow away on its own, because it was needed elsewhere.

I would also point out that the centralization of companies into todays megacorps is influenced by many factors, economies of scale may be one, but so are intellectual property laws (we really dont need them!). In fact, I would venture a guess that most regulation is written by the companies that are being regulated, that keeps competition at bay, and they wont regulate themselves downwards in the food chain. Finally, I would say the centralization really took place during WWI/WW2, it was convenient for the government to shout orders at a whole 3 people to build tanks instead of automobiles; this centralization is a strategic goal of the united states government, and enacting it through secret deals (rather than law) is a preferable method to preserve state secrecy.

Its a political topic, and you have taken an ideological stance towards it. If you want to say this topic shouldnt be on hacker news, I agree with you. Conversely, if you cant take the heat then get out of the kitchen.

I am equally clueless as to how you came up with this line of questions. Of course incentives matter, when did I imply they didnt? Of course the government is involved, which is why I said the reasons for not converting a building (the buyer) arent the same reasons why you wouldnt rezone (government), something there not clear?

No, as in the pernicious myth is that american democracy is a thing, that it ever existed, that it ever will exist, and/or that such a thing would be desirable.

Go to google maps and zoom out, urban sprawl is not the problem. You are talking about ending a way of life that untold millions aspire too, I wonder what kind of affect that would have.

>Under what criteria?

If maintaining the property value is a better move in your risk analysis, over making income from renters. Maintaining the value of your $100M+ tower makes a lot of sense if you are expecting commercial real estate to turn around soon. If you convert it, it will probably never be able to sell for more than a fraction of that and investors get hosed.

>posit circumstances

Massive deregulation in what qualifies as legal arounding housing would be one major chip. The other would be massive devaluation (which probably depends on the former point), such as massive amounts of housing going up in neighboring areas.