> the unspoken reality is that our regulatory morass is the deathbed of thousands of hardtech companies that could be drastically improving our lives. We must unleash them.
was "the unspoken reality is that our regulatory morass is also the deathbed of tens of thousands of hardtech companies who have no concern about destroying our communities in the interests of making a dollar", and that's what the regulations are there for.
What an intellectually bankrupt way to approach a question that has both downsides and upsides, and where those downsides and upsides vary depending on the specific regulation in question.
As the article points out, there is a safety cost from over-regulation. The impact on air quality from not allowing the new technology quickly enough is very real.
That's for safety regulations, and is somewhat true. That's not really what's being discussed here.
There are many regulations that are drafted, and paid for, by monopolies. There's also just outright stupidity put into place, because lawmakers get paid to make laws, so they make laws that sound good, without considering the consequences.
Sure and if this article actually brought up specific regulations and made a case against them... it probably wouldn't have made the front page and be full of flamewars.
Yep. My reaction to this line:
> the unspoken reality is that our regulatory morass is the deathbed of thousands of hardtech companies that could be drastically improving our lives. We must unleash them.
was "the unspoken reality is that our regulatory morass is also the deathbed of tens of thousands of hardtech companies who have no concern about destroying our communities in the interests of making a dollar", and that's what the regulations are there for.
would be nice to extend the deathbed to include some of the soft-tech companies too
> some of the soft-tech companies
Some? Let's be more generous than that..
(Not that it matters anymore in the grand scheme of things, seeing the size of the tsunami wave of destruction building up in the current AI bubble..)
What an intellectually bankrupt way to approach a question that has both downsides and upsides, and where those downsides and upsides vary depending on the specific regulation in question.
As the article points out, there is a safety cost from over-regulation. The impact on air quality from not allowing the new technology quickly enough is very real.
> every regulation is written in blood
It doesn't mean everything is exactly right but it is a good reminder of what keeps happening when there are no rules there.
That's for safety regulations, and is somewhat true. That's not really what's being discussed here.
There are many regulations that are drafted, and paid for, by monopolies. There's also just outright stupidity put into place, because lawmakers get paid to make laws, so they make laws that sound good, without considering the consequences.
Sure and if this article actually brought up specific regulations and made a case against them... it probably wouldn't have made the front page and be full of flamewars.
Regulatory capture and corruption are certainly horrible.