Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

  We live in a society and the law is a reflection of it, 
  especially in cities where a lot of   people with different
  needs and desires have to get along. If you want to literally
  do whatever you want on your property, there's lots of places
  (in Alaska) that you can do that.
Firstly let me say that I agree with the latter part of your reply that less-dense places are ideal for the libertarian minded. I'm fully onboard that school of thought.

The problem emerges here: cities are increasingly becoming centers of cultural clout, if not political or economic clout. If you don't have some kind of foothold there or some grasp of the proceedings there -- and no matter what your cultural leanings are & whether you lean left of center or right of it -- the change will drift to your shores, no matter how remotely you live or work.

Every aspect of every issue that has been covered in this thread is somehow going to affect how you live, work & socialize, in the near future. Compartmentalizing yourself -- and I'm not saying you're implying that -- from this debate with the hopes of one day moving to the far reaches of the continental expanse, is definitely not the answer.

With increasing urbanization of the world, this applies to you, even if you plan to move to a sparsely populated patch in another continent. [1]

Most people don't think through this enough. I wish I could overstate this.

Cultural clout shapes large portions of your life. And cities are increasingly holding larger and larger chunks of that clout, even if they always have.

Every law stipulating the amount of bio-degradable plastic in the cutlery at your run of the mill chain restaurant to the maximum wattage legally allowed to power your domestic vacuum cleaner [2] is somehow fashioned in the cities or influenced by people who've lived with city folk their entire lives.

This is why cities matter.

And with that, how cities are fashioned with the input & desires of a small coterie of like-minded micro-apartment-dwelling, parklet-embracing & density-demanding people, can one day have far-flung consequences on a geographically & culturally removed set of people who've never ever bought a two way ticket at a metro train station kiosk or had to share traffic with a paratransit bus [3], on their countryside roadways.

I'm not even mentioning the political pressure large companies with thousands of employees have been able to brought to bear on entire states, let alone cities, to mold & influence laws.[4]

This is why we all have to partake in this, whether we could be bothered to do so or not. Because one day we will.

[1] http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/world-...

[2] http://www.sbs.com.au/news/thefeed/article/2016/06/23/wackie...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paratransit

[4] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/salesforce-ceo-marc-benioff-nort...

edit: errors & added a footnote



Some rules are stupid, some ideas are stupid. In the original link they want to restrict how far people can travel. Well duh, Bikes and Electric cars already do this.

But then what if the person is a travelling salesman? Has the $1m prize for this problem been solved and awarded yet? Not that I know of.

On your point about limiting how much a vacuum cleaner can use, try this simple test, pick up some dirt, put on the palm of your hand and blow it. You don't need much blow to get it off your hand. Now try the same but in reverse ie suck the dirt. Did you breath it all in? I'd say no and this is why rules restricting how powerful the vacuum cleaner can be is stupid. Its the same as using eco friendly light bulbs if working from home during the winter months. These contribute to depression & SAD, so get yourself a brighter light that's still a CFL but gives you more light (lux) for the same wattage as the old style incandescent. Technology is designed to make life better for us, not to go backwards because some politician said so.

If politicians were really bothered about the planet, your health etc, they would not spends millions on defence, they would invest massively in research whilst also spending more on education to further drive the research. The fact they don't just confirms to me, they are there for big business only.

The West's population would be in decline and has been in decline since the 70's if it wasn't for immigration. Immigration is needed because we have a messed up financial system which needs constant growth to keep driving inflation. If we didn't have inflation, very quickly you would see the financial system is just a generational Ponzi scheme as the baby boomers who stole your future have demonstrated. If you wont have to work for longer before you get your pension then the boomers have not stolen your future.


> But then what if the person is a travelling salesman? Has the $1m prize for this problem been solved and awarded yet? Not that I know of.

Side note, the TSP is only infeasible in theory, not in practice.


> I'd say no and this is why rules restricting how powerful the vacuum cleaner can be is stupid.

I agree that strict limits on vacuum energy use are overreaching a bit, but it has had good results. People wrongly believe that energy use = suction power.

Before the limits, vacuums were advertised on how much power they use. All manufacturers had to do was to put in an inefficient motor, and stamp "wastes even more watts" on the box.

After the limit, I now see vacuums advertised with some standardised "cleaning performance score" on carpet and hardwood, and airflow per minute. Hopefully this means that manufacturers will focus on (advertising) metrics that more closely match the actual purpose of vacuums.

Now the same result could probably have been achieved with just the advertising rules. And energy efficiency & environmental goals could be achieved with pollution tax on electricity and everyone making their own decisions on energy-efficient devices. But that's a much more complicated political move, with a lot of people opposed to it.


> I'd say no and this is why rules restricting how powerful the vacuum cleaner can be is stupid

Before the rules, manufacturers were advertising vacuum cleaners with ever larger wattage numbers. They weren't actually any better at picking up dirt, they just had less efficient motors.

I would have preferred consumer education (e.g. require suction/CFM numbers to be shown) but banning pointless wastes of electricity in the name of marketing isn't as crazy at it may seem.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: