[HN Gopher] NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video]
___________________________________________________________________
NY Sabotages Right to Repair Bill [video]
Author : asjfkdlf
Score : 382 points
Date : 2022-12-29 07:59 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.youtube.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.youtube.com)
| specialist wrote:
| "Albany is where good legislation goes to die." -- Quote from a
| personal friend
|
| It's takes decades to change policy, enact legislation. A very
| readable intro is the Waxman Report.
| https://www.amazon.com/Waxman-Report-Congress-Really-Works/d...
|
| My unsolicited advice is:
|
| - Convert this outrage into action. Do fund raising.
|
| - Set up an organization that can run a marathon. Burnout for
| activists is very high.
|
| - Someone, somewhere will pass this legislation. Find them. Even
| if it's just for virtue signaling. Like a city, which can't
| enforce such laws, passes a measure, to build awareness and
| demonstrate support for a policy.
|
| - Get politicians on record. Create a candidate questionnaire.
| Send it out to all campaigns. Publish the answers.
|
| - Encourage various local political parties (congressional
| districts, state level legislative districts, etc) to include
| your questionnaire (as part of their endorsement processes).
|
| - Get various parties to include your policy in their platforms.
| Again, builds aweness and demonstrates support.
| trinsic2 wrote:
| Thank you for offering solutions.
| Jon_Lowtek wrote:
| Louis Rossmann claims in this video that the bills text was
| changed in the last few days, an argument that hinges solely on
| the text of the memorandum attached to the governor signing it,
| which mentions an "agreement" between Governor and legislative,
| and hints at the content of said agreement. The document number
| mentioned in the memorandum as the signed bill is S4104-A
|
| According to the New York State Senate[1] the current version of
| the bill is S4104A from May 2022, which passed both Senate and
| Assembly in June. Note that nysenate.gov, at the time of me
| writing this, has not yet acknowledged the governor signing the
| bill, or filed any "agreement" with the governor or a changed
| version of the document. The New York State Assembly[2] has noted
| the signing and memorandum under actions, but published neither,
| nor an updated version of the bill.
|
| Are such "agreements to last minute changes" an actual thing in
| New York? Without changing the document number? Without filing
| the changes in a public documentation system? Without Senate and
| Assembly voting on the changes and documenting the vote? Can the
| New York State governor just scribble annotations in the margins
| when signing bills and those also become law?
|
| My first guess was that the memorandum includes a badly worded
| summary of the changes made earlier this year (S4104 -> S4104A)
| which passed the Senate and Assembly in June. But the memorandum
| mentions "provide assemblies of parts instead of individual
| components", which is the main hot button issue in the video, as
| well as eliminating the requirement to override security
| features, a big change to section 2.B of the bill, and exempting
| business-to-business and business-to-government sales. None of
| that seems to be present in document S4104A. So the memorandum
| seems to not be talking about the changes made earlier this year.
|
| Is the text of the memorandum about some agreement between
| governor and legislative complete and utter nonsense? Does the
| legislative process in New York State allow such last minute
| changes?
|
| The more i look at this, the worse it gets. There is a lot of
| criticize this bill for, like exempting motor vehicles and home
| appliances even if they include electronics. Some rather weird
| notice about federal law having a problem with repairing gaming
| consoles. But more than the law itself the process is broken. Why
| is the only source of this memorandum the twitter account of a
| journalist[3]? There is a press release on the governors
| website[4] but where is the canonical source of the memorandum?
| Does the Governor of New York State not operate a public filing
| system? And who is responsible to publish the actual signed bill
| to the public? According to Wikipedia[5] getting deep insight
| into the legislative process requires a paid subscription. WTF?
|
| New York State may need to repair more than just their consumer
| electronics.
|
| ---
|
| 1: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/s4104/ Bill
| according to Senate
|
| 2: https://nyassembly.gov/leg/?bn=A07006&term=2021&Actions=Y Bill
| according to Assembly
|
| 3: https://twitter.com/JonCampbellNY/status/1608327624526548993
| Memorandum 93
|
| 4: https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-signs-
| digit... Governors Press Release
|
| 5:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_Bill_Drafting_Comm...
| butlerm wrote:
| As you might expect, the Constitution of New York states: "nor
| shall any bill be passed or become a law, except by the assent
| of a majority of the members elected to each branch of the
| legislature" (Art. III S.14).
|
| "Every bill which shall have passed the senate and assembly
| shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the governor;
| if the governor approve, he or she shall sign it; but if not,
| he or she shall return it with his or her objections to the
| house in which it shall have originated, which shall enter the
| objections at large on the journal, and proceed to reconsider
| it" (Art IV S.7).
|
| So if a governor doesn't want to sign a bill, he/she may veto
| it and explain why, come to an agreement about what is
| acceptable, and then a revised version would have to be adopted
| in identical form by both houses before it was ready to sign
| again.
| LightHugger wrote:
| I am also broadly confused about the actual mechanism of how
| this happened, and the paper trail which seems to not exist.
|
| They probably but it out at this time intentionally while the
| government lumbers through the holidays...
| crmd wrote:
| I wonder what Gov Hochul's powerbrokers got in return from the
| manufacturers in exchange for sabotaging this bill.
| smnrchrds wrote:
| I believe the analysis. Here in Canada, the government passed a
| law not that long ago (during the pandemic) to enshrine rights of
| passengers for delayed and cancelled flights, which included
| right to specific amounts of monetary compensation in those
| scenarios. The law, however, had an exception, where no
| compensation is due if the flight is delayed or cancelled due to
| a safety issue. Lo and behold, the airlines have started
| classifying almost every delay and cancellation as a safety issue
| [1] and denying compensation claims left and right.
|
| [1] Here is an example of how ridiculously far the airlines have
| gone in claiming everything is a safety issue, even when it is
| things completely within their power to control:
| https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/air-canada-denies-compensatio...
| ericd wrote:
| I don't know if they're operating yet for Canadian flights, but
| there are at least a few companies that will go through the
| hassle of battling it out with European airlines in exchange
| for a cut of the proceeds. Worked for us when Swiss tried to
| give us the runaround by inappropriately using a similar
| exception to the one you're describing.
| switch007 wrote:
| Entirely predictable if you follow the history of the same
| protections in the EU. Many get out clauses and varying
| interpretations of the legislation meant lots of weaselling out
| claims. Many things were "extraordinary circumstances"
|
| There have been various court cases to clarify and strengthen
| the regulations.
|
| It will take another 5 years probably for the Canadian
| regulations to have a serious effect which gives the airlines
| plenty of time to shaft customers in another manner.
| flipbrad wrote:
| Lying to avoid a loss would be fraud, and therefore a pretty
| dangerous game.
| ddeck wrote:
| But unfortunately pretty routine. In two out of two cases
| where I've claimed compensation for delayed/cancelled flights
| under the EU law, the airlines have outright lied about the
| causes and denied compensation.
|
| In both cases, they were forced to pay out in arbitration
| after the arbitor determined that their stated causes were
| false (e.g. providing the tail number for a different
| aircraft that was legitimately delayed) , but there was no
| penalty for lying.
|
| In such an environment, it's quite rational for them to lie
| and deny.
| jackmott wrote:
| Surely these are engineered in cooperation with corporations so
| that politicians can get their win with the electorate and eat
| their corporate cash too?
| genocidicbunny wrote:
| They should make an addendum that any safety-related
| cancellations require a full inspection/re-certification of the
| aircraft that takes either a lot of time or a lot of money to
| go through. And any crew involved will be required to pass some
| sort of check flight or related process (at company cost of
| course.)
|
| Make spurious 'safety' cancellations expensive, very expensive.
| josephcsible wrote:
| That would defeat the purpose. The point of the carveout is
| so that we don't accidentally incentivize the airlines to fly
| a flight that should be canceled for safety reasons, and this
| would do exactly that.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Indeed. I feel like so many of these arguments that
| "airlines are making up fake safety or weather cancellation
| reasons; when's the last time an airline crashed from a
| safety or weather reason; they're over-stating the risks
| just to get out of paying penalties!" seemingly without
| reflecting on _why_ the second clause is the case.
| ALittleLight wrote:
| Perhaps they could require the people who make the go/no-go
| decision on flight safety to visit a prison every three
| months and receive a lecture on how this will be their new
| home if they knowingly approve a plane not safe to fly.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| You are forgetting what the decision to blanket
| everything as a safety issue came not from the people who
| make the go/no-go decision on flight safety.
|
| As a sibling comment says it would be just swept under
| the rug until planes start to fall.
| WalterBright wrote:
| Threatening people does not improve safety, as people
| will tend to hide the issues instead of exposing them so
| they're fixed.
| noisy_boy wrote:
| > Lo and behold, the airlines have started classifying almost
| every delay and cancellation as a safety issue
|
| Then the regulators should be asking why there are so many
| safety issues? Seems like by the airlines' own admission, this
| is a perfect ground for a full investigation and penalties in
| case the issues are found to be misclassified under the
| category of safety.
| pibechorro wrote:
| And regulators all the way down.. regulations seldom work
| without unintended consequences and people finding loopholes
| or blackmarkets. They do more harm than good.
| mjhay wrote:
| Personally I think aircraft safety regulations do plenty of
| good.
| eastbound wrote:
| Note that the aircraft industry, although state-
| regulated, almost behaves as self-regulated since
| airlines are mostly demanding of excellent regulations
| and high safety standards to reassure passengers. Very
| different from, say, Dupont (chemicals), who is regulated
| for OSHA reasons, but who would always find workers even
| if they dived at Bophal levels of safety.
| diffxx wrote:
| I'm inclined to agree, but I am somewhat curious about
| this. The Boeing 737 max crashes certainly demonstrate
| that the industry does not universally prioritize safety
| above all. At the same time, there are strong incentives
| for any airline to not have a catastrophic safety
| incident. I recently flew on a 737 max and was willing to
| do so not so much because the FAA cleared them to fly but
| because I assume the pilots are not suicidal. In the
| absence of strong government safety regulations would
| things just devolve to YOLO? I'm not sure either way.
| Having said that, Chesterton's fence applies to any
| existing regulations.
| lostlogin wrote:
| This might be more of a reflection on the governance where
| you are. The idea of an unregulated country sounds terrible
| to me, and I am unaware of examples of it working. Most
| countries regulate things like aircraft safety with good
| effect. Regulating certain professions to ensure minimum
| standards is another good example.
|
| If you have any interest, check out the below link for a
| great piece of legislation. It protects NZ consumers and
| effectively puts a warranty on everything you buy here.
|
| Another example which I appreciate every day is the
| regulation imposed on our telecommunications industry. We
| have gone from a trash copper network to an excellent fibre
| network that is fast and inexpensive to use - all via
| regulation, investment and legislation.
|
| Regulation works just fine when done properly, and I'd like
| more of it here in NZ. I'd like the supermarket monopoly
| broken up via regulation. I'd also like the building
| supplies and fuels racket broken up.
|
| https://www.consumerprotection.govt.nz/general-
| help/consumer...
| orangepurple wrote:
| They may do harm, significant harm, but it is unfair to
| categorically claim that the harm is greater than the good.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| You need to be very very very careful not to disincentivize
| people declaring safety issues. They should really just
| unwind the wrong incentive and handle it differently.
| vlovich123 wrote:
| Random spot checks of declared safety incidents + serious
| penalties for fraud (which this is if the companies are
| lying about safety incidents to avoid paying out
| compensation) is probably sufficient without changing any
| regulations in any meaningful way. No regulation is perfect
| but it's quite surprising how effective regulations become
| when you start spot checking whether everyone is being
| honest.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Are you describing what food agencies do with their
| pseudorandom inspections? Because indeed those seem to
| work very well at a relatively low cost.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| Under what basis do you have to claim those "random"
| inspections "work very well"
|
| Personally I believe they do almost nothing. Food born
| illness is pretty common and almost impossible to trace
| unless it is a wide spread outbreak.
|
| Many cities only inspect a food establishment every 2-3
| years and in some cases as long as 5 years.
|
| I think reputation, and economics play a larger factor in
| safety then government inspections. Dirty places making
| their customers ill tend to close long before the
| government inspectors come around.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| What country are you referring to?
| phpisthebest wrote:
| Given we are in a topic thread about the US State of NY,
| about a Law in NY State. I am referring to the US, and
| Specifically NY which has been famous for their health
| dept in come cases not inspecting places for years
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Gotcha. My only experience is with Ontario. Fair to
| assume we were sticking to NY. :)
| vlovich123 wrote:
| Sure that's one example but I think there's various
| things like this. You have to make sure that
| investigators can also be made undercover where makes
| sense (if it's possible to obfuscate malfeasance) and
| rotate the inspector's physical location (to avoid
| potential for corruption due to personal relationships).
| You always still have other corruption vectors (eg
| getting buddy buddy with the inspector's boss and
| influencing them indirectly). It's an unsolved problem
| but you can always do better than nothing.
| mywacaday wrote:
| Penalties need to include individuals and not just
| companies.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| They only care about safety issues during flight. Flights
| that dont happen are not a "flight safety" issue. The safest
| trip is always the one that doesnt try to leave the ground.
| nix23 wrote:
| Most safety issues to planes happen on the ground...just
| saying.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| I said try to leave the ground. Planes that never leave
| the gate are generally rather safe.
| nix23 wrote:
| No...that was was my point they are not.
| noisy_boy wrote:
| That is an odd take - so any shit can happen to the
| customers as long as they don't get in the air? IMHO they
| should also care about customers being cheated out of
| compensation on account of misclassification of the reason
| for the flights being cancelled.
| ct0 wrote:
| Is it a trip if it doesn't leave the ground?
| WalterBright wrote:
| On the other hand, punishing an airline for a delay due to a
| safety issue can have worse consequences.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| > punishing an airline
|
| The airline isn't being "punished" - they're being required
| to either complete a contract, or to compensate their
| counterparty for their failure to complete.
|
| To take the example upthread, if the pizzaiolo drops a screw
| in my pizza, the resulting safety issue doesn't void the
| contract; he has to go off and make me a new pizza, or give
| my money back. It's not a punishment. If he can't complete on
| the contracts he makes, he has to stop selling pizzas or go
| broke.
|
| I don't know any good reason why airlines shouldn't be
| subject to normal contract law.
| flenserboy wrote:
| Such things are rarely, if ever, included accidentally. There
| is far too much collusion between regulators and the regulated,
| and that hand-in-hand attitude moves upstream to those who
| write the laws and give them to the legislators to introduce.
| causi wrote:
| _The law, however, had an exception, where no compensation is
| due if the flight is delayed or cancelled due to a safety
| issue._
|
| This makes no sense at all. If I order a pizza and it doesn't
| show up the reason it doesn't show up is completely irrelevant;
| they still owe me my money back.
| vinaypai wrote:
| This isn't about refunds for the fare paid. This is about the
| ADDITIONAL $1000 compensation that airlines owe for last
| minute cancellation.
| SECProto wrote:
| The above comment wasnt complete. The airline must still
| provide either a refund or alternate travel arrangements
| (regardless of if a delay is within their control or not).
| There is additional monetary compensation required if the
| flight is delayed by more than a certain number of hours (but
| only if it is within the airline's control)
|
| I've made about $1400 from delayed flights in the last 3
| years
| ammar2 wrote:
| I think the reasoning would be to disincentivize airlines
| from potentially flying a plane that is unsafe to avoid
| paying out.
| rendaw wrote:
| If they suddenly have way more safety issues, the logical
| next step would be to prevent them from operating an
| airline, right?
|
| All this says to me is that the government does nothing to
| prevent hugely unsafe airlines from operating.
|
| The cancellation loophole seems fine to me, it's the
| followthrough that's concerning. What am I missing here?
| concordDance wrote:
| > If they suddenly have way more safety issues, the
| logical next step would be to prevent them from operating
| an airline, right?
|
| Thing is, you, as an external observer, can't tell.
|
| There are a zillion things that slightly increase risk.
| If a manager ignores a couple to avoid having a black
| mark due to costing the company money its very unlikely
| to bite him in any way that can be pinned on him. But the
| combination of a very large number of these little
| decisions will eventually result in a crash.
|
| And before you ask, no, saying "well you just tell
| everyone they must take no risks at all or its prison
| time" is not the answer as that will basically kill the
| airlines as a form of mass transit, leading to everyone
| taking the more dangerous car trips. There's always
| something more that can be done to reduce risk.
| makapuf wrote:
| Or reduce passenger travelling, which in the current days
| of possible zoom meetings and climate disruption would be
| a net positive.
| chii wrote:
| > flying a plane that is unsafe
|
| which is already illegal, and has consequences. The airline
| will probably lose reputation and business if the public
| catches wind of it. The exception for cancellation should
| not have been in place, except as a way for airlines to get
| out of the obligations but also allow law makers to be seen
| to be doing something. Basically theater.
| Zuiii wrote:
| Then have a panel from canada's regulatory body review
| every case and fine those who misclassify their
| cancellation, then have an independent audit of those
| panels to avoid regulatory capture.
| pixelfarmer wrote:
| No, I would remove the exception and put up even heftier
| fines (i.e. costs more than the (partial) refunding) for
| safety violations. There should be structures and
| procedures for that in place already and you avoid
| creating even more bureacraziness with all the problems
| that brings.
| TylerE wrote:
| That just incentivizes better lying, not better safety.
| These rules have been written in blood many times over.
| pixelfarmer wrote:
| You mean better lying than they already do by
| reclassifying everything as a "safety issue" to avoid
| paying out customers because they skipped on a lot of
| things already to increase "shareholder value" or other
| such garbage?
|
| I just hope they don't drain additional time & people to
| check into each of these "safety issues" now, thinning
| out the crowd who will also check into actual incidents
| ...
| skfingngihg wrote:
| Good point. disincentivize Lax maintenance even more,
| airlines should want their planes to be in good condition
| akira2501 wrote:
| That's labor intensive. You could always set a
| threshold.. where if more than X% of your flights are
| canceled due to safety issues in any month, your
| maintenance operation gets fully audited.
| remote_phone wrote:
| Who is on the regulatory body that reviews these cases?
| Probably friends of the airline industry.
| jonahx wrote:
| All problems in computer science can be solved by another
| level of indirection, except for the problem of too many
| layers of indirection.
| Zuiii wrote:
| The idea of having multiple layers is to make foul play
| more difficult to cover up; i.e the chances of someone
| screwing up grows exponentially with every person you
| add.
| pixelfarmer wrote:
| That assumes that every person you add has the ability to
| understand all the details plus is actually willing to do
| their best to find any remaining issues. Somehow this
| doesn't match up with my real world experience. It also
| assumes that convoluted rules will hinder larger
| companies from exploiting the rules, which is actually
| the other way around: The larger they are, the better
| they get at finding loopholes and using them for their
| own gains. Plus you make it increasingly more difficult
| to see where your regulatory body has been compromised.
|
| Humans don't work like tech, so adding more and more
| layers doesn't help really, and I haven't found any
| organizational form which can inherently prevent humans
| from being human, it just doesn't exist. For example, all
| the "paperwork" around safety only works if humans are
| actually interested in maximizing safety and not just
| filling out papers.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| The safety issues have nothing to do with the planes. They
| are to do with lack of crew to fly the planes. The airlines
| are not maintaining a sufficient reserve of backup crews
| because doing so costs money. The is profiteering under the
| guises of "safety".
| Sakos wrote:
| We accidentally dropped a screw in your pizza and had to
| cancel it as a safety issue. Sorry, no refunds. Brilliant!
| noisy_boy wrote:
| I think the response to that would be (based on the
| assumption that this safety clause is being routinely
| thrown around), "why do you keep dropping screws in so many
| pizzas?"
| HWR_14 wrote:
| They want to avoid the following situation. X% of the time a
| plane crashes and costs $Y. It costs $Z to cancel/delay a
| flight due to penalties and compensation. $Z > X% of $Y,
| therefore fly the unsafe flight. So they lower $Y in the case
| that it's a safety issue to save lives.
| xg15 wrote:
| The free market at work. "Do you want me to provide _plain_
| bad service or bad service that also puts the customers '
| lives at risk? The choice is yours, dear regulator!"
|
| But more seriously, I think the sibling posts are right
| here: A plane crash is more than a monetary risk: In the
| worst case, managers of the airline could be criminally
| liable for lost lives.
| heywhatupboys wrote:
| > The free market at work.
|
| Do you have any clue how dangerous Soviet passenger
| aircraft and their flights were, compared to their
| Western counterparts?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Russia continues to have a dismal aviation safety record.
|
| The West has largely _regulated away_ airline crashes -
| the last in the US was in 2009, and it 's down 95% in
| fatalities-per-passenger in the last two decades or so.
| Stuff like the 1500 hour rule certainly weren't industry
| initiatives.
| jtc331 wrote:
| The 1500 hour rule didn't improve safety, and, in fact
| was applied as supposed remedy in response to a pilot-
| error caused crash in which the pilot had well more than
| the 1500 hours of flight time.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > The 1500 hour rule didn't improve safety
|
| That's hard to assess on an individual level, especially
| with how rare crashes are today; confidently stating it
| did nothing is hard to support. On a collective level,
| the impact of the entire set of regulations on safety is
| very clear.
|
| > was applied as supposed remedy
|
| No. The post-Buffalo changes included some direct changes
| like the rules on pilot fatigue. They also included some
| proactive changes like the 1500 rule.
|
| We don't have to wait for a crash to make things safer.
| theydidnt wrote:
| Nobody does, because the Soviets didn't record data even
| vaguely accurately. The human origins of these behaviours
| are deeply woven into these cultures.
|
| There are countless examples of this, but the most
| transparent I've come across is Chernobyl.
| ericmay wrote:
| The free market at work also generated the airlines and
| travel industry that so many enjoy. We created the FAA
| and other entities to regulate the market participants to
| make sure we get the outcome we desire while balancing
| generating economic activity. If something isn't working
| right, it's the responsibility of regulators to fix the
| problem, or ultimately the people to elect
| representatives who will.
|
| This casual cynicism regarding markets is dangerous and
| infectious because instead of focusing on fixing problems
| that have solutions via the levers of government, people
| give up completely and then nothing is ever made better.
| We need more participation in government, not less. When
| you toss up anything bad as "that's the free market
| folks!", people have no recourse. They can't vote away
| airlines. So you end up directing action toward something
| that can't be actioned upon. It's misdirection.
|
| Also claiming that "this is the free market" ignores the
| _vast_ civilian infrastructure that is built and
| maintained by the State and regulatory agencies and
| practices that have been created. Not to mention bailouts
| in the past of bankrupted airlines and such. Airlines in
| particular are not a good example of "that's the free
| market", and even so markets don't operate in a vacuum,
| they serve at the behest of the people and the
| government.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > The free market at work also generated the airlines and
| travel industry that so many enjoy.
|
| Well, that and all the government spending on aviation in
| WWII.
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| The airline industry and its basic economic model already
| existed in the 1930s. All the money did was accelerate
| the inevitable by 20yr.
| danaris wrote:
| > This casual cynicism regarding markets is dangerous and
| infectious because instead of focusing on fixing problems
| that have solutions via the levers of government, people
| give up completely and then nothing is ever made better.
|
| I don't think this follows, and I think it's because
| you're missing a piece of what's going on here.
|
| You seem to be coming to this from a perspective of "
| _obviously_ , a healthy system has a market with sensible
| regulations on it."
|
| That's a world away from where most people (or at least,
| the _loudest_ people) who criticize regulations are
| coming from, which is basically, "Unregulated free
| markets solve all problems, and government only creates
| problems."
|
| If you feel like you're seeing a lot of cynicism directed
| at "free markets", this is likely why: it's a reaction
| against these extremely vocal "drown-government-in-a-
| bathtub" types.
|
| Thing is, there are generally two different things that
| people can mean when they say "free market":
|
| 1. A "market economy", as contrasted with a "command
| economy"--ie, more or less the way the US does things, as
| opposed to the way the Soviet Union did things.
|
| 2. An "ideal free market", as described by Adam Smith,
| which can, in theory, ensure that many systems find a
| stable, efficient equilibrium that balances consumer
| desires with producer desires.
|
| The problem is that, however much many (particularly of
| the Libertarian bent) wish to believe in it, the latter
| is not _real_. It is a thought experiment, and it
| requires a bunch of conditions that don 't always apply
| (eg, perfect information, commoditization, etc). The
| other problem, of course, is that as I said, the two are
| often called "free markets" interchangeably without
| clarification, which leads to much confusion.
| xg15 wrote:
| > _and it requires a bunch of conditions that don 't
| always apply (eg, perfect information, commoditization,
| etc)_
|
| Not only this, but large parts of the current economy
| only function _because_ the conditions don 't apply.
|
| E.g., we know that humans don't make perfectly rational
| decisions but are influenced by all kinds of biases, etc.
| And we have the entire advertising and marketing sector
| that does nothing else than exploit those biases.
|
| Yet at the same time, whenever there is the risk of new
| regulation being introduced, the fantasy of the perfectly
| informed, fully rational consumer is pulled out of the
| box...
| skywal_l wrote:
| Agreed. Just a nitpick, when I think of libertarian
| absolutists, I don't necessarily think about Adam Smith.
| I haven't read "Wealth of Nations", but I believe he was
| much more reasonable than an Ayn Rand for example.
|
| American style libertarian absolutists are usually not
| very subtle, sometimes even clownish like she was.
| danaris wrote:
| From what I understand, having also not read The Wealth
| of Nations, Adam Smith had some...biases and blind spots,
| but was overall talking about useful ideas.
|
| Thing is, he recognized them as _theoretical_. Too many
| of the people parroting them think they were meant to be
| applied directly to the real world, as if we had an
| actual spherical market cow in a vacuum.
| ericmay wrote:
| > If you feel like you're seeing a lot of cynicism
| directed at "free markets", this is likely why: it's a
| reaction against these extremely vocal "drown-government-
| in-a-bathtub" types.
|
| Yea but that's bad because it's unsophisticated and it
| also creates people who start to believe that the market
| mechanic _is_ a bad thing or the source of their
| problems, when it's not. This creates bad ideas, cynicism
| because you can't take action against this invisible
| market, or people lose interest in participating in
| government.
|
| > The other problem, of course, is that as I said, the
| two are often called "free markets" interchangeably
| without clarification, which leads to much confusion.
|
| That's the fault of the author.
| ghaff wrote:
| And with respect to additional compensation for delays,
| it's arguable that _may_ be a good thing as a matter of
| policy. But people should understand that the net effect
| is to add a surcharge to all airline tickets to cover
| both expected payments and the cost of additional slack
| airlines may build into their systems to reduce delays.
|
| Which may be reasonable as a matter of policy. Increase
| ticket prices, hopefully reduce delays, and provide
| compensation when delays happen anyway. That may be a
| reasonable tradeoff but not sure everyone would agree.
|
| ADDED: The strongest argument is probably that, while it
| will increase prices somewhat, it encourages airlines to
| build more slack into the system at the cost of some
| efficiency. But that may be a net positive given that
| delays externalize costs, including non-monetary ones,
| onto all passengers--including those that are less price-
| sensitive.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| Wouldn't the genuine answer to that be to increase the cost
| of a plane crashing by a lot?
| felipelemos wrote:
| The genuine answer is to held criminally liable the
| responsibles for allowing an unsafe flight to take off.
| sorokod wrote:
| Who are "they"and why would "they" want to do that?
|
| Asking because flying passengers on unsafe planes is
| already illegal.
| true_religion wrote:
| They are the Canadian government and they want to do that
| because keeping their citizens alive is part of their
| job.
| butlerm wrote:
| Not as much of their job as it used to be unfortunately.
| But that is a topic for another day.
| fallingknife wrote:
| Presumably someone who flies on planes, because they
| don't want the plane they're on to crash.
| russell_h wrote:
| I don't know anything about Canadian travel law, but I assume
| there is no question that the airline must deliver the
| service you paid for.
|
| It reads to me like this law was intended to provide
| additional compensation to passengers who are delayed. The EU
| has something similar.
| perryizgr8 wrote:
| The error is in trying to handle such a specific situation in
| the law. This should be sorted out using some form of court. If
| a customer is unhappy about any aspect of the service from any
| business, he can approach the court and the judge will decide
| what is appropriate. No super specific laws.
| switch007 wrote:
| Courts are indeed famously level playing fields and easy and
| cheap to access for the common man.
| perryizgr8 wrote:
| If courts being inaccessible is the problem, then we should
| solve that. Not introduce insanely specific laws like this
| which are prone to abuse.
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| > Here is an example of how ridiculously far the airlines have
| gone in claiming everything is a safety issue,
|
| These outlandish claims wouldn't work nearly as well as they do
| if claims of safety didn't cause a large part of the population
| to turn off their brain and side with whoever's making the
| claim regardless of the details.
|
| Safety is often used as one of our modern analogs of "god's
| will."
| neilv wrote:
| That's interesting. At first glance, a safety issue looks
| plausible. But if it turns out someone is playing business
| optimization games with safety issues, by consciously creating
| the safety issues, with the intention of using them to get out
| of some other regulatory compliance... that doesn't sound in
| the spirit of the aviation safety programs.
|
| In the US, I suspect that pretty much any personnel who
| observed this could raise it as an issue through an FAA safety
| reporting program. There are some protections for reporters.
|
| (These programs, and the people and organizations who
| participate in them, are a big part of why aviation is as safe
| as it is. It's something a lot of people seem to take very
| seriously. It's pretty inspiring, IMHO, and if only we could
| collectively believe in other common goals like this, and
| execute as well.)
| Sakos wrote:
| It's likely that there just isn't any legal oversight. They
| made this loophole, but there are intentionally no provisions
| to ensure it isn't abused. This is something that would need
| to be legislated again, but if they screwed up this badly
| this time (on purpose), I doubt that'll ever happen.
| neilv wrote:
| Aviation safety has oversight, whether or not this
| consumer-oriented legislation does.
| Sakos wrote:
| Of course, that's not what I said.
| Ekaros wrote:
| We need some 3-strike rules for companies. Three 3-strikes like
| wrong reasons used and you are permanently out. Your property
| is confiscated and sold, wages are paid out, any debtors are
| paid if there is any money and rest is forfeited as penalty to
| state.
| subradios wrote:
| "Be a good person" is not a law I want anyone writing,
| because such a policy relies on the moral fortitude of random
| executive bureaucrats.
|
| "Wrong" reason is subjective. Tickets are nonrefundable
| because otherwise the network doesn't work, financially.
| Every hole in that increases costs far beyond the refunds
| themselves further down the line.
|
| Air travel is not a high margin, luxury product, it's a lot
| margin mass market product with tons of competition - ergo
| costs are cut wherever possible. When you force airlines to
| take on costs for moral reasons, they basically are obligated
| to find as narrow an application of the moral reasoning as
| possible to keep costs down.
| scarface74 wrote:
| I fly a lot. But only on Delta and American. So I can't
| speak to the other airlines. But they both have three tiers
| of tickets for the same main cabin seating. For Delta those
| are basic, main and main refundable.
|
| Looking at a random domestic flight. The difference between
| the three tiers are about $30-$45 each.
|
| Never buy Basic. But if you at least by the middle tier,
| while the tickets aren't refundable, you can change the
| tickets without paying a fee or cancel a flight and get a
| credit that's good for year.
|
| The network works fine with people cancelling and changing
| flights all of the time.
| free652 wrote:
| The difference is a lot more, I usually see >100. But
| even for a cheap flight that was 138 jet blue basic, it's
| 60 for the middle tier and 110 extra for the refundable.
| scarface74 wrote:
| The middle tier is the real price in my opinion. The only
| reason the basic tier is there is as upsell opportunity
| and meant to be punishing.
|
| I read somewhere that only 5% of seats sold on Delta are
| basic. I get it. It's meant for people who are price
| sensitive. But aren't those the ones who can least afford
| to lose money if something happens?
| jsjohnst wrote:
| > I read somewhere that only 5% of seats sold on Delta
| are basic. I get it. It's meant for people who are price
| sensitive.
|
| Anecdata, but I believe most "basic" tickets on the big
| US airlines were paid for by someone other than the
| flyer. If an individual themselves were price sensitive,
| they'd fly a budget airline like say Spirit more than
| likely.
| danaris wrote:
| It's expensive to be poor--the good old "Vimes Boots
| Theory of economic unfairness".[0]
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
| scarface74 wrote:
| Also see: I always suggest young people with limited but
| stable income to buy newer cars with warranties. They can
| least afford unexpected repairs.
| smcin wrote:
| Exactly. Basic Economy fares were created by airlines to
| artificially prevent them losing rankings against
| competitors (esp. LCCs) in the results box for OTEs like
| Google Flights, Kayak/Booking Holdings,
| Skyscanner/Trip.com.
|
| I've had a customer rep openly admit to me that they
| don't expect that anyone should ever actually fly this
| fare, and strongly discourage them for "satisfaction
| reasons".
|
| Yet another weaselly practice I found out the hard way
| recently was that some airlines rules (e.g. JetBlue)
| intentionally restrict it so that if one leg on a return
| ticket is Basic Economy, the other one must be too (even
| if it's priced $$ higher than plain Economy, as was in my
| case. It tooks me 2hrs of searches mysteriously failing
| when I tried to checkout ("Rule XXX does not allow this
| itinerary" and then it invalidates your entire flight
| search incl. seat assignments). Like the booking process
| couldn't simply tell you upfront. I called the support
| number and offered to show them a screenshot of the price
| difference and they didn't care. It was intentionally
| impossible to find the cheapest roundtrip price for my
| itinerary on their own website for any economy search,
| because their internal search engine typically shows the
| "cheapest economy fare" which will invariably tend to be
| basic economy for one segment; and of course this result
| is garbage if you have bags, which their engine doesn't
| even allow you specify. So you use a third-party OTE
| search engine.)
|
| It's amazing the number of opaque anti-consumer practices
| the US airline industry gets away with.
|
| The only legit use-case for a Basic Economy fare is a
| price-sensitive last-minute passenger who's 100% sure of
| their travel date(s)/one-way and has no luggage, or is
| willing to do without. Essentially what standby (or
| compassionate fares) used to be back in the 1990s, before
| the industry quietly killed those off.
| remote_phone wrote:
| > Tickets are nonrefundable because otherwise the network
| doesn't work, financially.
|
| This is 100% false. Southwest Airlines is one of the most
| profitable airlines in the US and their refund policy for
| refundable flights is a full refund up to 10 mins before
| the flight. For nonrefundable flights you get full credit
| if you cancel up to 10 mins before your flight, with no
| additional fees.
|
| During the pandemic, ALL airlines moved to full credit with
| no change fees if you cancelled your flight. Previously
| they would have absurd $200 change fees or loss of your
| flight.
|
| The idea that airlines can't survive with flexible,
| consumer friendly policies is a lie. Things like the check
| in fees or fuel surcharge are pure profit.
| xwdv wrote:
| The airlines were buoyed by PPP loans.
| Retric wrote:
| Which didn't even fully cover the dramatic drop in
| customers let alone these policy changes.
|
| What people forget is companies are in competition, if
| every airline is forced to refund ticks then the industry
| simply reaches a new equilibrium with very slightly
| higher ticket prices. However, if any airline defects to
| worse customer service they all end up doing the same.
| Thus the need for customer focused regulations.
| butlerm wrote:
| Airlines did not qualify for PPP loans. They did receive
| substantial direct support from the federal government
| however. PPP "loans" were reserved for businesses with
| less than five hundred employees that weren't worth very
| much (relatively speaking) either.
| xwdv wrote:
| So even better than PPP loans??
| smcin wrote:
| No it's not 100% false, it's about 70% correct, refunds
| are in (expiring, non-transferable) flight credits not
| money-back. The preceding poster said "your money back"
| not "flight credits".
|
| Flight credits expire (with US carriers, typically in 12
| months, sometimes within only 3 months (Spirit), with
| European carriers, sometimes up to 3 years), and cannot
| be transferred to any other passenger [0], unlike even
| airmiles; and using them with partner airlines can be
| restricted; many passengers are unaware of much of that
| and airlines do not point it out, and rely on the fact
| that passengers may not realize till the credit has
| expired.
|
| (In 7/2022, Southwest did uniquely eliminate expiration
| on flight credits unexpired from July 28, 2022 onward.)
|
| Just because an airline only initially offers
| (restricted, expiring) travel credits, doesn't mean much;
| in some cases [1] passengers may be entitled to an actual
| money-back refund: (a) canceled flight b) passenger has
| documented medical circumstance c) cancellations due to
| Covid d) possibly other circumstance). One excellent
| advocacy resource is [2] Elliott.org 12/2022: "The
| complete guide to using your airline flight credit now".
| EU regulations are more pro-passenger than USDOT.
|
| Southwest in 3/2022 unveiled its long-awaited new fare
| category "Wanna Get Away Plus" whose key perk is the
| ability to transfer flight credits, which Southwest calls
| travel funds (which sounds like intentionally misleading
| language, but anyway). But again, SW charge more for
| WGA+.
|
| > Southwest Airlines... refund policy for refundable
| flights is a full refund up to 10 mins before the flight.
|
| But that's the minority case: only Southwest's Anytime
| and higher fares are (money-back-)refundable, and they
| are typically way more expensive (2.5-4x) than non-
| refundable WGA fares. I can't find data but AFAIK most SW
| non-business passengers are WGA fares.
|
| So the statement:
|
| >> Tickets are nonrefundable because otherwise the
| network doesn't work, financially.
|
| is in the general case true.
|
| (One well-known travel hack with SWA for frequent
| travelers who didn't know their departure dates 3 weeks
| in advance used to be to buy 3+ different non-refundable
| tickets spaced out by say a week each, then refund
| whichever tickets you didn't end up needing. This was
| still cheaper than one Anytime fare.)
|
| [0]: https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/airline-
| news/2022/03/2...
|
| [1]: https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/advice/2020/10
| /09/flig...
|
| [2]: https://www.elliott.org/ultimate-consumer-guides-
| smart-trave...
| krisoft wrote:
| > Tickets are nonrefundable because otherwise the network
| doesn't work, financially.
|
| Wait. I don't understand you. "Nonrefundable" means to me
| that you who bought a ticket can't decide to not fly and
| ask for your money back.
|
| If the airline for whatever reason decides to not fly the
| route, or doesn't have the capacity then that is a
| different thing altogether. Are you arguing that it is okay
| for an airline to take your money, do not provide you with
| the service promised and keep your money?
| hulitu wrote:
| Haha. As long as lobying is legal this will not happen.
|
| The laws are basicaly made by those companies.
| theydidnt wrote:
| Figures
| spritefs wrote:
| tl;dr Kathy Hochul sabotaged the version of the bill passed by
| the state legislature so that it requires only what Apple and
| Samsung are already doing
|
| The version that came out of the legislature would have required
| OEMs to sell individual components instead of only larger
| assemblies. For example, if something on a macbook board breaks
| they have to sell the individual component. Currently
| Apple/Samsung require you to buy the whole board for several
| hundred dollars
|
| reading between the lines here it's likely that Hochul was
| lobbied by the listed OEMs and NY law allows the governor to make
| sweeping changes to a bill before signing it (for some reason??
| doesn't seem very pro-democracy to me). Video title should be
| "Kathy Hochul Sabotages Right to Repair Bill"
| bubblethink wrote:
| >(for some reason?? doesn't seem very pro-democracy to me).
|
| Pretty sure that the legislature agreed to the amendment. So
| the blame should be equally shared by everyone. And democrats
| wonder why they lose seats in NY.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| >>Pretty sure that the legislature agreed to the amendment.
|
| Pretty sure the legislature is not currently in session and
| could not have "agreed" which to most people would be voting
| on, the amendments to the law.
| bubblethink wrote:
| "I am pleased to have reached an agreement with the
| legislature to address these issues," Hochul wrote.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| Yes I am aware of what she said. You have yet to provide
| what that means, clearly no vote took place as they are
| not in session. So how did the legislature agree, under
| what law, rule, or mechanism was this agreement reached.
|
| I have yet to see anyone explain that, they just keel
| quoting the governor which has zero meaning and given I
| do not trust the governor I have not reason to trust that
| statement
| themitigating wrote:
| Basically you want all the blame to fall to her because
| she's a Democrat whereas the legislator is mixed.
| tohnjitor wrote:
| The state legislatures in NY are Democrat super
| majorities. As of Jan. 1 the Assembly will still be
| majority Democrat but will no longer be a super majority.
| Super majority meaning the Party can pass any legislation
| they want and the minority cannot do anything to counter.
| moloch-hai wrote:
| Corruption is a bipartisan endeavor, particularly in New York
| and Chicago. But it must be said that it was made wholly
| legal by W Supreme Court appointees.
| nojito wrote:
| They lost them because of massive population loss over the
| last few years.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| They lost them in terms of population, and the lost them in
| terms of party flips. The primary reason Republicans have a
| slim Majority in the next session of the US House is party
| flips in NY and FL
| keneda7 wrote:
| There were also a couple seats in CA the left expected to
| take from the right and failed to do so. The right in CA
| figured out they need to ballot harvest (it is legal
| here).
| seanw444 wrote:
| Mind-blowing that you can have a rare nearly-unanimous decision
| be reached at a time when agreement is hard to come by, and it
| still won't get through.
| busterarm wrote:
| That's NY State politics for as old as time.
|
| Cuomo was famous for pulling this kind of shit regularly,
| like with the bi-partisan passed E-bike law he vetoed,
| because he had grudges against sponsors of bills or because
| they didn't come to him personally and "kiss the ring"[1].
|
| Hochul has proved in short time to be every bit as rotten as
| her predecessor. Just without the grab-ass.
|
| [1]: trade political favors in exchange for him not vetoing
| your bill.
| joshspankit wrote:
| > for several hundred dollars
|
| more to the dangerous point: for whatever amount they choose,
| even if they are specifically pricing it to make repair
| unreasonable.
| aaomidi wrote:
| [flagged]
| harporoeder wrote:
| Shameless plug, the organization Louis (and I) work for, FUTO, is
| hosting a fellowship program sponsoring people to work on open-
| source software for three months for $20k-$80k and free housing
| in Austin. Applications are due Jan 1st!
|
| https://futo.org/fellows
| anarticle wrote:
| Very cool project! Louis is one of my favorite youtubers.
|
| One catch on the site is no definition of FUTO? I looked all
| over and couldn't find out what the acronym (?) means. Future
| Use Tech Org? Fun Under The Orange?
| hmnd0 wrote:
| According to Rossmann's FAQ[1] it's 'supposedly "four letters
| that sound good together".......'. Someone did also add an
| entry on Urban Dictionary[2] defining it as "Fuck You, Tech
| Oligopoly"; seems that's the closest we're gonna get to an
| answer for now...
|
| [1] https://store.rossmanngroup.com/faq.txt [2]
| https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=FUTO
| rendall wrote:
| I'm hoping it's recursive.
|
| _FUTO Updates The Organization_ or something
| noisy_boy wrote:
| FUTO Uproots Tech Oligopoly
| nomercy400 wrote:
| [flagged]
| qzx_pierri wrote:
| This is a grifty, reddit-tier comment. Try to keep it classy
| here on HN please.
| neilv wrote:
| Awesome. I just forwarded this urgently, possibly ruining some
| people's plans for Saturday. :)
| rasz wrote:
| Isnt it fully financed by a crypto bro ala SBF "altruism"?
| unnouinceput wrote:
| This is not shameless plug, this is very late plug considering
| Jan 1st is less than 24 hours away. Should've done it faster,
| never heard of this until now.
| readonlybarbie wrote:
| They've been plugging it elsewhere for quite some time now.
| richbell wrote:
| So you're saying they should be ashamed... of not promoting
| it sooner? ;)
| unnouinceput wrote:
| exactly
| jamiek88 wrote:
| Has it occurred to you that perhaps this is just the
| first time YOU are seeing it and that the person you are
| being rude to isn't a complete idiot?
| starkd wrote:
| Inappropriate place for a "shameless plug". Try starting a new
| thread?
| COGlory wrote:
| I don't understand. The bill was passed with an overwhelming,
| veto-proof majority. Then it sat on the Governor's desk until she
| made changes (after intense lobbying)? But the NY legislature is
| not in session, but the bill is signed? So how were the changes
| approved by the legislature? What is the precise legal mechanism
| here? Is this legal? My initial impression is that this is an
| illegal act of tyranny and should be met like that. The governor
| should be impeached.
|
| Or, the very fundamentals of the American democratic system have
| been eroded to a point I previously did not comprehend. This is
| not anything like the picture Schoolhouse Rock painted about how
| this all works.
|
| Also, with a veto-proof majority, why on earth would the
| legislature ever even agree to any changes?
|
| Also also, fuck the governor.
| philistine wrote:
| You can also blame the system. The fact any sort of executive
| official can rewrite what the legislative wrote is insane. To
| hell with your limericks about checks and balances. Once a
| bill's done, no one ought to be able to stop anything.
| dietr1ch wrote:
| It's working as intended
| hackernewds wrote:
| Why so?
| noisy_boy wrote:
| They probably mean "as intended by lobbyists".
| mxkopy wrote:
| No, the system was always intended to have entry points
| for highly interested groups to make a play, at all
| levels. Remember that many of the balances in place are
| levied against (what the founders saw as stupid) people
| represented by popular vote (e.g. the electoral college).
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Really wish Zeldin wasn't an election denier. That's what made
| me vote for governor sellout.
| nemo44x wrote:
| That's such a weird thing to not vote for someone for. I
| mean, I get it - it's a principled stance and all. But you
| should never vote on principal. You should vote to win so
| that the real issues you care about are reified. Principal
| could make you feel good but you still lost. Winning is the
| only thing that matters.
| macNchz wrote:
| Many people consider not having election deniers in
| government to be a "real issue" in and of itself. Having
| people in office who sow discord and continue to promulgate
| a fantasy about election integrity actively takes focus
| away from more important things.
|
| The winning at-all-costs attitude is what got us here in
| the first place: people so concerned with winning and
| having their people in office they don't care if they
| actually won the election, and tell themselves increasingly
| nonsensical things to justify it.
| nemo44x wrote:
| It's about outcomes. If that's an outcome you care
| greatly about then that's your decision to make. For me
| it ranks low on the set of outcomes I desire, especially
| when compared to the outcomes the opposition desires.
|
| The book "Rules for Radicals" talks about this and it has
| been a tool of left wing activists for 60+ years. You see
| it today for instance with various activists groups that
| plea for "our democracy" on one hand while destroying
| things and disrupting society until they get their way
| outside the democratic process.
| trinsic2 wrote:
| The outcome is not in your control. Its like going to a
| rigged casino and expected to win big. This ideology is
| really out of touch with reality.
| Terretta wrote:
| Having elections transition smoothly according to the
| vote is low on the set of outcomes you desire?
|
| That seems like a meta issue, that if not supported, all
| other issues are moot. So I'd certainly vote against
| party on any given platform plank in order to maintain
| the meta process that applies to both present and all
| future parties regardless of platform planks.
| armada651 wrote:
| That kind of cynical thinking is exactly what broke US
| democracy. Winning at any cost even to the detriment of
| society as a whole.
| nemo44x wrote:
| It's from the book "Rules for Radicals" and has been a
| major part of progressive activists strategy for over 60
| years. It works.
| armada651 wrote:
| I didn't say that it doesn't work. It has been a major
| part of the anti-abortion and pro-gun movements as well
| and it has been very effective there.
|
| However your quality of life in society is much more
| important than any single issue. Knowingly voting for a
| candidate who is not competent just because you agree
| with them on a single issue will not solve any of the
| larger issues in society.
| nemo44x wrote:
| It comes down to pragmatism, not ideology.
|
| Consider you have to 2 groups, A and B, and a set of
| issues. Each issue has different importance to me and
| each group has a generally opposing stance on each issue.
|
| One group may have a stance on a subset of issues I
| generally prefer but more importantly the other group
| could have a stance on issues that terrify me. Their
| stance would lead to negative outcomes much worse than
| negative outcomes from the other group. It could even be
| that I disagree with many of the stances of the group I
| vote for but I'm not terrified of the outcomes associated
| with those stances.
|
| So it is therefore more important to win to stop the
| opposition group from producing undesirable outcomes.
| Terretta wrote:
| You're misunderstanding issues versus the mechanism of
| issue management. You're saying ability to manage issues
| is less important than any issue being managed, which
| makes no sense.
|
| Unless, of course, you don't believe in democracy and an
| election process.
| nemo44x wrote:
| I believe in winning so the issues I care about most are
| either acted on or prevented from being acted on. Without
| winning it's pointless. You need to win to take power so
| winning is the most important thing before anything else.
| Everything else has winning as a prerequisite.
| trinsic2 wrote:
| Thank you for stating the obvious... Man.
| namuol wrote:
| > Winning is the only thing that matters.
|
| ...assuming you trust the system to enact policies you care
| about. Punishing the act of disingenuously eroding trust in
| the system for political gain isn't just a matter of
| principal but a clear long term strategy. Believe it or not
| there's another election cycle after this one.
| nemo44x wrote:
| Next election cycle? Who cares, it will be forgotten by
| the next news cycle. Keep winning to keep getting your
| desired outcomes.
| LadyCailin wrote:
| If you vote for me, I'll work to enact everything you want,
| but then I'll also ensure I become dictator so that later I
| can repeal everything I don't like, including most of the
| things I passed for you. Good news is, you won!
| themitigating wrote:
| We often have to vote for the lesser of two evils.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| Not really; I refuse to vote for evil politicians (it keeps
| my karma nice and shiny). Unless voting is mandatory, you
| can simply not vote for anyone. My practice is to vote for
| someone that won't win, like the Greens, but for whom my
| vote might save them their deposit.
| 62346136 wrote:
| Refusing to vote doesn't change the outcome if the only
| choices are bad ones. If anything it means you
| effectively voted for whoever had the majority in the end
| and are still guilty of supporting the greater evil if
| they turn out to be such.
| trinsic2 wrote:
| >If anything it means you effectively voted for whoever
| had the majority in the end and are still guilty of
| supporting the greater evil if they turn out to be such.
|
| Thats red herring. Our electoral system is completely
| corrupt. The only way your vote would actuallycount is if
| all of the politicians we're replaced at once. Then maybe
| there would be an even playing field where it would
| matter.
|
| Your statement of "you effectively voted for whoever had
| the majority" is like living in a state controlled by a
| two party system of gangsters and telling us that we just
| voted for the greater evil. Our two party system is
| corrupt, both parties are corrupt, don't lie to yourself.
| esarbe wrote:
| I think you make it too easy for yourself to drop
| responsibility. "Both parties are corrupt, everything is
| corrupt, the system is corrupt" is just a cope out.
|
| There are efforts to introduce alternative voting systems
| that make 3rd party systems viable. There are efforts to
| get ~~corruption~~ lobbying out of the system, ...
|
| If you really think that the system is "totally corrupt";
| do something to fix it.
| trinsic2 wrote:
| Im not AT ALL responsible for a system that is not
| controlled by the people.
|
| Yes my "do something" is focusing on supporting
| grassroots people and efforts that we have direct control
| over.
|
| I have no interest in supporting systems that are not
| backed up by common individuals.
| tpmoney wrote:
| >If anything it means you effectively voted for whoever
| had the majority in the end and are still guilty of
| supporting the greater evil if they turn out to be such.
|
| No. This is a nice lie that conveniently encourages one
| to vote for the major parties but no. If someone comes up
| to you and offers you a choice of being shot in the arm
| or shot in the leg and you say "I don't want to be shot
| at all" you have no moral responsibility for being shot
| or where you were shot.
| 0dayz wrote:
| Sure, but then you can't either act surprised when the
| more evil politicians are elected and blame people for
| either not voting or voting for better politicians.
|
| You get what you vote or don't vote for
| Retric wrote:
| That's only looking at a single election. Being willing
| to vote for scum means your party is happy to send scum
| to the next general election, at which point you get to
| vote for even more scum.
|
| Have some standards in the general election and people
| start looking at scum thinking their not electable.
| 0dayz wrote:
| If you want better politicians, there are two things you
| can do:
|
| Vote in primaries, there are different rules about this
| but if it means you have to join and participate in party
| activity to vote for a candidate then so be it.
|
| hold them accountable together as ironic as it is: as a
| lobbying group, or even more grandiose work together with
| as many citizens of the state (even across the party
| line, no craziness though), to hold the
| governor/politician accountable.
| Pulcinella wrote:
| Yep don't forget the second option. Direct action is
| always possible. I subscribe to a "block of marble"
| theory of politics: you can always METAPHORICALLY beat
| those in power into shape.
| nulbyte wrote:
| Some states have open primaries, eliminating the need to
| join a party. I wish my state was one of them, because I
| hate the political parties.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| > but if it means you have to join and participate in
| party activity
|
| Yeah. But my shiny karma doesn't want me to join a party
| whose policies I disagree with, just so I can influence
| their choice of candidates. That seems hypocritical, and
| I regard hypocrisy as the cardinal political "sin".
|
| I've never agreed with the policies of any parties, so I
| have never joined a political party. The closest I got
| was that I joined CND, about 40 years ago. I quit about
| 39 years ago.
| themitigating wrote:
| Not voting is voting you taking away a vote from one
| side.
| Pulcinella wrote:
| Doesn't work like that. I've had my red team grandparents
| saying not voting was the same as voting for blue team,
| and my blue team grandparents saying not voting was the
| same as voting for red team. Both things can't be true.
| And even if they were, then not voting would be the same
| as voting for every team, in which case the difference in
| votes between each candidate doesn't change. Not voting
| is just not voting.
| nyrulez wrote:
| Election denier vs right to repair denier. If you consider
| the former less evil, good luck to you.
| Animats wrote:
| The amendment happened back in May 2022, apparently.[1] You can
| read the pre-amendment and post-amendment versions there.
|
| It was pretty much gutted. Right to repair for farm equipment
| was removed entirely, and rights involving digital devices made
| far weaker. That got press coverage in June 2022.[2] Other than
| cell phone screen and case repair, it doesn't seem too useful.
|
| [1]
| https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/s4104/amendm...
|
| [2] https://www.techspot.com/news/94843-new-york-senate-
| official...
| Jon_Lowtek wrote:
| The current debate is about an agreement mentioned in
| memorandum 93 (
| https://twitter.com/JonCampbellNY/status/1608327624526548993
| ), which describes changes that were not part of the
| amendment in May 2022. I also thought it may just be a bad
| summary of those changes, but it details changes that were
| not done in may. So it is either a very badly written memo,
| or there is something more going on than can not currently be
| seen in the public paper trail on the senate website.
| Animats wrote:
| The bad stuff went in back in February, 2022, and was
| adopted in May 2022. Compare the "Limitations" section of
| S4104 and S4104A. That's what guts the bill. Here's the
| "sponsor memo" on the amendment:
|
| _DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ORIGINAL AND AMENDED VERSION:_
|
| _This version makes technical clarifications to the bill,
| including providing that the requirements will apply to
| products with a value over ten dollars, adjusted annually
| based on the consumer price index. Another adds that
| nothing in the section will require that an OEM or
| authorized repair provider make available any parts, tools
| or documentation if the intended use is for making
| modifications to digital electronic equipment. Others
| provide that nothing in the section will require an OEM or
| authorized repair provider to make available parts, tools
| or documentation for 1) public safety communications
| equipment used for emergency response or prevention
| purposes by an emergency service organization, 2) where it
| may be in violation of federal law such as with gaming and
| entertainment consoles, related software, and components,
| or 3) home appliances with digital electronics embedded
| within them._
|
| _Manufacturers, distributors, importers, or dealers of
| off-road equipment are added to the exclusions, those to
| whom the requirements would not apply._
|
| _Amendments also include extending the effective date of
| the bill from 120 days to one year after it shall have
| become a law._
| Jon_Lowtek wrote:
| the _" bad stuff"_ currently discussed is about
| manufacturers only making assemblies available, not
| components. (that is the big topic in the linked video) I
| diffed S4104 and S4104A and don't see that in the
| changes. I also don't see the interpretation of Louis
| Rossmann in the old version, the definition of "part" was
| always quite open to interpretation and neither
| "component" nor "assembly" are mentioned in S4104A. But
| the relevant point here is: the governors memo explicitly
| states that the manufacturer only needs to provide
| assemblies, not components, if there is a risk of injury.
| The only change from S4104 to S4104A using the word
| "injury" is the new section 5 about liability. The change
| mentioned in the governors memo is not in the amended
| bill that passed Senate and Assembly in May/June 2022.
|
| The governors memo also talks about eliminating the
| requirement related to overriding security features,
| which is section 2.B of the bill. Again the change the
| governors memo describes is not in the amendment made
| earlier this year.
|
| The governors memo also talks about business to business
| and business to government sales. There is a point 3.E
| related to emergency communication equipment, but it
| would be a stretch to match those. Again the change the
| governors memo mentions as being agreed upon is not
| there.
|
| I would be happy if the governors approval memo is
| horseshit and talks nonsense. Because the alternative is
| that they are making backroom deals changing the bills
| text between senate vote and signing.
| Animats wrote:
| Right. We need to wait until the NY site updates and
| shows the final version of the bill as "signed by
| governor". Probably Tuesday.
| rendall wrote:
| One comment on the video a) notes that the legislature approved
| the changes and b) would not have passed the bill otherwise in
| the first place, but get to blame the governor.
| COGlory wrote:
| How can the legislature approve changes when they are not in
| session?
|
| And WHY would they do that?
| juancb wrote:
| As a country with a strong economy of defining things of
| producing IP, it makes no sense to allow others to modify our
| definitions; they are immutable and sacrosanct. On the other
| hand, if we were a country with an economy producing tangible
| things like parts or assemblies that can be used to repair
| something, it would make sense to allow folks to repair things.
|
| I am all for right to repair, but that is a pipe dream in our
| country, given our economic realities.
| nrp wrote:
| For folks wondering how the late changes to the bill happened,
| you can see who funded the lobby efforts here:
| https://reports.ethics.ny.gov/publicquery/AssociatedFilings/...
| klabb3 wrote:
| Lobbying in its current implementation is functionally
| equivalent to bribery. That doesn't mean interest groups can't
| talk to politicians. But the attention should be proportional
| to the people they represent.
|
| For instance, I'm sure that the execs at Microsoft, and a
| subset of their employees, agree with their lobbying. But I
| don't understand how politicians can justify the level of
| engagement with a big economic player, who represents a tiny
| amount of people. When we vote, we have one vote each. But when
| we lobby, our "votes" differ in several orders of magnitude.
|
| When it comes to autocratic foreign regimes, we understand the
| risks and monitor for behavior that can hurt the nation. But
| corporations are also autocratic, sometimes nation-state sized,
| and their interests are often directly opposed to the interests
| of our citizens. Even from an economic perspective,
| corporations are semi-detached from their original host nation
| through tax planning and funneling of assets overseas. However,
| since their public identity appears shared, from a nationalist
| perspective, we seem to put our guard down even though they
| have both the incentives and abilities to harm us in similar
| ways.
|
| This perspective is in my view politically neutral, even though
| it may sound leftist in our bizarre political climate. But this
| is equally - if not more concerning - from a free market
| perspective. Corporations don't just lobby against consumers,
| but also against _the competition_. In the case of right to
| repair, we don't actually need Apple to provide cheap
| components and repairs, we just need to be able to get them
| elsewhere on the free market. In fact, Luis Rossman is coming
| from precisely this angle, as an entrepreneur who wants nothing
| but the right to serve his customers.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| I love how the USA essentially rebranded bribery and corruption
| as "lobbying", so it can pretend corruption is something that
| only happens elsewhere.
| reilly3000 wrote:
| This is an awesome resource, but I'm left wondering how to
| interpret the data. For instance I see that Microsoft paid for
| a bunch of lobbying for a bunch of things, and it's clear they
| had 2 meetings with NY Senators and Executive staff about S
| 4104. What I don't see is what they were advocating for. Are
| they for or against it? Did they push some language that would
| benefit them in the long run? All I can see so far is that they
| were at the table. I haven't seen the video just yet but I'm
| sure Louis will break it down.
| meindnoch wrote:
| Yes, my friend, we ought to give Microsoft the benefit of the
| doubt, since they gave us VSCode and GitHub. Why would they
| lobby for such an evil thing? Surely, this must be some grave
| misunderstanding!
| akira2501 wrote:
| Monopolies give things away to destroy competition, not to
| warm the hearts of consumers.
| BarryMilo wrote:
| Seems to me like the parent comment was being sarcastic,
| though in fairness you never know on the internet.
| politelemon wrote:
| That's a piss poor take. I see the "DIGITAL RIGHT TO REPAIR
| COALITION" on the list, shall we assume they were also
| against the right to repair?
| rychco wrote:
| I think in this case it's fair to assume all the donors here
| are against right to repair.
| jbsss wrote:
| That's a bad assumption. The "DIGITAL RIGHT TO REPAIR
| COALITION" and " AGRIBUSINESS ASSOCIATION (NYS)" were on
| that list. I'd find it hard to believe they were involved
| with neutering this bill.
|
| I would still agree with you though, most of the orgs on
| that list were likely at the table attempting to ruin the
| bill.
| nequo wrote:
| Spectacular. Doing government as if it was a Sotheby's
| auction. The law goes to the highest bidder.
| celestialcheese wrote:
| Can confirm DIGITAL RIGHT TO REPAIR COALITION is
| Repair.org and was the opposition to TechNet and all the
| OEMs lobbying against this bill.
| [deleted]
| tharne wrote:
| [flagged]
| wiseleo wrote:
| Madison Avenue may disagree about the statement about creative
| people. There are a lot of creatives in New York especially. As
| for good-looking people, there are several fashion modeling
| agencies there, which are an integral part of advertising. :)
| tharne wrote:
| > Madison Avenue may disagree about the statement about
| creative people.
|
| It was a joke :)
|
| I don't think any reasonable person believes that NYC is
| devoid of good-looking and creative people.
| wanderer2323 wrote:
| Jokes are supposed to have some attempt at humor in them,
| you know
| IIAOPSW wrote:
| California is what happens when you take New York, get rid of
| the amazing public transit, then add a fake smile.
| Gigachad wrote:
| What is the justification for being able to change the terms
| after the votes have taken place?
| scifibestfi wrote:
| The government's #1 excuse for anything they want to do without
| having to actually justify it:
|
| "Safety"
| fear_and_coffee wrote:
| The government's will mysteriously synched with corporate
| interests
| richbell wrote:
| The word of the day is "Regulatory Capture".
|
| (Yes, I know that's two words, "don't @ me" as the youths
| would say.)
| hyperhopper wrote:
| Just say "phrase"
| joshspankit wrote:
| "The only safe way to do _____ is for our competitors to
| have to play by our rules, on our turf, and with us making
| sure they don't do anything we consider unsafe."
| RobotToaster wrote:
| And what is "safe" just happens to be exactly what their
| corporate "donors" want.
| Buraksr wrote:
| My understanding is that it is more a consequence of politics
| than the system... Sure you have a veto proof majority on this
| bill, but what about what comes next?
|
| The governor is able to stop "tyranny of masses" by their veto
| power. Almost no bill in our partisan age is able to pass with
| a veto proof majority. So the governor has the ability to
| prevent good outcomes for specific members of their party in
| the legislature in the future. Sure a budget that makes the
| party and governor look good will pass, but members who "step
| out of line", will find that they can't "bring home the bacon"
| in terms of what is allocated to their district.
|
| So could the bill be pushed through unmodified despite an
| governor's veto? Of course. The system expressly allows this
| given a 2/3rds vote. But the legislature needs to weigh their
| options:
|
| 1.) Have all members push the bill forward anyways 2.) Have
| just enough members push the bill forward 3.) Accept the
| governor's revisions and move the bill forward 4.) Drop the
| bill
|
| As a representative it is hard to tell which of 1/2 you are
| choosing in the moment. The issue is that 2 may paint a target
| on your back. The members of the party opposing the governor
| are less incentivized to care about the veto. So do you want
| the governor to hold a grudge with "1 of X" representatives of
| their own party who sided against them? Granted the legislature
| is about 2/3rds democrat, so for a break with the governor to
| happen maybe half the democratic legislature would have to
| break with the governor.
|
| 3 Is appealing over 4, since you are able to claim victory for
| now. Something was passed after all, and the name of the bill
| alone is usually enough to make a good ad come re-election. and
| if the issues really are so severe, this is just another
| victory for the future you.
| Jon_Lowtek wrote:
| The Legislative is not a single person, who weights the
| options, who accepts the governors revision on behalf of the
| senate and assembly?
| Buraksr wrote:
| The language on their website implies that they act
| collectively in the event of a veto "A vetoed bill can
| become law if two-thirds of the members of each house vote
| to override the Governor's veto."[0].
|
| Practically speaking, there are usually committees (may be
| area specific, or general such as scheduling/introductory)
| that make the first choice as to how the process will
| continue. For new york this seems to be the standing
| committee which decides what will be put to a vote, "
| Members of Standing Committees evaluate bills and decide
| whether to "report" them (send them) to the Senate floor
| for a final decision by the full membership."[0].
|
| [0]-https://www.nysenate.gov/how-bill-becomes-law
| Jon_Lowtek wrote:
| Thank you for the explanation, but that does not quite
| hit the spot: it explains what would happen if the
| governor vetoes the bill. In this case the governor
| claims she made some "agreement" with the Legislative to
| change the text of the bill shortly before signing it.
| And it appears that happened without Senate and Assembly
| voting on these changes, completely skipping this "final
| decision by the full membership".
|
| I would like to know who the governor made an agreement
| with. The Standing Committees might be a possibility.
| kwiens named the bills sponsors as a possibility.
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34193369). If the
| bill was changed shortly before signing it, i would also
| like to know what the text of the signed bill is. This
| whole process implied by memorandum #93 seems irregular
| to me.
|
| Stuff like this should be documented publicly, IMHO.
| Linosaurus wrote:
| > 3.) Accept the governor's revisions and move the bill
| forward
|
| Nice write up, but leaves me wondering how this works
| formally.
|
| My main guesses:
|
| 1.) There will be a vote to formally accept the new changes,
| but it's treated as a done deal.
|
| 2.) The governor can formally edit the text to say anything
| she wants, and it's up to the legislature to protest
| afterwards.
| unity1001 wrote:
| > "tyranny of masses"
|
| That's democracy. If you water down or prevent the democratic
| will through ANY means to empower the will of the minority
| over the majority for ANY reason, then you end up
| implementing the governance of an elite.
|
| Minority rights of the people are a different matter - they
| would be guaranteed by the civil law governing human rights
| in a country - they dont have anything to do with the
| democratic will.
| jamiek88 wrote:
| No.
|
| We live in representative democracies not absolute
| democracies and these table thumping maximalist positions
| rarely make good conversation or policy.
|
| They get retweeted though.
| unity1001 wrote:
| > representative democracies / absolute democracies
|
| The dichotomy above is impossible to interpret. What does
| that even mean. So when a democracy is representative,
| the minority's will can override the majority's will?
| Then what does the representation part in the
| representative democracy mean.
| ThrustVectoring wrote:
| > So when a democracy is representative, the minority's
| will can override the majority's will?
|
| Yes, and this is a feature, not a bug. Majority voting on
| issues one at a time _cannot_ generate a deal that a
| majority would prefer when the compromise is presented as
| a block. Eg, if there are six different compatible
| single-issues that 10% of the people care _solely_ about
| each, each individual one would get voted down 90-10,
| while representatives _can_ make a bargain that delivers
| a combined platform approved of by 60%.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| What does compatible mean if they would get voted down
| 90-10?
| ThrustVectoring wrote:
| Something like a policy proposal costing a low but non-
| zero amount of money for exactly zero benefit outside of
| the eyes of the 10% who _really_ care about their pet
| cause. The non-packaged proposals get voted down not
| because the majority hates them, but because they _don 't
| care_, at least not like the special interest does.
|
| If a vector space is more your jam, imagine a six-
| dimensional vector space of policies, and each of these
| six hypothetical interest groups as voting for any
| combination of policies with a positive value along the
| axis in question, and against any combination of policies
| with a negative value. [100, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1], [-1,
| 100, -1, -1, -1, -1], etc, will each get voted down when
| presented individually as policies, but their sum as a
| package gets supported by each interest group.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I see, thanks for example.
| unity1001 wrote:
| That's not relevant. You are talking about coalition
| governments, in which the ensuing coalition government
| still represents the will of the majority. Each ~20%
| segment of the population represented by the 20%
| participant in the coalition government pushing forth
| ~20% supported issues and passing them does not mean that
| those are the will if the minority. It means that only
| 20% want to pass it now, but the rest do NOT object to
| its passing. That's still a majority government.
|
| For a democratic majority-minority situation to occur,
| you must have 20% of the population wanting to pass
| something, but at least 20% of the population opposing
| it.
| ThrustVectoring wrote:
| In this hypothetical, the rest _do_ object to the pet
| issues of others in the coalition, but only weakly. Like,
| I personally would vote against corn subsidies by itself,
| for abortion rights, and for a package of (corn subsidies
| plus abortion rights). The exact policies I mentioned don
| 't particularly matter, I'm sure you can find your own
| set of two issues that you'd vote this way on if it came
| down to it - the issues you have _an_ opinion on, but you
| 'd hold your nose and concede the issue if it was the
| price of something _really_ important to you.
|
| And when two or more minority interest groups feel this
| way on each other's issues, it _is_ a failure to enact
| the "will of the people" if you use strict issue-by-
| issue majoritarianism. After all, each individual pet
| issue fails on its own merits - they just aren't broadly
| popular enough.
|
| Fundamentally, the issue is that strengths of preferences
| do not show up in a referendum on a topic. Furthermore,
| there's no way to credibly commit to a compromise that
| gets you something important in exchange for a relatively
| unimportant concession. I'm not saying these issues
| outweigh the benefits of direct democracy, they're just
| problems that can get solved by a representative system.
| ThrustVectoring wrote:
| Pure majoritarianism isn't necessarily best either, it just
| always takes the majority's side in disputes where a
| strongly-held minority opinion comes in conflict with a
| weakly-held majority one. Like, it's obvious that you
| should take the side of the majority when it's "we'd rather
| not be slightly inconvenienced by paying for rent-seekers"
| regardless of how intensely the minority of rent-seekers
| want to rent-seek, but it's much less obvious that we
| should have zero handouts to narrow interests when it's
| "please spend $10000 per life saved via rare-disease
| research and treatment, I don't care how little the general
| public is aware of and cares about it and would generally
| prefer lower taxes"
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > but it's much less obvious that we should have zero
| handouts to narrow interests when it's "please spend
| $10000 per life saved via rare-disease research and
| treatment, I don't care how little the general public is
| aware of and cares about it and would generally prefer
| lower taxes"
|
| In reality, this turns into we should have billion dollar
| handouts to narrow interests because rather than use
| taxpayer funds to R&D cures into the public domain using
| the existing world class university system, the narrow
| interests would prefer being able to benefit from
| patented medicines:
|
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/drug-prices-reach-new-
| highin-th...
|
| > Since August, U.S. or European health regulators have
| approved four new products intended as one-time
| treatments for rare genetic diseases that carry list
| prices of at least $2 million a patient, including two
| from Bluebird Bio Inc.
| ThrustVectoring wrote:
| Okay, make the hypothetical be malaria nets or insulin
| then. The exact specifics don't matter all _that_ much,
| it 's just an illustration that you can't use issue-by-
| issue majoritarianism to generate a coalition that can
| pass a broadly popular group of policies that lacks
| individual plank-by-plank popularity. There's no
| enforcement mechanism to coordinate a "you vote for my
| pet issue and I'll vote for yours".
| unity1001 wrote:
| > it's "please spend $10000 per life saved via rare-
| disease research and treatment
|
| That's an extreme extrapolation. Sure, the majority would
| maybe not care at all for such a minority treatment if it
| came to pass. But then again, the practical reality is
| that in a system that allows minority to override the
| majority, everything else goes wrong even if that one
| goes right.
|
| There is an example. The US was explicitly crafted as a
| format that would allow the minority to override the
| majority to prevent 'the tyranny of the majority'. This
| was explicitly expressed by various founding fathers of
| the US, especially by de facto architect of its
| constutition, John Adams. And that's the reason why there
| is FPTP, the Senate, the supreme court, with the latter
| two easily able to override whatever majority vote is.
|
| They did this because they feared the majority demanding
| land redistribution and passing it with their vote. The
| British aristocrats' lands were confiscated and
| redistributed after the revolution, that was ok. But the
| founding fathers feared that it would give ideas to the
| people about the lands of the now-American-but-ex-British
| elite like themselves.
| MonkeyMalarky wrote:
| Right? That seems pretty antithetical to democracy. At least
| where I live, when the senate doesn't like a bill, they send it
| back to Parliament with recommendations. They can't just tack
| on whatever they feel like and ascend it from there.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Seems pretty typical of a republic though.
| 58028641 wrote:
| The legislature agreed to the changes.
| kwiens wrote:
| The governor told the legislative sponsors that they had to
| accept these changes or she would veto the bill. It was
| accept this reduction, or nothing.
| Jon_Lowtek wrote:
| Can the original sponsors just change the bill, between the
| bill passing the senate and the governor signing it,
| without having such amendments voted on by the senate and
| assembly?
| kevingadd wrote:
| Didn't it pass with a veto-proof majority?
| kova12 wrote:
| Representatives won't be picking the fight against
| governor since there's a chance that said governor might
| veto something else with their name on it. One hand rubs
| another in other words.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| I have asked this repeatedly. Maybe you can answer it
|
| Outside of the quote from the governor where she makes this
| statement, WHERE is this agreement? Under what authority was
| the agreement made, WHO in the legislature agreed to it?
| Under what authority did this person(s) make the agreement
|
| I ask because currently the NY legislature is not in session,
| and no vote could have taken place which is normally how one
| gets an "agreement" from a legislature
| [deleted]
| lbotos wrote:
| I like you have seen that line parroted, and I _thought_
| this would be the place that shows the state of affairs:
|
| https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/s4104/amend
| m...
|
| Hasn't been updated yet.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| It reads like either a
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement sort of
| scenario, or that there's been an agreement with leadership
| to push through an amending law as soon as possible.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| Given that the original law was passed with a veto proof
| majority, what happens if the actual members of the
| legislature simply refuse to pass an amending law?
| wyldfire wrote:
| There's probably a quid pro quo that motivates them to
| amend it.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| That would be a good reason to start calling them.
| silisili wrote:
| This is really sad. I used to watch Louis when he was coming up.
| I didn't even own an Apple device, I just liked how he'd treat
| customers and show all of us his approach, and how to do it, for
| free.
|
| The corrupt government ruined him. It turned a beautiful young
| mind ready to change the world into a really bitter person.
| That's not a knock against him, but against the NYS Government.
| Glad he moved away, and hope he has more success in other
| districts.
| sitkack wrote:
| Louis isn't bitter. Outraged, concerned, but not bitter. There
| are so many dimensions and textures to "upset", I feel like
| folks have lost their ability to discern all the different
| types.
| starbugs wrote:
| I don't think he's bitter. He's just outraged and for good
| reason. We all should be I believe?
| pfoof wrote:
| His bitterness is a great trait of him that on every video
| makes you feel "I can relate"
| rendall wrote:
| He'll be ok. Bitterness comes when one focuses on how reality
| does not meet expectations. However, reality is noisy, and just
| as often exceeds expectations. We can all choose where to place
| our focus.
| hericium wrote:
| Whenever I read about NY mayors or governors, it's like they are
| trying to be Gotham.
| themitigating wrote:
| You didn't mention the ny legislator which must vote and pass a
| bill before it goes to the governor, why?
|
| Also mayors weren't involved in this discussion.
| hericium wrote:
| I wasn't referring to this particular case. Mentioned what I
| read in the past about (city) mayors and (state) governors
| and how to me - an outsider from the EU - it's these people
| who make New York similar to Gotham City.
|
| Short answer: because I don't read about them.
| zeroCalories wrote:
| This is really sad. I don't follow politics, but I didn't think
| this level of blatant corruption really existed in the US.
| chrischen wrote:
| Is this really corruption? I mean, it's just how our politics
| works. It's so blatant because it is how it works.
| ectopod wrote:
| This is true of every corrupt country. It's just how things
| are done. It's still corrupt.
| rychco wrote:
| Honestly this is a fairly mild example of blatant corruption in
| the US. It's so commonplace I really wouldn't expect anything
| less.
| 58028641 wrote:
| The Supreme Court has struck down most attempts to get rid of
| corruption.
| https://www.opensecrets.org/resources/learn/timeline
| userbinator wrote:
| "safety and security"...
|
| I've always thought the infamous Ben Franklin quote, despite this
| not being the intended context originally, has become a memorable
| and brief way to show your opposition for this sort of thing.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| Another important point that the video doesn't touch on: the
| environment.
|
| Not being able to repair a device means less reuse, more e-waste,
| more garbage and that's bad for the environment.
|
| So this bill can be interpreted not only as "fuck the consumer",
| it's also "fuck the environment", "fuck our future", "fuck the
| planet", etc.
|
| It's doubling down on planned obsolescence.
| [deleted]
| mrandish wrote:
| Sadly, the only surprising thing about this is that anyone is
| surprised the bill got 'mysteriously' nerfed at the last minute.
| This is the danger of centralizing too much power in government.
| A very good first step would be "one-and-done" term limits for
| all state and federal elected officials with restrictions on
| accepting employment with lobbyists or stakeholders with
| significant government business for five years after holding
| office.
| rish1_2 wrote:
| This is the vice of every public or private organization ever
| in existence. The term "politics" likely was created for this
| behavior.
|
| Checks and balances are needed whenever organizations are
| formed to avoid these kind of vices.
|
| But that will never happen.
| bubblethink wrote:
| It seems like ballot measures are the only way a real R2R bill
| will pass. The incentives will never allow it to pass through the
| usual legislative route.
| tohnjitor wrote:
| Ballot measures in NYS can only be proposed by the legislature.
| soniman wrote:
| There are manufacturers that explicitly encourage repairability,
| right? Lenovo? Any others?
| dns_snek wrote:
| https://frame.work/
| college_physics wrote:
| Every such event reminds me of that celebrated fraud of an
| academic who argued that corporations exist to maximize profit
| within the applicable legal framework and that it is how things
| should be.
|
| The fact that corporate entities actively shape the legal
| framework to suit narrow interests that frequently undermine
| collective welfware somehow escaped him.
|
| When intellectual dishonesty and amoral behavior reach such
| systemic levels society crosses boiling points
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| Are you referencing Milton Friedman? In which case I completely
| agree.
| adlpz wrote:
| Very well said. I believe in the ideals of individual
| initiative and market economy as means to achieve a better
| world for everybody, but when externalities and systemic
| inefficiencies are ignored and frameworks to deal with them are
| shaped by the same entities that are supposed to be ruled by
| said frameworks, the whole system corrupts and devolves into a
| machine that only benefits the few, while keeping the facade of
| legitimacy, which makes it doubly dangerous.
| js8 wrote:
| But why have corporations at all then, and not, for instance,
| worker cooperatives?
| adaml_623 wrote:
| Really unclear comment. Who are you talking about
| [deleted]
| college_physics wrote:
| its been revealed by other comments. it might be a bit unfair
| to single out any particular person as responsible for
| providing intellectual cover to a manifestly inaquate
| ideology. he is basically just the convenient reference for
| an entire school of thought. had he not existed somebody else
| would have had that role.
| butlerm wrote:
| There are many types of corporations beyond those organized for
| profit. Non-profit corporations typically have different
| governance structures. Both types are restricted to pursue the
| aims and purposes described in their articles of incorporation.
| Labor unions are a good example of a non-profit corporation for
| example, as are credit unions, and most charitable
| organizations.
|
| Friedman's point is not so easily dispensed with by calling him
| names. He is arguing that a corporation that is formed for the
| purpose of generating profits for its shareholders is most
| effective when it focuses on that and then the dividends and
| capital gains generated for the shareholders can more
| effectively be applied by them to charitable enterprises as
| they see fit. That is not an excuse for a corporation to rape
| and pillage the countryside, break any law, or behave in an
| objectively unethical manner.
|
| It merely means a corporation should pursue the aims for which
| it was formed and is legally restricted to, and especially not
| be hijacked to pursue interests that its members or
| shareholders would not support. The latter is basically a form
| of theft, although the loss of focus usually takes milder
| forms.
| college_physics wrote:
| > That is not an excuse for a corporation to rape and pillage
| the countryside, break any law, or behave in an objectively
| unethical manner.
|
| The problem is that the laws that are relevant in this
| context are far from a static body. They are in constant flux
| as new behaviors, new knowledge and new technologies are
| adopted. This necessitates continous new rule making and new
| regulations that must be fit-for-purpose.
|
| Shareholder profit maximization under current systems means
| it is rational (and a very profitable project) to proactively
| capture the political system. There is no meaningful penalty
| and eliminating the downside or creating more upside is
| enormously valuable (in monetary terms).
|
| Instead of rule takers that must optimize profit within their
| designated sandbox, giant private entities become the
| unchallenged rule makers. This is not intrinsically and
| automatically evil. It becomes so whenever the monetary
| profit of a narrow set is grossly misaligned with the welfare
| of broader segments of society.
|
| Examples abound. As they keep piling up they undermine the
| legitimacy of the very system. Killing the golden goose of a
| well governed market democracy and opening the door for
| uglier versions of society.
| abigail95 wrote:
| There should be some rule against calling a Nobel prize winner
| a fraud, without a very convincing argument.
|
| Go away.
| college_physics wrote:
| > Go away.
|
| As your amoral ideology masquerading as science ruins society
| and the planet you will find increasingly more "unconvincing
| folks" annoying your pristine reasoning
| mordae wrote:
| Why? Nobel prize committee is not accountable to the global
| public.
| r_hoods_ghost wrote:
| Is this an academic who is celebrated and is a fraud or an
| academic who was defrauded. The second would be deliciously
| ironic. The first alas could describe entire economics sub
| fields
| buzzy_hacker wrote:
| I take it they are referring to Milton Friedman.
| codekansas wrote:
| I'm not sure I understand what the alternative is - should you
| pretend that corporations are not ruthless profit maximizers,
| and allow them to have undue sway over our legislative system
| all the same? It seems like the root of the problem is that
| we've let the institutions which are supposed to hold our
| politicians to account when they exhibit blatant corruption
| fall into disrepair.
| fallingknife wrote:
| The problem is that while corporations are in fact ruthless
| profit maximizers, government officials are ruthless power
| maximizers. So not sure how to manage the interaction between
| them. The goal should be to keep them fighting, though.
| college_physics wrote:
| > The goal should be to keep them fighting, though.
|
| Yep. Perversely, various pathologies are actually
| entrenched because "fighting" is avoided via all sorts of
| collusion, cartels, revolving doors etc.
| college_physics wrote:
| there are plenty of remedies. the interface of private
| (narrow) and public (broad) interest is vital and unavoidable
| but it should be subject to outmost transparency and
| independent checks. further, corporate structures (size,
| contracts etc) can change themselves (they are just legal
| constructs after all) to reduce perverse incentives.
| codekansas wrote:
| Isn't the first part just rephrasing what I said?
| katbyte wrote:
| Do not allow corporations to lobby and influence the law. Do
| no allow politicians to profit from changes to the law (ie
| playing the stock markets)
|
| Companies are not people and do not have rights.
| codekansas wrote:
| I mean, doesn't that necessarily follow from an implicit
| understanding that corporations are ruthless profit
| maximizers though? I fail to see the supposed ideological
| inconsistency...
| abigail95 wrote:
| But people have rights and just because you organise
| together as a union or a company, the government can't use
| that as a backdoor to limit your rights (Citizens United).
| amelius wrote:
| Why not? If you organize together that means you have
| more power than an individual. Governments can and should
| certainly try to equalize that imbalance where possible
| and where it makes sense.
| themitigating wrote:
| The US Surpreme court ruled they are people.
|
| https://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-
| companies-...
| Drakim wrote:
| The funny thing is that corporations have a bunch of
| advantages like limited liability on top of the US
| Supreme court ruling them to have the same rights as
| people, which means that corporations actually have more
| rights than regular people.
| fallingknife wrote:
| People also have limited liability. You can't be sued for
| the actions of another person, or held responsible for
| the debt of another person.
| anticensor wrote:
| Limited liability of business companies is much stricter.
| Natural persons do not have an automatic protection
| against debts beyond one's own wealth.
| maxbond wrote:
| It was a normative statement I believe ("companies should
| not be people and should not have rights") rather than a
| factual one (I'm sure they're aware & that's why they
| felt compelled to make the declaration). English is sadly
| lacking in this regard, where you often get to make a
| strongly worded statement or an unambiguous statement,
| but it's very difficult to do both at the same time.
| butlerm wrote:
| A corporation is a type of association and has rights that
| are derivative of its member's rights. An association is
| composed of people. The only reason why a corporation (or
| other association) has First Amendment rights is because it
| is exercising the First Amendment rights of its owners and
| members. The personhood of a corporation is a legal
| fiction. The personhood of the ultimate members or
| shareholders of a corporation is not.
| trinsic2 wrote:
| Corporations rights don't trump the rights of people.
| They are subject to the people for a reason, they are
| organizations that exist for the people, of the people
| and by the people. This is why we ALLOW them to exist
| with charters to operate and the discretion of the
| people. And by the way that part has also been corrupted,
| charters essentially don't even matter now.
| anticensor wrote:
| In Swedish law, corporations' (Aktienbolayet) interests
| do actually trump their own shareholders' interest.
| trinsic2 wrote:
| I'm not sure what that means in terms of the common
| people. In my mind, shareholders, in the shareholding
| position, are the same as the corporations. When a person
| has a vested interest that could run counter to the will
| of the people, then In my mind that is not role where the
| person has rights that trump the will of the common
| people.
|
| I know laws are made differently in different countries.
| But the idea of common law is more about doing whats
| right for everyone involved in daily living regardless of
| country. Corporations and making profit, in principle, is
| a byproduct of people and when those for-profit
| situations runs counter to the will of people, then in
| principle, that system should be subject to conditions
| set by people who actual care about its effects on the
| world.
| thetopher wrote:
| I just can't watch Rossmann's videos anymore. He's a smart guy
| with important things to say, but it's hard to take him
| seriously. His videos are 90% hyperbole, cynicism, and snide
| remarks. It's too much to put up with to figure out what he's
| really trying to say. I have to wonder if this style appeals to
| his audience, or if he'd be more effective without it.
| mordae wrote:
| He's just tired.
| blamazon wrote:
| This happens with a lot of full time YouTubers. They optimize
| the facets of their performance that boost the metrics with the
| mainstream and it often alienates the core audience that got
| them off the ground.
|
| I'm not surprised Louis has gone all in on emotional anti-
| authoritarian rants, it must play well with 'the algorithm',
| versus laptop repair.
| raybb wrote:
| Link to thread this week on another of Louis's video about the
| same topic:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34170525 (17 comments)
| Cypher wrote:
| sucks
| 95014_refugee wrote:
| For those of us that cannot _stand_ listening to Louis babble on,
| is there a concise summary written somewhere?
| fexecve wrote:
| The bill originally was going to make available to customers
| and independent service centers the same parts and manuals that
| manufacturer repair centers have. The governor edited the bill
| slightly in a way that makes it almost useless now. It was
| edited to say that manufacturers don't have to provide parts if
| they think that there's a safety issue. They can just make a
| "full assembly" available rather than individual parts. This
| means that if you have a $800 device, and a $10 part can fix
| it, but the manufacturer decides that it's a "safety issue" to
| sell anything less than a $700 "motherboard assembly" then this
| negates the entire purpose of right to repair. He says "this
| bill allows for malicious compliance in a way that makes it
| functionally useless".
| nobody9999 wrote:
| I'd also note (assuming the local news I saw had it right),
| that the changes also only require manufacturers to provide
| such "assemblies" if and only if they are _manufactured in
| New York state after June 1, 2023_.
|
| The news may have it wrong, but that's an oddly specific
| claim to wrongly make, IMHO.
| a9h74j wrote:
| Seems conceivable that this could come back to bite a
| manufacturer. For example, more cause for "safety recalls",
| or need to admit in testimony that a major assembly "had a
| known safety issue". Or might dealers be on the hook for
| higher certifications of repair technicians?
| droidist2 wrote:
| He doesn't babble that much in this one, it's just a brief
| interview.
| djmips wrote:
| It's pretty short. But you can also read the transcript here.
| https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=7xGBB-717AI
| userbinator wrote:
| I watched the video at 2x speed. For me, he is perfectly
| understandable at that speed.
| [deleted]
| 58028641 wrote:
| All of US politics is corrupted by the donors because Supreme
| Court has declared many laws against corruption unconstitutional.
| https://www.opensecrets.org/resources/learn/timeline
| specialist wrote:
| Just terrific. Illuminates the descent into madness most
| effectively. Thank you for sharing.
|
| Yes and:
|
| With Percoco v US and Ciminelli v. US, the current SCOTUS has
| another opportunity to bat down the government's ability to
| combat fraud.
|
| https://crooked.com/podcast/making-fraud-great-again/
|
| https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/ciminelli-v-unit...
|
| Embarrassingly, or perhaps tellingly, SCOTUS has previously
| been non-partisan in asserting their own immunity to frivolous
| stuff like anti-fraud and ethical oversight.
| honeybadger1 wrote:
| I am sure the Governors net worth just went significantly up.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-31 23:02 UTC)