For example... bartender licensing... What, specifically, needs to be removed from that list?
There are many jurisdictions that don't require bartenders to be licensed. If no one can show a disparity of outcomes between licensing and not licensing, then all of it should be removed. We don't need a government enforcement regime for every notional "good idea" or "good practice".
It's science versus emotion. If licenses don't help in the real world, they shouldn’t be required because of some FUD and storytelling.
Except that the "defendant" in that administrative case can still turn to the judicial branch if the administrative action is not fair.
In other words:
We're taking away your license so you can’t work, but you can spend the next 2 years in court trying to get it back if you want. Meanwhile you're prohibited from working at your job and there's never going to be any way for you to get that lost income back, even if you win.
Bartender sells a beer to a 16-year old because he didn't bother ID'ing the kid. Do you want him to have to take a week off work (license suspended), or do you want him to go to jail for 3 months? Keep in mind the latter also requires the bartender to be out of work for months awaiting trial, while the former gets decided in about a day.
I'd prefer he keep his job until he's found guilty or pleads guilty and then has to pay a fine.
6. A mirror is another surface that increases the profile of the car. If you just barely hit a car or a person on one side of the car, you'll hit them with the mirror. 7. Mirrors fog up, frost over, and get covered by snow. A camera lens can also be blocked, but camera lenses are smaller and the camera already has power available to defrost the lens. 8. Cameras can be used to record video. 9. Rear view mirror vision can be blocked by passengers or cargo. 10. Rear windows are partially designed for driver vision through the rear view mirror. Using a camera eliminates this requirement for rear window design. 11. Mirrors need to be adjusted for taller or shorter drivers. Displays work at more angles.
I love it when people casually decide that others should be harmed or killed. And then "repeat that every year". Really shows just how much they value the lives of others.
You want government to use vague emotional appeals and storytelling to make decisions instead of science and evidence.
Also, this requires realizing that many licensing regulations are in place because they allow the violation to be handled administratively instead of criminally.
Yeah. In a criminal trial, the government has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant has zealously protected rights. When things are handled “administratively” the government gets more-or-less a free hand to decide whatever and the individual can go fuck himself if he doesn’t jump through all the hoops and kiss all the rings.
They do sting operations to catch people breaking the rules. Word gets around really fast about that. No bartender wants to lose his job to serve a minor or break some other rule. Breaking a rule doesn't benefit him much. Getting caught breaking a rule costs him a lot — bartending can actually pay pretty well.
I would pick 10 at random, challenge the licensing supporters to find or conduct a scientific study of whether they prevent a significant harm to the public, and repeal the ones that aren't proven necessary. Then repeat that every year.
Since licensing laws vary by state and locality, it should be simple to look at jurisdictions with no licensing requirement for a given profession and see all the harm to the public from unlicensed practitioners in those places. If there is no harm, or if the difference is not statistically significant, then the licensing requirement gets repealed. If that turns out to be a mistake after 3-4 years, reinstate the requirement.
That "rating" ensures everything related to alcoholic beverages is safe and legal.
Can you cite any evidence of this? What's the incidence of injury or illness from unlicensed bartenders in jurisdictions that don't require a license? Is it higher?
Or are you just making up FUD and/or repeating a few isolated anecdotes without regard for whether they’re significant in a large population?
Should we deny people employment whenever someone says "but what if something bad happens"?
Likewise, prior to licensing, people were allowed to sell all manner of literal snake oil as medicine...
That's the general argument, yes. You can't get rid of a single legal requirement on anything, no matter how ridiculous it is, because then you'd repeal all legal requirements on everything.
No. You wouldn’t. You'd keep the few that you need and repeal the rest. And then see how it goes. And then add a couple back or repeal a couple more based on the results just like any other intelligent people would if they were trying to serve their society instead of themselves.
So? Finding a place to drink is the world's easiest puzzle to solve. You can drink anywhere the police aren’t looking plus almost anywhere else if you cover up the container.
The latter makes perfect sense to license or oversee in some way or another.
Why? The guy at the 7-eleven who rings up your beer purchase isn't licensed. Home brewers aren't licensed. A friend who has you over for a couple beers isn't licensed.
People have been drinking beer and for thousands of years without government meddling. Other than the government collecting a fee and employing a professional meddler, how is it different or better with government meddling?
"Our venture and startup ecosystem is fairly left-leaning."
So intolerant then. If Peter Thiel wouldn't be welcomed because he's not like you, what does that make you? I guess it has finally become obvious to everyone how intolerant and exclusionary "left-leaning" cultures are.
When people genuinely value learning and knowledge and achievement, then children learn. They don't complain about it being too hard, they talk about how it was hard but they put in the effort and learned it anyway. Or they talk about how they put in the effort but they still weren't able to master the material, but they were able to accomplish something else instead. They encourage each other.
If you want learning, then value it socially. When you have conversations, are they about how you learned a new skill? Or about how someone else learned a new skill and how good it is that they did? Probably not. You talk about what you value. Don’t expect others to value what you don’t value yourself.
It is, in fact, illegal for non-Americans to directly participate in US Politics, such as:
- Paying for political advertisements - Paying others to troll social media for you
The courts have this theory that persons under US jurisdiction have the same civil rights as citizens. Couple that with the actual language of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law...” to abridge free speech, and there's a very reasonable argument that these are protected speech.
Everyone should have equal access to advertise to Facebook readers. All YouTube videos should be treated equally. Also all search results and ad placements should be handled equally, with no extra charge for preferred placement.
If we don’t get Media Neutrality, companies will have to pay extra to connect with the specific users they want to advertise to. It’ll be the end of the Internet!
I want cookies. I like oatmeal and chocolate chip cookies. Can I get homemade-style oatmeal cookies with chocolate chips instead of raisins? No, not unless I make them myself. I live in a big metropolitan area and no one makes these? There's no app I can use to tell people to make these for me.
1. software that can be mathematically proven correct and secure
2. a programming environment that's actually productive. - no worrying about syntax. Let the software handle the syntax. Why do I need to deal with it? Let me enter the code whichever way and auto-convert it between languages as needed. - no worrying about optimization. Software handles it, like a JIT compiler that experiments with different implementations and picks the fastest one. - no worrying about parallelization. Software handles it. I tell it only the sequence of operations and what's needed for what. - no worrying about security. Software generates secure code. - minimal worrying about platforms. Software handles most of the differences.
No. A "comparison" is about how one thing is similar or different than another thing. I made no such "comparison". Let me know if you need any other very simple concepts defined for you.
2. A huge number of politically connected firms split up $6 Billion in construction contracts. 3. Who cares about 3, we get the profits on $6 Billion in contracts!
Slashdot Mirror
Shorter version: cameras fail all the time but mirrors are unbreakable, everything in the world is a conspiracy.
For example ... bartender licensing ... What, specifically, needs to be removed from that list?
There are many jurisdictions that don't require bartenders to be licensed. If no one can show a disparity of outcomes between licensing and not licensing, then all of it should be removed. We don't need a government enforcement regime for every notional "good idea" or "good practice".
It's science versus emotion. If licenses don't help in the real world, they shouldn’t be required because of some FUD and storytelling.
Except that the "defendant" in that administrative case can still turn to the judicial branch if the administrative action is not fair.
In other words:
We're taking away your license so you can’t work, but you can spend the next 2 years in court trying to get it back if you want. Meanwhile you're prohibited from working at your job and there's never going to be any way for you to get that lost income back, even if you win.
Bartender sells a beer to a 16-year old because he didn't bother ID'ing the kid. Do you want him to have to take a week off work (license suspended), or do you want him to go to jail for 3 months? Keep in mind the latter also requires the bartender to be out of work for months awaiting trial, while the former gets decided in about a day.
I'd prefer he keep his job until he's found guilty or pleads guilty and then has to pay a fine.
6. A mirror is another surface that increases the profile of the car. If you just barely hit a car or a person on one side of the car, you'll hit them with the mirror.
7. Mirrors fog up, frost over, and get covered by snow. A camera lens can also be blocked, but camera lenses are smaller and the camera already has power available to defrost the lens.
8. Cameras can be used to record video.
9. Rear view mirror vision can be blocked by passengers or cargo.
10. Rear windows are partially designed for driver vision through the rear view mirror. Using a camera eliminates this requirement for rear window design.
11. Mirrors need to be adjusted for taller or shorter drivers. Displays work at more angles.
I love it when people casually decide that others should be harmed or killed. And then "repeat that every year". Really shows just how much they value the lives of others.
You want government to use vague emotional appeals and storytelling to make decisions instead of science and evidence.
Also, this requires realizing that many licensing regulations are in place because they allow the violation to be handled administratively instead of criminally.
Yeah. In a criminal trial, the government has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant has zealously protected rights. When things are handled “administratively” the government gets more-or-less a free hand to decide whatever and the individual can go fuck himself if he doesn’t jump through all the hoops and kiss all the rings.
The same compensation that victims of the current laws get. There would be zero change in anything like that.
How are you compensating people who can't get a good job because of someone's phoney FUD campaign?
If we allow cosmologists to be unlicensed, the entire universe could collapse into a black hole.
With a little skillfully applied makeup no one will notice the difference. The universe will look young again.
They do sting operations to catch people breaking the rules. Word gets around really fast about that. No bartender wants to lose his job to serve a minor or break some other rule. Breaking a rule doesn't benefit him much. Getting caught breaking a rule costs him a lot — bartending can actually pay pretty well.
Which ones do you want to repeal, exactly?
I would pick 10 at random, challenge the licensing supporters to find or conduct a scientific study of whether they prevent a significant harm to the public, and repeal the ones that aren't proven necessary. Then repeat that every year.
Since licensing laws vary by state and locality, it should be simple to look at jurisdictions with no licensing requirement for a given profession and see all the harm to the public from unlicensed practitioners in those places. If there is no harm, or if the difference is not statistically significant, then the licensing requirement gets repealed. If that turns out to be a mistake after 3-4 years, reinstate the requirement.
That "rating" ensures everything related to alcoholic beverages is safe and legal.
Can you cite any evidence of this? What's the incidence of injury or illness from unlicensed bartenders in jurisdictions that don't require a license? Is it higher?
Or are you just making up FUD and/or repeating a few isolated anecdotes without regard for whether they’re significant in a large population?
Should we deny people employment whenever someone says "but what if something bad happens"?
If the bar has an A rating from the health inspector, why does the guy behind the bar need a separate, redundant rating?
Likewise, prior to licensing, people were allowed to sell all manner of literal snake oil as medicine...
That's the general argument, yes. You can't get rid of a single legal requirement on anything, no matter how ridiculous it is, because then you'd repeal all legal requirements on everything.
No. You wouldn’t. You'd keep the few that you need and repeal the rest. And then see how it goes. And then add a couple back or repeal a couple more based on the results just like any other intelligent people would if they were trying to serve their society instead of themselves.
So? Finding a place to drink is the world's easiest puzzle to solve. You can drink anywhere the police aren’t looking plus almost anywhere else if you cover up the container.
The latter makes perfect sense to license or oversee in some way or another.
Why? The guy at the 7-eleven who rings up your beer purchase isn't licensed. Home brewers aren't licensed. A friend who has you over for a couple beers isn't licensed.
People have been drinking beer and for thousands of years without government meddling. Other than the government collecting a fee and employing a professional meddler, how is it different or better with government meddling?
If you want to help solve this, donate to the Institute for Justice. They are the most prominent organization fighting "license to be employed" laws.
Then 5G starts rolling out and you'll need to upgrade for that. Probably more than once.
Why would there be an article like this?
"Our venture and startup ecosystem is fairly left-leaning."
So intolerant then. If Peter Thiel wouldn't be welcomed because he's not like you, what does that make you? I guess it has finally become obvious to everyone how intolerant and exclusionary "left-leaning" cultures are.
When people genuinely value learning and knowledge and achievement, then children learn. They don't complain about it being too hard, they talk about how it was hard but they put in the effort and learned it anyway. Or they talk about how they put in the effort but they still weren't able to master the material, but they were able to accomplish something else instead. They encourage each other.
If you want learning, then value it socially. When you have conversations, are they about how you learned a new skill? Or about how someone else learned a new skill and how good it is that they did? Probably not. You talk about what you value. Don’t expect others to value what you don’t value yourself.
It is, in fact, illegal for non-Americans to directly participate in US Politics, such as:
- Paying for political advertisements
- Paying others to troll social media for you
The courts have this theory that persons under US jurisdiction have the same civil rights as citizens. Couple that with the actual language of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law...” to abridge free speech, and there's a very reasonable argument that these are protected speech.
Everyone should have equal access to advertise to Facebook readers. All YouTube videos should be treated equally. Also all search results and ad placements should be handled equally, with no extra charge for preferred placement.
If we don’t get Media Neutrality, companies will have to pay extra to connect with the specific users they want to advertise to. It’ll be the end of the Internet!
Not Apple.
I want cookies. I like oatmeal and chocolate chip cookies. Can I get homemade-style oatmeal cookies with chocolate chips instead of raisins? No, not unless I make them myself. I live in a big metropolitan area and no one makes these? There's no app I can use to tell people to make these for me.
1. software that can be mathematically proven correct and secure
2. a programming environment that's actually productive.
- no worrying about syntax. Let the software handle the syntax. Why do I need to deal with it? Let me enter the code whichever way and auto-convert it between languages as needed.
- no worrying about optimization. Software handles it, like a JIT compiler that experiments with different implementations and picks the fastest one.
- no worrying about parallelization. Software handles it. I tell it only the sequence of operations and what's needed for what.
- no worrying about security. Software generates secure code.
- minimal worrying about platforms. Software handles most of the differences.
Because it's anachronistic? Maybe they should be tested on driving teams of horses too.
That way only a few guys could qualify and cab fares can be bid up so only the very rich can afford to use a cab.
No. A "comparison" is about how one thing is similar or different than another thing. I made no such "comparison". Let me know if you need any other very simple concepts defined for you.
1. New York Builds Windfarm for electricity
2. A huge number of politically connected firms split up $6 Billion in construction contracts.
3. Who cares about 3, we get the profits on $6 Billion in contracts!