Comments by "GunFun ZS" (@GunFunZS) on "SmarterEveryDay"
channel.
-
42
-
12
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think your best point is the one at the 18 minute mark. That's my professional field of expertise. Even in areas where we want the government making rules, the quick and dirty emergency fix is to dictate HOW things are done, not what result you want to get. This is bad lawmaking, and stifles innovation and is most open to exploit. Instead, IF you want a state to make rules, you usually want the rule to dictate the Result, but leave the method open to choice.
(easy example. In the 1950s they decided that we needed to see on roads, and dictated round sealed bulb halogen headlights with parabolic reflectors as the method. Those were the best tech at the time. Almost immediately, better headlights were developed in other shapes and using other methods of generating the light. We couldn't sell them here for a decade or two. It would have been better to dictate that drivers must at least be able to see a particular range. Or even dictating lumens at a particular distance in a particular wavelength.)
Regulators are most responsive to the needs and considerations of large organizations, because they can pay to staff lawyers and techs to study the issues. They are terrible at responding to the input of large groups of small institutions and individuals. You can pretty much guarantee that if the state makes a law about social media, the law will be designed from the standpoint and interests of the big companies, not their customers. It's a structural thing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1