Fox

joined 2 years ago
[–] Fox@pawb.social 23 points 2 years ago (9 children)

"The state is not going to pay for the use of the security forces; organizations that have legal status will have to pay or individuals will have to bear the cost"

The state sending invoices to accused protesters is a about the least ancap thing I've ever seen. Such a fresh take.

[–] Fox@pawb.social 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

It's a common misunderstanding that an autopilot system in an airplane does everything or even a lot of things. The most basic ones keep the wings level and nothing else. Of course Tesla is probably counting on that misconception to sell this feature, but actual pilots using any kind of autopilot are still on the hook to pay attention 100% of the time.

[–] Fox@pawb.social 2 points 2 years ago

Surely it's not the shambolic government monetary policy of the same period, the companies were just being way greedier than normal. This study was run by the IMF.

[–] Fox@pawb.social 2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

This comment thread is about an unpatched router (probably in production) at a Canadian Internet exchange

[–] Fox@pawb.social 9 points 2 years ago (10 children)

What would be the point of a router not connected to any network?

[–] Fox@pawb.social -1 points 2 years ago (12 children)

Who said only internet-facing assets need to be patched?

[–] Fox@pawb.social 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Could it be that a combination of ways is actually best?

[–] Fox@pawb.social 2 points 2 years ago

I like Jockey's elance bikini briefs. They cover everything and are pretty lightweight for summer. On a motorcycle trip they take up basically no space.

I imagine a thong would have me sweating directly into the seat of my pants, which sounds horrible.

[–] Fox@pawb.social 3 points 2 years ago

Looks more like a sewer Serj

[–] Fox@pawb.social 3 points 2 years ago

A dead dog could probably do better than what they've got now

[–] Fox@pawb.social 22 points 2 years ago (6 children)

The ol' downstairs mixup

[–] Fox@pawb.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Labor and safety concerns are almost entirely irrelevant to the argument the article is making. It calls for (but doesn't actually define) a durability standard. What it's made of, how it's made, and penalties for noncompliance. And also ban marketing, lol. How do you figure it wouldn't just raise the price for clothes across the board and do nothing for the laborer or the environment? If fast fashion is all "garbage", how do you really pin that down? How long does a shirt really need to last, and why should the government decide? The liberal in me wonders whether clothing should be considered a necessity and not taxed at all, or else at the very least public nudity should be legal.

To me it reads as "the commoners shouldn't be able to afford so much ticky-tacky with so little money, we need to make it expensive so they can't buy as much". Despicable elitism on its face, and that's the gist of an article seemingly written by a busybody who thinks they're anointed to solve moral issues (as they judge them) by decree. The consumers are too dumb and too many, and they don't know what's best for them. Forget making compelling arguments on sustainability and letting voluntary action follow, something simply must be done right now, and it must be written into international trade law.

The effect on cost to enter the market should be obvious. Out of the gate you need to prepare for and demonstrate compliance. More red tape means it's now someone's job to interpret navigate and track that rigmarole, or pay a consultant to do it. Fast fashion giants have the legal resources to find and defend loopholes, but even a large producer might decide your market just isn't worth entering or staying in. This wouldn't be a first by a long shot, there's a laundry list of companies that shun California because the state regulates everything under the sun, including sunlight itself.

In production, durability requirements mean changes to materials, tooling, training, contracts. Development cycles get longer, and designs more cautious. Costs of all the above get passed on to the consumer. To watch over it all, more permanent government asses in government seats in heated government buildings wasting taxpayer money on denier and stitch audits.

These are just some practical effects. If you actually care about fashion as an art form, you might worry how restricting the industry could stifle innovation and trends in ways that reach your ivory tower.

If this half-spun idea ever leaves the loom, I'm sure it'll make a great case study in unintended consequences. I've bought like two shirts in the last decade and I hate waste, but I hate busybodies and shitty regulations way more.

view more: ‹ prev next ›