Unethical ways to save money

[MilesTeg]

I didn't mean to trigger American terror at the concept of sharing.  (Jesus McCarthy did a number on the collective mental state of your country.)

It's just a rhetorical question; there's no need for the personal/nationalist attack response.

I'd define something as being high quality if it can do the task it was designed to do well and reliably for a long period of time.

If you want to buy a high quality 10,000$ race bike because it's a great bike designed for speed - cool.  Enjoy your bike.  If you want to mitigate the costs of the bike (perhaps aren't independently wealthy), then you would probably be interested in splitting use of it with another person (or several people).  Hell, this goes on pretty regularly even today . . . I know people who will rent deep section wheels for a bike race.

If you want to buy a Chinese carbon frame from Aliexpress that has had no safety/longevity testing done on it, but costs 100$ . . . I kinda think you shouldn't be allowed to do it.  Besides the personal risk to yourself (which in a civilized country that recognizes the right of citizens to health care ends up being a risk that everyone pays), there's also the waste created when the terrible product inevitably fails and is not worth fixing.

So, in your mind people shouldn't be able to choose a product that suits their actual needs. They should only be able to buy government approved products.

What happens when your $800 bike you use and love is deemed unacceptable because the $2,500 bike is the one that is now government approved because it lasts longer? How many fewer people will be able to afford that bike and use it to commute every day? What happens to the people who need/enjoy lighter weight materials (aluminum, composites, etc.) are forced to buy steel frame bikes because they are more durable longer lasting?

How in the world do you think that would improve anything? Where has an authoritarian market like that _ever_ worked well? We know the answer to that, command and control economies are always horrifically inefficient and lead to a high level of human suffering.

This is not to say that non-authoritarian markets are perfect, they're just less terrible.

[merula]

Unethical way to save money: become an oligarch selling a product no one needs mandated by an authoritarian government.

Actual question related to the topic of this thread: At what point is personal use of work supplies theft? I'm typing this at work on work time on my work computer. I've printed things for home use. I've taken supplies that were going to be thrown away otherwise. (Outdated file-management boxes make great Marie Kondo organization tools).

So is the line in the value of the item, its continued utility to the company, or what?

[Davnasty]

So, in your mind people shouldn't be able to choose a product that suits their actual needs. They should only be able to buy government approved products.

What happens when your $800 bike you use and love is deemed unacceptable because the $2,500 bike is the one that is now government approved because it lasts longer? How many fewer people will be able to afford that bike and use it to commute every day? What happens to the people who need/enjoy lighter weight materials (aluminum, composites, etc.) are forced to buy steel frame bikes because they are more durable longer lasting?

How in the world do you think that would improve anything? Where has an authoritarian market like that _ever_ worked well? We know the answer to that, command and control economies are always horrifically inefficient and lead to a high level of human suffering.

It would be a complex system fraught with potential for unwanted consequences and abuse, but I don't think we can reject the idea on principle alone. We already have an "authoritarian market" to some degree based on safety and environmental standards.

Saying product A is acceptable and product B is not probably wouldn't work, but requirements along the lines of "only material rated for X lbs of force over Y hours of use can be used for such and such components" are at least plausible.

[Davnasty]

Unethical way to save money: become an oligarch selling a product no one needs mandated by an authoritarian government.

Actual question related to the topic of this thread: At what point is personal use of work supplies theft? I'm typing this at work on work time on my work computer. I've printed things for home use. I've taken supplies that were going to be thrown away otherwise. (Outdated file-management boxes make great Marie Kondo organization tools).

So is the line in the value of the item, its continued utility to the company, or what?

If something was to be thrown away otherwise, I say ethical for sure. A more complicated scenario: the item is to be thrown away but you have an idea to repurpose it that your boss didn't think of. You can share your idea and save the company money or you can take it home and save yourself some money...

[GuitarStv]

I'd define something as being high quality if it can do the task it was designed to do well and reliably for a long period of time.

If you want to buy a high quality 10,000$ race bike because it's a great bike designed for speed - cool.  Enjoy your bike.  If you want to mitigate the costs of the bike (perhaps aren't independently wealthy), then you would probably be interested in splitting use of it with another person (or several people).  Hell, this goes on pretty regularly even today . . . I know people who will rent deep section wheels for a bike race.

If you want to buy a Chinese carbon frame from Aliexpress that has had no safety/longevity testing done on it, but costs 100$ . . . I kinda think you shouldn't be allowed to do it.  Besides the personal risk to yourself (which in a civilized country that recognizes the right of citizens to health care ends up being a risk that everyone pays), there's also the waste created when the terrible product inevitably fails and is not worth fixing.

So, in your mind people shouldn't be able to choose a product that suits their actual needs. They should only be able to buy government approved products.

Does a product likely to fail dangerously causing injury to the user meet the user's actual needs?  I'd argue, no.  So your statement above makes no sense.

What happens when your $800 bike you use and love is deemed unacceptable because the $2,500 bike is the one that is now government approved because it lasts longer?

Bad initial assumption.  You need to first explain why the 800$ bike that I use would be deemed unacceptable.  'Lasts longer' doesn't seem to be a valid argument . . . I've put tens of thousands of kilometers on it over seven or eight years.

How many fewer people will be able to afford that bike and use it to commute every day?

None.  Given that the things that would be regulated would include the types of bikes that could not be used to commute every day as they aren't safe enough or simply fall apart when someone attempts to use them for their intended purpose . . . they're unsuitable for commuting.

What happens to the people who need/enjoy lighter weight materials (aluminum, composites, etc.) are forced to buy steel frame bikes because they are more durable longer lasting?

Nothing . . . since this is not a scenario that would happen.  A well made carbon fiber bike will actually last longer than a steel frame bike (given that carbon doesn't fatigue in the same way . . . granted, if it's damaged it's harder to repair . . . but we're getting off topic).  There's no reason to restrict a safe, well constructed bike made of either material.  There is reason to restrict an unsafe questionably made bike purchased on Aliexpress.

How in the world do you think that would improve anything? Where has an authoritarian market like that _ever_ worked well? We know the answer to that, command and control economies are always horrifically inefficient and lead to a high level of human suffering.

This is not to say that non-authoritarian markets are perfect, they're just less terrible.

Ah, the anticipated jump to communism.  Sharing is communism.  Health care is communism.  Standards is communism.  I think I see a dirty commie over there behind the bushes!  McCarthy would be proud at your vigilance.

The kind of 'authoritarian' market I'm talking about isn't command and control.  But it has (for example) radically improved fuel economy and vehicle safety in the US by enforcing standards.

[MilesTeg]

It would be a complex system fraught with potential for unwanted consequences and abuse, but I don't think we can reject the idea on principle alone. We already have an "authoritarian market" to some degree based on safety and environmental standards.

Saying product A is acceptable and product B is not probably wouldn't work, but requirements along the lines of "only material rated for X lbs of force over Y hours of use can be used for such and such components" are at least plausible.

High levels of regulation should only be applied when individual choices affect others and the qualities regulated are objective. "High quality" and "Long lasting" do not necessarily mean more cost efficient or more environmentally friendly.

For example, I can make you an incandescent light bulb that will last 100s of years, be 100% recyclable and cost <$1, but that bulb will not be cheaper overall or be more environmentally friendly than an LED bulb that lasts only a fraction of the time.

[MilesTeg]

I'd define something as being high quality if it can do the task it was designed to do well and reliably for a long period of time.

If you want to buy a high quality 10,000$ race bike because it's a great bike designed for speed - cool.  Enjoy your bike.  If you want to mitigate the costs of the bike (perhaps aren't independently wealthy), then you would probably be interested in splitting use of it with another person (or several people).  Hell, this goes on pretty regularly even today . . . I know people who will rent deep section wheels for a bike race.

If you want to buy a Chinese carbon frame from Aliexpress that has had no safety/longevity testing done on it, but costs 100$ . . . I kinda think you shouldn't be allowed to do it.  Besides the personal risk to yourself (which in a civilized country that recognizes the right of citizens to health care ends up being a risk that everyone pays), there's also the waste created when the terrible product inevitably fails and is not worth fixing.

So, in your mind people shouldn't be able to choose a product that suits their actual needs. They should only be able to buy government approved products.

Does a product likely to fail dangerously causing injury to the user meet the user's actual needs?  I'd argue, no.  So your statement above makes no sense.

What happens when your $800 bike you use and love is deemed unacceptable because the $2,500 bike is the one that is now government approved because it lasts longer?

Bad initial assumption.  You need to first explain why the 800$ bike that I use would be deemed unacceptable.  'Lasts longer' doesn't seem to be a valid argument . . . I've put tens of thousands of kilometers on it over seven or eight years.

How many fewer people will be able to afford that bike and use it to commute every day?

None.  Given that the things that would be regulated would include the types of bikes that could not be used to commute every day as they aren't safe enough or simply fall apart when someone attempts to use them for their intended purpose . . . they're unsuitable for commuting.

What happens to the people who need/enjoy lighter weight materials (aluminum, composites, etc.) are forced to buy steel frame bikes because they are more durable longer lasting?

Nothing . . . since this is not a scenario that would happen.  A well made carbon fiber bike will actually last longer than a steel frame bike (given that carbon doesn't fatigue in the same way . . . granted, if it's damaged it's harder to repair . . . but we're getting off topic).  There's no reason to restrict a safe, well constructed bike made of either material.  There is reason to restrict an unsafe questionably made bike purchased on Aliexpress.

How in the world do you think that would improve anything? Where has an authoritarian market like that _ever_ worked well? We know the answer to that, command and control economies are always horrifically inefficient and lead to a high level of human suffering.

This is not to say that non-authoritarian markets are perfect, they're just less terrible.

Ah, the anticipated jump to communism.  Sharing is communism.  Health care is communism.  Standards is communism.  I think I see a dirty commie over there behind the bushes!  McCarthy would be proud at your vigilance.

The kind of 'authoritarian' market I'm talking about isn't command and control.  But it has (for example) radically improved fuel economy and vehicle safety in the US by enforcing standards.

See, you're making the classic mistake of everyone who argues for authoritarianism. You think that _you_ (or those that agree with you) are going to be the authority. Just because _you_ think an $800 bike is good enough doesn't mean whatever regulatory body that will be formed will.

Regulations on like safety make a lot of sense. Specifically because they are relatively objective. Subjective qualities, like whether or not a product is high enough quality to meet a given purpose, are terrible things to regulate.

[TomTX]

For an ironic example, it's the 200lb bicycle that would probably be the longest lasting at the lowest cost and most environmentally friendly choice. Light yet strong materials tend to be much, much, much more expensive and energy intensive than strong but heavy materials (e.g. steel frame bike vs composite frame bike).

Bamboo frame bicycles would be a counterexample. Cheap, not energy-intensive, light and great strength:weight ratio.

[GuitarStv]

Regulations on like safety make a lot of sense. Specifically because they are relatively objective. Subjective qualities, like whether or not a product is high enough quality to meet a given purpose, are terrible things to regulate.

Yeah, I agree.  Objective qualities are necessary for regulation.  I don't agree that safety is an easy thing to objectively measure though . . . or at least that it's not any easier to measure for that some simple quality measurements (on your bike example strength of welds, metallurgic analysis, stress testing, etc. could all be used for both).

[SwordGuy]

Regulations on like safety make a lot of sense. Specifically because they are relatively objective. Subjective qualities, like whether or not a product is high enough quality to meet a given purpose, are terrible things to regulate.

Yeah, I agree.  Objective qualities are necessary for regulation.  I don't agree that safety is an easy thing to objectively measure though . . . or at least that it's not any easier to measure for that some simple quality measurements (on your bike example strength of welds, metallurgic analysis, stress testing, etc. could all be used for both).

Even the desired amount of safety is somewhat subjective. :)

[flipboard]

So, in your mind people shouldn't be able to choose a product that suits their actual needs. They should only be able to buy government approved products.

What happens when your $800 bike you use and love is deemed unacceptable because the $2,500 bike is the one that is now government approved because it lasts longer? How many fewer people will be able to afford that bike and use it to commute every day? What happens to the people who need/enjoy lighter weight materials (aluminum, composites, etc.) are forced to buy steel frame bikes because they are more durable longer lasting?

How in the world do you think that would improve anything? Where has an authoritarian market like that _ever_ worked well? We know the answer to that, command and control economies are always horrifically inefficient and lead to a high level of human suffering.

This is not to say that non-authoritarian markets are perfect, they're just less terrible.

There's an easier way to regulate without authoritarian regulation.

Simply make sure that the user is charged _all_ the costs. Biggest example where this isn't the case nowadays: car drivers are not paying for all the environmental damage being caused. If you factored the true price of mitigating global warming in future into the cost of fuel, you can be sure people would drive less. For every consumer good similarly, the environmental (pollution) costs are not usually factored into their price - if that changed, prices might begin to look very different.

Actually implementing such a system would be difficult though, especially given the international nature of environmental damage. It's pretty much an all countries or no countries thing.

[Boofinator]

So, in your mind people shouldn't be able to choose a product that suits their actual needs. They should only be able to buy government approved products.

What happens when your $800 bike you use and love is deemed unacceptable because the $2,500 bike is the one that is now government approved because it lasts longer? How many fewer people will be able to afford that bike and use it to commute every day? What happens to the people who need/enjoy lighter weight materials (aluminum, composites, etc.) are forced to buy steel frame bikes because they are more durable longer lasting?

How in the world do you think that would improve anything? Where has an authoritarian market like that _ever_ worked well? We know the answer to that, command and control economies are always horrifically inefficient and lead to a high level of human suffering.

This is not to say that non-authoritarian markets are perfect, they're just less terrible.

There's an easier way to regulate without authoritarian regulation.

Simply make sure that the user is charged _all_ the costs. Biggest example where this isn't the case nowadays: car drivers are not paying for all the environmental damage being caused. If you factored the true price of mitigating global warming in future into the cost of fuel, you can be sure people would drive less. For every consumer good similarly, the environmental (pollution) costs are not usually factored into their price - if that changed, prices might begin to look very different.

Actually implementing such a system would be difficult though, especially given the international nature of environmental damage. It's pretty much an all countries or no countries thing.

+1

Additionally, though you are correct that transportation fuel hasn't historically been taxed to account for externalities, it's in fact more complicated because transportation fuel has often been negatively taxed (or subsidized) to improve trade and the overall economy. This is the other reason why it is such a hot-button issue (in addition to the international nature of the pollution and the extremely long time-lag).

[Bloop Bloop]

So, in your mind people shouldn't be able to choose a product that suits their actual needs. They should only be able to buy government approved products.

What happens when your $800 bike you use and love is deemed unacceptable because the $2,500 bike is the one that is now government approved because it lasts longer? How many fewer people will be able to afford that bike and use it to commute every day? What happens to the people who need/enjoy lighter weight materials (aluminum, composites, etc.) are forced to buy steel frame bikes because they are more durable longer lasting?

How in the world do you think that would improve anything? Where has an authoritarian market like that _ever_ worked well? We know the answer to that, command and control economies are always horrifically inefficient and lead to a high level of human suffering.

This is not to say that non-authoritarian markets are perfect, they're just less terrible.

There's an easier way to regulate without authoritarian regulation.

Simply make sure that the user is charged _all_ the costs. Biggest example where this isn't the case nowadays: car drivers are not paying for all the environmental damage being caused. If you factored the true price of mitigating global warming in future into the cost of fuel, you can be sure people would drive less. For every consumer good similarly, the environmental (pollution) costs are not usually factored into their price - if that changed, prices might begin to look very different.

Actually implementing such a system would be difficult though, especially given the international nature of environmental damage. It's pretty much an all countries or no countries thing.

Sure, as long as you also charge cigarette smokers for the damage done to the health of nearby people; intravenous drug users for all their health-related and societal clean-up costs (and the cost of running safe injecting rooms); residents of new estates for the extra taxes required to pave their roads; etc.

[flipboard]

Sure, as long as you also charge cigarette smokers for the damage done to the health of nearby people; intravenous drug users for all their health-related and societal clean-up costs (and the cost of running safe injecting rooms); residents of new estates for the extra taxes required to pave their roads; etc.

Cigarette smoke: pretty much implied (although some argue that smokers actually save society money by dying earlier, resulting in less long-term healthcare/social security/etc. costs.)

Drug users: gets complicated because you can't really tax illegal goods, but why not. That said, similar to smokers - they tend to die early and cost society less. And safe injecting rooms actually reduce overall costs to society, so they'd pay for themselves.

Residents of new estates: now you've lost me. New residents are by definition new taxpayers bringing in new money. Paying for their roads is an investment.

(I completely forgot to mention: some forms of car taxation are actually taxable on a local level without issues: beyond the global effect of global warming, there are the local costs of noise pollution and carcinogens costing the local society, so you can avoid at least those costs being externalised without negatively affecting only your economy.)

[Bloop Bloop]

New residents are taxpayers bringing in new money - but so are new drivers, and purchasers of new cars. All that contributes sales tax, fuel excise, registration fees, insurance, etc.

If you take into account sales tax, stamp duty, import tariff, and luxury car duty, my last car would have contributed over $30k to the economy just in those duties and taxes - do I get an offset for all that economic contribution?

[TomTX]

So, in your mind people shouldn't be able to choose a product that suits their actual needs. They should only be able to buy government approved products.

What happens when your $800 bike you use and love is deemed unacceptable because the $2,500 bike is the one that is now government approved because it lasts longer? How many fewer people will be able to afford that bike and use it to commute every day? What happens to the people who need/enjoy lighter weight materials (aluminum, composites, etc.) are forced to buy steel frame bikes because they are more durable longer lasting?

How in the world do you think that would improve anything? Where has an authoritarian market like that _ever_ worked well? We know the answer to that, command and control economies are always horrifically inefficient and lead to a high level of human suffering.

This is not to say that non-authoritarian markets are perfect, they're just less terrible.

There's an easier way to regulate without authoritarian regulation.

Simply make sure that the user is charged _all_ the costs. Biggest example where this isn't the case nowadays: car drivers are not paying for all the environmental damage being caused. If you factored the true price of mitigating global warming in future into the cost of fuel, you can be sure people would drive less. For every consumer good similarly, the environmental (pollution) costs are not usually factored into their price - if that changed, prices might begin to look very different.

Actually implementing such a system would be difficult though, especially given the international nature of environmental damage. It's pretty much an all countries or no countries thing.

Sure, as long as you also charge cigarette smokers for the damage done to the health of nearby people; intravenous drug users for all their health-related and societal clean-up costs (and the cost of running safe injecting rooms); residents of new estates for the extra taxes required to pave their roads; etc.

This is what's referred to as "bikeshedding" - ignoring the big issue and focusing on penny-ante stuff.

Coal plants are an enormous, terrible, global-level problem which needs to be addressed now. They are putting enormous costs on society both immediately (particulate pollution killing thousands a year in the USA alone, billions a year in extra medical costs) - and longer term through climate change, poisoning the water from leaching heavy metals in coal ash, etc.

BTW - in most English-speaking jurisdictions tobacco is already taxed heavily. I'm fine with new developments paying enough in fees for the additional infrastructure load.

[MilesTeg]

Regulations on like safety make a lot of sense. Specifically because they are relatively objective. Subjective qualities, like whether or not a product is high enough quality to meet a given purpose, are terrible things to regulate.

Yeah, I agree.  Objective qualities are necessary for regulation.  I don't agree that safety is an easy thing to objectively measure though . . . or at least that it's not any easier to measure for that some simple quality measurements (on your bike example strength of welds, metallurgic analysis, stress testing, etc. could all be used for both).

I'm talking about objective goals.

'Your product should not injure or kill the user or bystanders'

Is a highly (though not entirely) objective goal.

'Your product is high quality and long lasting'

Is a highly subjective goal. For any definition you attempt to put on that, an indefinite, but non zero, number of alternative definitions exists.

Attempting to legislate something that cant even be defined is foolhardy.

[dragoncar]

Regulations on like safety make a lot of sense. Specifically because they are relatively objective. Subjective qualities, like whether or not a product is high enough quality to meet a given purpose, are terrible things to regulate.

Yeah, I agree.  Objective qualities are necessary for regulation.  I don't agree that safety is an easy thing to objectively measure though . . . or at least that it's not any easier to measure for that some simple quality measurements (on your bike example strength of welds, metallurgic analysis, stress testing, etc. could all be used for both).

I'm talking about objective goals.

'Your product should not injure or kill the user or bystanders'

Is a highly (though not entirely) objective goal.

'Your product is high quality and long lasting'

Is a highly subjective goal. For any definition you attempt to put on that, an indefinite, but non zero, number of alternative definitions exists.

Attempting to legislate something that cant even be defined is foolhardy.

Naw, he’ll know it when he sees it

[SwordGuy]

Regulations on like safety make a lot of sense. Specifically because they are relatively objective. Subjective qualities, like whether or not a product is high enough quality to meet a given purpose, are terrible things to regulate.

Yeah, I agree.  Objective qualities are necessary for regulation.  I don't agree that safety is an easy thing to objectively measure though . . . or at least that it's not any easier to measure for that some simple quality measurements (on your bike example strength of welds, metallurgic analysis, stress testing, etc. could all be used for both).

I'm talking about objective goals.

'Your product should not injure or kill the user or bystanders'

Is a highly (though not entirely) objective goal.

'Your product is high quality and long lasting'

Is a highly subjective goal. For any definition you attempt to put on that, an indefinite, but non zero, number of alternative definitions exists.

Attempting to legislate something that cant even be defined is foolhardy.

Naw, he’ll know it when he sees it

That's an obscene standard for sure.

[GuitarStv]

Regulations on like safety make a lot of sense. Specifically because they are relatively objective. Subjective qualities, like whether or not a product is high enough quality to meet a given purpose, are terrible things to regulate.

Yeah, I agree.  Objective qualities are necessary for regulation.  I don't agree that safety is an easy thing to objectively measure though . . . or at least that it's not any easier to measure for that some simple quality measurements (on your bike example strength of welds, metallurgic analysis, stress testing, etc. could all be used for both).

I'm talking about objective goals.

'Your product should not injure or kill the user or bystanders'

Is a highly (though not entirely) objective goal.

'Your product is high quality and long lasting'

Is a highly subjective goal. For any definition you attempt to put on that, an indefinite, but non zero, number of alternative definitions exists.

Attempting to legislate something that cant even be defined is foolhardy.

Not sure that the 'objective' goals you're coming up with are as objective as you seem to think.

'Your product should not injure or kill the user or bystanders' is a goal I think we all agree is generally applied to automobiles.  But it's also one that all internal combustion engine vehicles currently fail . . . as the air pollution from these vehicles is responsible for the death of tens of thousands of people every year, and crashes/accidents from automobiles are one of the leading causes of death in the US and Canada each year.  We (arbitrarily and subjectively) don't currently consider either of those part of product safety for automobiles today.

'Your product is high quality and long lasting'  is a pretty subjective goal.  But that's why I explicitly mentioned in my previous post testable ways to determine this . . . measuring tensile strength of tubes in a bike, stress analysis, joinery strength, etc.  All of this will measure quality and longevity of a bike, in an objective manner.

That's why I was saying it's a bad assumption that it's easier to objectively measure safety than any other quality.  Whatever you choose to focus on will be subject to a large degree of subjectivity associated with it while determining what objective measures to take.

[Paul der Krake]

Regulations on like safety make a lot of sense. Specifically because they are relatively objective. Subjective qualities, like whether or not a product is high enough quality to meet a given purpose, are terrible things to regulate.

Yeah, I agree.  Objective qualities are necessary for regulation.  I don't agree that safety is an easy thing to objectively measure though . . . or at least that it's not any easier to measure for that some simple quality measurements (on your bike example strength of welds, metallurgic analysis, stress testing, etc. could all be used for both).

I'm talking about objective goals.

'Your product should not injure or kill the user or bystanders'

Is a highly (though not entirely) objective goal.

'Your product is high quality and long lasting'

Is a highly subjective goal. For any definition you attempt to put on that, an indefinite, but non zero, number of alternative definitions exists.

Attempting to legislate something that cant even be defined is foolhardy.

Naw, he’ll know it when he sees it

That's an obscene standard for sure.

Is the standard naked for all to see?

[SwordGuy]

Regulations on like safety make a lot of sense. Specifically because they are relatively objective. Subjective qualities, like whether or not a product is high enough quality to meet a given purpose, are terrible things to regulate.

Yeah, I agree.  Objective qualities are necessary for regulation.  I don't agree that safety is an easy thing to objectively measure though . . . or at least that it's not any easier to measure for that some simple quality measurements (on your bike example strength of welds, metallurgic analysis, stress testing, etc. could all be used for both).

I'm talking about objective goals.

'Your product should not injure or kill the user or bystanders'

Is a highly (though not entirely) objective goal.

'Your product is high quality and long lasting'

Is a highly subjective goal. For any definition you attempt to put on that, an indefinite, but non zero, number of alternative definitions exists.

Attempting to legislate something that cant even be defined is foolhardy.

Naw, he’ll know it when he sees it

That's an obscene standard for sure.

Is the standard naked for all to see?

Depends upon one's local community standards.

[MilesTeg]

Not sure that the 'objective' goals you're coming up with are as objective as you seem to think.

'Your product should not injure or kill the user or bystanders' is a goal I think we all agree is generally applied to automobiles.  But it's also one that all internal combustion engine vehicles currently fail . . . as the air pollution from these vehicles is responsible for the death of tens of thousands of people every year, and crashes/accidents from automobiles are one of the leading causes of death in the US and Canada each year.  We (arbitrarily and subjectively) don't currently consider either of those part of product safety for automobiles today.

'Your product is high quality and long lasting'  is a pretty subjective goal.  But that's why I explicitly mentioned in my previous post testable ways to determine this . . . measuring tensile strength of tubes in a bike, stress analysis, joinery strength, etc.  All of this will measure quality and longevity of a bike, in an objective manner.

That's why I was saying it's a bad assumption that it's easier to objectively measure safety than any other quality.  Whatever you choose to focus on will be subject to a large degree of subjectivity associated with it while determining what objective measures to take.

You still aren't understanding. I'm not talking about objective measurement of qualities related to a goal. I'm talking about the goal itself being objective. The safety goal, as I described, is extremely objective. That we lack the technology to meet that goal (and accept some failure) is a symptom of reality and an entirely different matter.

Conversely, you have yet to even attempt to provide a workable, objective definition of your quality & longevity goal. That's because you can't, because those qualities are almost entirely subjective. You can measure weld strength all you want, that doesn't provide an answer for how strong that weld _should_ be (or, more to the point, how long the aggregate product should last). The answer to that question is, quite literally, "it depends".

[GuitarStv]

Not sure that the 'objective' goals you're coming up with are as objective as you seem to think.

'Your product should not injure or kill the user or bystanders' is a goal I think we all agree is generally applied to automobiles.  But it's also one that all internal combustion engine vehicles currently fail . . . as the air pollution from these vehicles is responsible for the death of tens of thousands of people every year, and crashes/accidents from automobiles are one of the leading causes of death in the US and Canada each year.  We (arbitrarily and subjectively) don't currently consider either of those part of product safety for automobiles today.

'Your product is high quality and long lasting'  is a pretty subjective goal.  But that's why I explicitly mentioned in my previous post testable ways to determine this . . . measuring tensile strength of tubes in a bike, stress analysis, joinery strength, etc.  All of this will measure quality and longevity of a bike, in an objective manner.

That's why I was saying it's a bad assumption that it's easier to objectively measure safety than any other quality.  Whatever you choose to focus on will be subject to a large degree of subjectivity associated with it while determining what objective measures to take.

You still aren't understanding. I'm not talking about objective measurement of qualities related to a goal. I'm talking about the goal itself being objective. The safety goal, as I described, is extremely objective. That we lack the technology to meet that goal (and accept some failure) is a symptom of reality and an entirely different matter.

Conversely, you have yet to even attempt to provide a workable, objective definition of your quality & longevity goal. That's because you can't, because those qualities are almost entirely subjective. You can measure weld strength all you want, that doesn't provide an answer for how strong that weld _should_ be (or, more to the point, how long the aggregate product should last). The answer to that question is, quite literally, "it depends".

'Your product should not injure or kill the user or bystanders'  -  'Your product must be safe'

'Your product is high quality and long lasting'  -  'The tubes your product use must meet this specification for tensile strength'

It's easy to make 'safety' more or less objective than 'longevity', as the objectivity of either is dependent upon the purely subjective wording of the rule.  In your example you chose a better example for safety than longevity . . . but that doesn't make longevity any harder to objectively find rules for than safety.

[Davnasty]

Not sure that the 'objective' goals you're coming up with are as objective as you seem to think.

'Your product should not injure or kill the user or bystanders' is a goal I think we all agree is generally applied to automobiles.  But it's also one that all internal combustion engine vehicles currently fail . . . as the air pollution from these vehicles is responsible for the death of tens of thousands of people every year, and crashes/accidents from automobiles are one of the leading causes of death in the US and Canada each year.  We (arbitrarily and subjectively) don't currently consider either of those part of product safety for automobiles today.

'Your product is high quality and long lasting'  is a pretty subjective goal.  But that's why I explicitly mentioned in my previous post testable ways to determine this . . . measuring tensile strength of tubes in a bike, stress analysis, joinery strength, etc.  All of this will measure quality and longevity of a bike, in an objective manner.

That's why I was saying it's a bad assumption that it's easier to objectively measure safety than any other quality.  Whatever you choose to focus on will be subject to a large degree of subjectivity associated with it while determining what objective measures to take.

You still aren't understanding. I'm not talking about objective measurement of qualities related to a goal. I'm talking about the goal itself being objective. The safety goal, as I described, is extremely objective. That we lack the technology to meet that goal (and accept some failure) is a symptom of reality and an entirely different matter.

Conversely, you have yet to even attempt to provide a workable, objective definition of your quality & longevity goal. That's because you can't, because those qualities are almost entirely subjective. You can measure weld strength all you want, that doesn't provide an answer for how strong that weld _should_ be (or, more to the point, how long the aggregate product should last). The answer to that question is, quite literally, "it depends".

When you say the safety goal is extremely objective, I assume you mean that the goal is to prevent all death and injury, correct?

Why can't the longevity goal be represented in the same manner? As in, the goal is to last forever.

Obviously that's en entirely unachievable goal and compromise will need to be made based on practical real world usage of the rules. Just like with safety.

On topic: I watched some show about cheapskates a long time ago and the guy dug empty popcorn and soda bags out of the trash when he went to a movie theatre, rinsed the cup out in the bathroom, and went to get free refills. I'll give him an A for effort, but you really don't have to have popcorn and a soda to enjoy a movie. Cheapskate was an accurate description in this case.

[MilesTeg]

Not sure that the 'objective' goals you're coming up with are as objective as you seem to think.

'Your product should not injure or kill the user or bystanders' is a goal I think we all agree is generally applied to automobiles.  But it's also one that all internal combustion engine vehicles currently fail . . . as the air pollution from these vehicles is responsible for the death of tens of thousands of people every year, and crashes/accidents from automobiles are one of the leading causes of death in the US and Canada each year.  We (arbitrarily and subjectively) don't currently consider either of those part of product safety for automobiles today.

'Your product is high quality and long lasting'  is a pretty subjective goal.  But that's why I explicitly mentioned in my previous post testable ways to determine this . . . measuring tensile strength of tubes in a bike, stress analysis, joinery strength, etc.  All of this will measure quality and longevity of a bike, in an objective manner.

That's why I was saying it's a bad assumption that it's easier to objectively measure safety than any other quality.  Whatever you choose to focus on will be subject to a large degree of subjectivity associated with it while determining what objective measures to take.

You still aren't understanding. I'm not talking about objective measurement of qualities related to a goal. I'm talking about the goal itself being objective. The safety goal, as I described, is extremely objective. That we lack the technology to meet that goal (and accept some failure) is a symptom of reality and an entirely different matter.

Conversely, you have yet to even attempt to provide a workable, objective definition of your quality & longevity goal. That's because you can't, because those qualities are almost entirely subjective. You can measure weld strength all you want, that doesn't provide an answer for how strong that weld _should_ be (or, more to the point, how long the aggregate product should last). The answer to that question is, quite literally, "it depends".

'Your product should not injure or kill the user or bystanders'  -  'Your product must be safe'

'Your product is high quality and long lasting'  -  'The tubes your product use must meet this specification for tensile strength'

It's easy to make 'safety' more or less objective than 'longevity', as the objectivity of either is dependent upon the purely subjective wording of the rule.  In your example you chose a better example for safety than longevity . . . but that doesn't make longevity any harder to objectively find rules for than safety.

Talking about weld strength or tensile strength is not defining an objective goal, it's defining properties that may contribute to a goal.

How long should a bike last? A Computer? A House?
What is a high quality bike? Computer? House?

And importantly, explain the reasoning of your answer.

[GuitarStv]

Not sure that the 'objective' goals you're coming up with are as objective as you seem to think.

'Your product should not injure or kill the user or bystanders' is a goal I think we all agree is generally applied to automobiles.  But it's also one that all internal combustion engine vehicles currently fail . . . as the air pollution from these vehicles is responsible for the death of tens of thousands of people every year, and crashes/accidents from automobiles are one of the leading causes of death in the US and Canada each year.  We (arbitrarily and subjectively) don't currently consider either of those part of product safety for automobiles today.

'Your product is high quality and long lasting'  is a pretty subjective goal.  But that's why I explicitly mentioned in my previous post testable ways to determine this . . . measuring tensile strength of tubes in a bike, stress analysis, joinery strength, etc.  All of this will measure quality and longevity of a bike, in an objective manner.

That's why I was saying it's a bad assumption that it's easier to objectively measure safety than any other quality.  Whatever you choose to focus on will be subject to a large degree of subjectivity associated with it while determining what objective measures to take.

You still aren't understanding. I'm not talking about objective measurement of qualities related to a goal. I'm talking about the goal itself being objective. The safety goal, as I described, is extremely objective. That we lack the technology to meet that goal (and accept some failure) is a symptom of reality and an entirely different matter.

Conversely, you have yet to even attempt to provide a workable, objective definition of your quality & longevity goal. That's because you can't, because those qualities are almost entirely subjective. You can measure weld strength all you want, that doesn't provide an answer for how strong that weld _should_ be (or, more to the point, how long the aggregate product should last). The answer to that question is, quite literally, "it depends".

'Your product should not injure or kill the user or bystanders'  -  'Your product must be safe'

'Your product is high quality and long lasting'  -  'The tubes your product use must meet this specification for tensile strength'

It's easy to make 'safety' more or less objective than 'longevity', as the objectivity of either is dependent upon the purely subjective wording of the rule.  In your example you chose a better example for safety than longevity . . . but that doesn't make longevity any harder to objectively find rules for than safety.

Talking about weld strength or tensile strength is not defining an objective goal, it's defining properties that may contribute to a goal.

How long should a bike last? A Computer? A House?
What is a high quality bike? Computer? House?

And importantly, explain the reasoning of your answer.

Defining properties that contribute to a goal is the reason you specified that a product shouldn't kill the user or bystander.  Your goal was to make the product safer.

So what exactly is a 'safe' product?  How exactly do you define safety?  When is a product 'safe enough', and why is that point enough?

[flipboard]

Defining properties that contribute to a goal is the reason you specified that a product shouldn't kill the user or bystander.  Your goal was to make the product safer.

So what exactly is a 'safe' product?  How exactly do you define safety?  When is a product 'safe enough', and why is that point enough?

If only there were like... national safety authorities, that spent lots of time thinking about exactly this issue, coming up with tests and metrics.

[MilesTeg]

Defining properties that contribute to a goal is the reason you specified that a product shouldn't kill the user or bystander.  Your goal was to make the product safer.

So what exactly is a 'safe' product?  How exactly do you define safety?  When is a product 'safe enough', and why is that point enough?

No, the goal is to not kill or injure. Things like "not using lead paint" or "doesn't explode" are properties that may contribute to that goal.

The goal of not killing or causing injury is highly (though not entirely) objective (that is, based on facts not opinions). Being injured or dead is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.

The goal of "lasts long" is very subjective (that is, based on opinion). What makes for a high quality product or a long lasting product is very much subject to opinion.

Are you going to answer my questions or not?

[ender]

Defining properties that contribute to a goal is the reason you specified that a product shouldn't kill the user or bystander.  Your goal was to make the product safer.

So what exactly is a 'safe' product?  How exactly do you define safety?  When is a product 'safe enough', and why is that point enough?

If only there were like... national safety authorities, that spent lots of time thinking about exactly this issue, coming up with tests and metrics.

This is reminding me of terrible memories of reading ISO standards for such things as this. But yes, there is a lot of time/thought that goes into ISO standards.

[Davnasty]

Defining properties that contribute to a goal is the reason you specified that a product shouldn't kill the user or bystander.  Your goal was to make the product safer.

So what exactly is a 'safe' product?  How exactly do you define safety?  When is a product 'safe enough', and why is that point enough?

No, the goal is to not kill or injure. Things like "not using lead paint" or "doesn't explode" are properties that may contribute to that goal.

The goal of not killing or causing injury is highly (though not entirely) objective (that is, based on facts not opinions). Being injured or dead is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.

The goal of "lasts long" is very subjective (that is, based on opinion). What makes for a high quality product or a long lasting product is very much subject to opinion.

Are you going to answer my questions or not?

Are you going to answer my questions [in a new thread] or not?

[Edit]

When you say the safety goal is extremely objective, I assume you mean that the goal is to prevent all death and injury, correct?

Why can't the longevity goal be represented in the same manner? As in, the goal is to last forever.

Obviously that's en entirely unachievable goal and compromise will need to be made based on practical real world usage of the rules. Just like with safety.

[RyanAtTanagra]

I think it's time to spin off into a thread on what it means for something to be long-lasting and how to enforce that, before someone starts talking about what color black boxes are.

[dragoncar]

Defining properties that contribute to a goal is the reason you specified that a product shouldn't kill the user or bystander.  Your goal was to make the product safer.

So what exactly is a 'safe' product?  How exactly do you define safety?  When is a product 'safe enough', and why is that point enough?

No, the goal is to not kill or injure. Things like "not using lead paint" or "doesn't explode" are properties that may contribute to that goal.

The goal of not killing or causing injury is highly (though not entirely) objective (that is, based on facts not opinions). Being injured or dead is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.

The goal of "lasts long" is very subjective (that is, based on opinion). What makes for a high quality product or a long lasting product is very much subject to opinion.

Are you going to answer my questions or not?

Not killing is objective, but you will need to outlaw almost everything, since practically all commercial goods have caused death at some point.  What you will practically need is a cost-benefit analysis which requires you to determine an acceptable number of deaths, which is subjective.  How much are you willing to spend on automobiles to reduce deaths?  $250k per life saved?  $5 million per life saved? $10 million?

[solon]

Chris Farley voice

Remember when this thread was about unethical ways to save money? That was awesome!

[GuitarStv]

Defining properties that contribute to a goal is the reason you specified that a product shouldn't kill the user or bystander.  Your goal was to make the product safer.

So what exactly is a 'safe' product?  How exactly do you define safety?  When is a product 'safe enough', and why is that point enough?

No, the goal is to not kill or injure. Things like "not using lead paint" or "doesn't explode" are properties that may contribute to that goal.

The goal of not killing or causing injury is highly (though not entirely) objective (that is, based on facts not opinions). Being injured or dead is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.

The goal of "lasts long" is very subjective (that is, based on opinion). What makes for a high quality product or a long lasting product is very much subject to opinion.

What makes for a product that doesn't cause injury is very much subject to opinion.  Look at something as simple as painting stuff:

- A product causes injury if it's painted a dark colour, is laying on the ground and someone trips over it.  Is that real injury that we need to be worried about, or can we ignore it in our regulation?
- A product causes injury if it's painted a very bright colour and it's used in the sunlight . . . and then someone with sensitive eyes gets a headache by looking at it.  Is that real injury that we need to be worried about, or can we ignore it in our regulation?
- A product causes injury if it's painted green . . . and talking about it hurts the feelings of someone who is red-green colorblind who cannot see the colour.  Is that real injury that we need to be worried about, or can we ignore it in our regulation?
- A product causes injury if it's painted with swastikas . . . and is seen by a holocaust survivor.  Is that real injury that we need to be worried about, or can we ignore it in our regulation?

The definition of injury is not very objective at all, so it's impossible to objectively meet your stated goal.  There do exist some measurable actions we could take (does not explode for example) . . . the same way that there exist some measurable actions we could take to achieve better longevity from a product.

Are you going to answer my questions or not?

Sure.  I'm with Dabnasty.  The ultimate goal of 'last long' is to have the product last forever.  That's equally as objective as 'causes no deaths'.

It's likely impossible to ever achieve . . . the same way that the 'does not kill or injure' goal that you've put forward.  Doesn't mean we can't try to get close by focusing on particular measurable objectives.

[GuitarStv]

I think it's time to spin off into a thread on what it means for something to be long-lasting and how to enforce that, before someone starts talking about what color black boxes are.

You mean orange boxes?

[GuitarStv]

Chris Farley voice

Remember when this thread was about unethical ways to save money? That was awesome!

But is keeping your income low by living in a van down by the river so you can qualify for free government cheese unethical?

Chris Farley voice

Remember when this thread was about unethical ways to save money? That was awesome!

But is keeping your income low by living in a van down by the river so you can qualify for free government cheese unethical?

Which part of this is unethical?
- Is living in a van unethical if it's illegal to do so within city limits?
- Is living below your means unethical?
- Is taking advantage of government programs available to you unethical if it's possible to survive without them?
- Is government cheese unethical?

[Davnasty]

The subject of investing in socially or environmentally responsible companies comes up from time to time (and yesterday). Regardless of one's opinion on the efficacy of such a plan, does the fact that some people do this make the stock of companies they exclude a better deal?

If so, an index fund investing specifically in the companies excluded from the "responsible" funds would be a rather unethical way of making money.

VTDVL anyone?

[dragoncar]

Chris Farley voice

Remember when this thread was about unethical ways to save money? That was awesome!

Keeping off topic discussion in this thread saves me a click and therefore time.  Time is money so is it unethical not to make a new thread?

[solon]

Chris Farley voice

Remember when this thread was about unethical ways to save money? That was awesome!

Keeping off topic discussion in this thread saves me a click and therefore time.  Time is money so is it unethical not to make a new thread?

I can see you're trying to bait me into an off topic discussion. It won't work!

[GuitarStv]

Chris Farley voice

Remember when this thread was about unethical ways to save money? That was awesome!

Keeping off topic discussion in this thread saves me a click and therefore time.  Time is money so is it unethical not to make a new thread?

I can see you're trying to bait me into an off topic discussion. It won't work!

Why not?

[ender]

I think it's time to spin off into a thread on what it means for something to be long-lasting and how to enforce that, before someone starts talking about what color black boxes are.

You mean orange boxes?

I'm glad I was there for that.

[merula]

Which part of this is unethical?
- Is living in a van unethical if it's illegal to do so within city limits?
- Is living below your means unethical?
- Is taking advantage of government programs available to you unethical if it's possible to survive without them?
- Is government cheese unethical?

I'm pretty sure government cheese is unethical otherwise I'm good with the rest. Of course if I'm a quadzillionaire who lives in my Lambo luxury gazzillon dollar vanagon/helicopter and park it on my private isle on the Seine and could  buy my own government cheese but don't wanna,  then maybe the rest is unethical as well. Government cheese is always unethical.
[/quote]

100% agree government cheese is unethical. It's economic manipulation designed to enrich dairy farmers at the expense of the country at large, the environment, and public schoolchildren.

Is it unethical to live in a van down by the river if doing so means performing ablutions in that river? Does the overall cleanliness of the river prior to such ablutions make a difference?

[MilesTeg]

What makes for a product that doesn't cause injury is very much subject to opinion.  Look at something as simple as painting stuff:

- A product causes injury if it's painted a dark colour, is laying on the ground and someone trips over it.  Is that real injury that we need to be worried about, or can we ignore it in our regulation?
- A product causes injury if it's painted a very bright colour and it's used in the sunlight . . . and then someone with sensitive eyes gets a headache by looking at it.  Is that real injury that we need to be worried about, or can we ignore it in our regulation?
- A product causes injury if it's painted green . . . and talking about it hurts the feelings of someone who is red-green colorblind who cannot see the colour.  Is that real injury that we need to be worried about, or can we ignore it in our regulation?
- A product causes injury if it's painted with swastikas . . . and is seen by a holocaust survivor.  Is that real injury that we need to be worried about, or can we ignore it in our regulation?

The definition of injury is not very objective at all, so it's impossible to objectively meet your stated goal.  There do exist some measurable actions we could take (does not explode for example) . . . the same way that there exist some measurable actions we could take to achieve better longevity from a product.

I already said, multiple times in multiple posts that safety is not entirely objective. It's subjectivity, however, is limited to degree. This is as opposed to "longevity" which can have multiple, incompatible or contradictory definitions. For example, a car's brakes system can be made to last a long time specifically because some parts of it are designed to not last long (in particular, the brake pads).

More interestingly, you'll note that the areas where safety becomes subjective is where it is the most problematic to regulate. Not problematic as in difficult, but problematic in causing real harm to the overall quality of a product.

Sure.  I'm with Dabnasty.  The ultimate goal of 'last long' is to have the product last forever.  That's equally as objective as 'causes no deaths'.

It's likely impossible to ever achieve . . . the same way that the 'does not kill or injure' goal that you've put forward.  Doesn't mean we can't try to get close by focusing on particular measurable objectives.

So products should last "forever". Interesting, but still a subjective goal. There are extremely good arguments (economic, environmental, quality, etc.) /against/ products that last "forever".

Such regulation would result in products that are vastly over-engineered for ruggedness harming both their suitability for their intended purpose and taking far more resources to build and incentivize the continued use of obsolete (and inefficient) designs for products that have ongoing operational costs. Do you think we would be having this conversation if (as an arbitrary example) had been required to make computers in the 70s that would last "forever"? (answer: not a chance).

How much extra energy (and pollution) do you think we would have generated had we only been allowed to buy incandescent light bulbs built to last forever (which would require a far less energy efficient design). (answer: a lot)

How many people would switch to LED light bulbs when they have a house full of ruggedized incandescent bulbs? (answer: very few).

Well, we can just force people to buy LEDs with new regulation, right? Wait, LED bulbs wouldn't exist or would cost astronomical sums since semiconductor production would not exist or not be anywhere as mature as it is today.

[GuitarStv]

What makes for a product that doesn't cause injury is very much subject to opinion.  Look at something as simple as painting stuff:

- A product causes injury if it's painted a dark colour, is laying on the ground and someone trips over it.  Is that real injury that we need to be worried about, or can we ignore it in our regulation?
- A product causes injury if it's painted a very bright colour and it's used in the sunlight . . . and then someone with sensitive eyes gets a headache by looking at it.  Is that real injury that we need to be worried about, or can we ignore it in our regulation?
- A product causes injury if it's painted green . . . and talking about it hurts the feelings of someone who is red-green colorblind who cannot see the colour.  Is that real injury that we need to be worried about, or can we ignore it in our regulation?
- A product causes injury if it's painted with swastikas . . . and is seen by a holocaust survivor.  Is that real injury that we need to be worried about, or can we ignore it in our regulation?

The definition of injury is not very objective at all, so it's impossible to objectively meet your stated goal.  There do exist some measurable actions we could take (does not explode for example) . . . the same way that there exist some measurable actions we could take to achieve better longevity from a product.

I already said, multiple times in multiple posts that safety is not entirely objective. It's subjectivity, however, is limited to degree. This is as opposed to "longevity" which can have multiple, incompatible or contradictory definitions. For example, a car's brakes system can be made to last a long time specifically because some parts of it are designed to not last long (in particular, the brake pads).

More interestingly, you'll note that the areas where safety becomes subjective is where it is the most problematic to regulate. Not problematic as in difficult, but problematic in causing real harm to the overall quality of a product.

I already said, multiple times in multiple posts that the subjectivity of safety is limited in a similar degree to the subjectivity of longevity measures.  I'd actually argue that a car's brake system (when you look at the system as a whole) are designed to last a long time . . . that's why the parts that have to wear to provide the braking force are designed to be easily replaceable.  In this way the rest of the braking system achieves greater longevity.  But we'll come back to confusion between components and whole systems in a moment.

It's true, longevity can have multiple, incompatible or contradictory definitions.  As can safety - that's why I showed how painting something a dark colour can make it less safe - but so can painting something a bright colour.  Look, incompatible and contradictory definitions!  By your own logic we cannot regulate for safety.

It's not interesting at all that subjective areas are more problematic to regulate.  It's axiomatic, and not a point upon which we disagree.

Sure.  I'm with Dabnasty.  The ultimate goal of 'last long' is to have the product last forever.  That's equally as objective as 'causes no deaths'.

It's likely impossible to ever achieve . . . the same way that the 'does not kill or injure' goal that you've put forward.  Doesn't mean we can't try to get close by focusing on particular measurable objectives.

So products should last "forever". Interesting, but still a subjective goal. There are extremely good arguments (economic, environmental, quality, etc.) /against/ products that last "forever".

There are extremely good arguments (economic, environmental, quality, etc.) /against/ products that last do not cause any injury every (even if we get past the contradictions in the stated goal that have already been raised).  If you hold any single design criteria to infinitely exacting standards you are fucked when designing a product.

Such regulation would result in products that are vastly over-engineered for ruggedness harming both their suitability for their intended purpose and taking far more resources to build and incentivize the continued use of obsolete (and inefficient) designs for products that have ongoing operational costs. Do you think we would be having this conversation if (as an arbitrary example) had been required to make computers in the 70s that would last "forever"? (answer: not a chance).

Yep.

Exactly the way that the stated goal of having a product not cause harm will result in products vastly over-engineered for safety harming both their suitability for their intended purpose and taking far more resources to build.

Did you know that there's a measured reduction in rate of fatalities in automobile collisions when cars drive at slower speeds?  Simply by limiting the speed of automobiles to 1 mile per hour, they would become significantly safer.  But I assume that you feel there are other design criteria to take into consideration beyond just safety, right?  Like . . . utility of the finished product.  Typically there is a balance struck . . . so while the ultimate goal may be that nobody dies because of a car, someone has to subjectively decide somewhere that the utility of being able to drive 50 miles an hour outweighs the pesky deaths that creating a two ton vehicle that can go those speeds will entail.

How much extra energy (and pollution) do you think we would have generated had we only been allowed to buy incandescent light bulbs built to last forever (which would require a far less energy efficient design). (answer: a lot)

Yep.  That's why longevity can't be the only design criteria.  Just like (as we've established above) safety can't be the only design criteria.

How many people would switch to LED light bulbs when they have a house full of ruggedized incandescent bulbs? (answer: very few).

Agreed.  Although we're running into a problem here.  There are quite a few regular incandescent light bulbs already in existence that have lasted in the 90-100 year range.  You know why?  Because they were never/rarely turned off . . . so the micro fractures that develop in the filament and eventually kill an incandescent didn't occur.

A light bulb on it's own is useless.  The goal is a system that can produce and occlude light on demand.  You're looking at a single component of a system (the light bulb) rather than the whole system.  The whole system involves some power source, a switching system, and the light bulb.  The goal is system longevity.  But again, as with safety it can't be the only goal.

Well, we can just force people to buy LEDs with new regulation, right? Wait, LED bulbs wouldn't exist or would cost astronomical sums since semiconductor production would not exist or not be anywhere as mature as it is today.

One of the best things about LEDs is that they last (in a whole system typical use case) tremendously longer than incandescent bulbs.  Forcing people to buy LEDs is a stupid suggestion (good thing nobody made it!), but setting regulations for efficiency can be used to guide people towards more efficient products.  Just as regulations for longevity can guide people towards longer lived products.




The only thing we really seem to disagree on here is that safety is somehow a magically different design criteria than anything else . . . be it efficiency, longevity, or other.

[slappy]

I recently asked my coworker for a tampon. She said she only uses the ones that are in the free machines in the bathrooms at work. She said she just takes a handful home at night, so she doesn't ever have to buy any.

I appreciate having them available for free at work in case of emergency, but they are certainly not the best quality. Hence the reason I was asking a co worker for one rather that just grabbing a free one!

[Boofinator]

I recently asked my coworker for a tampon. She said she only uses the ones that are in the free machines in the bathrooms at work. She said she just takes a handful home at night, so she doesn't ever have to buy any.

I appreciate having them available for free at work in case of emergency, but they are certainly not the best quality. Hence the reason I was asking a co worker for one rather that just grabbing a free one!

I once stole a commercial sized roll of toilet paper from my college football stadium. It proceeded to last me all through college and beyond.

Definitely unethical, even if I rationalized it at the time.

[Dragonswan]

My ethical rule of thumb for work is: If you think it's alright to use it or take it ask your boss for it.  The reason most people don't ask is because they know what they are doing is unethical or borderline and don't want confirmation of that so their conscience can tell them they did nothing wrong.  That said, my job has a de minimus policy so there is some subjectivity and judgement involved.  But we were given some examples at orientation to help us out. (We also have an ethics officer for more official things.) Still on occasion I'll ask my boss when I think I might be putting a toe over the line.

[Davnasty]

I recently asked my coworker for a tampon. She said she only uses the ones that are in the free machines in the bathrooms at work. She said she just takes a handful home at night, so she doesn't ever have to buy any.

I appreciate having them available for free at work in case of emergency, but they are certainly not the best quality. Hence the reason I was asking a co worker for one rather that just grabbing a free one!

I once stole a commercial sized roll of toilet paper from my college football stadium. It proceeded to last me all through college and beyond.

Definitely unethical, even if I rationalized it at the time.

Those places need better security. We snuck into a football stadium just to look around and ended up playing on the field. Saw a whole pallet of soda fountain syrups on the way out, someone grabbed a powerade. Later realized it was enough to make something like 25 gallons.

[Davnasty]

My ethical rule of thumb for work is: If you think it's alright to use it or take it ask your boss for it.  The reason most people don't ask is because they know what they are doing is unethical or borderline and don't want confirmation of that so their conscience can tell them they did nothing wrong.  That said, my job has a de minimus policy so there is some subjectivity and judgement involved.  But we were given some examples at orientation to help us out. (We also have an ethics officer for more official things.) Still on occasion I'll ask my boss when I think I might be putting a toe over the line.

This is probably a good rule if you have doubts, but I think if I asked about taking paperclips or printing personal stuff it would just be awkward, in a "why the hell are you asking me this" kind of way.