Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Another perspective is that your default position should be to distrust everything that the government communicates, and only accept as believable those things that you have identified yourself as being true.

With regard to safety rules - there are usually two issues at hand, neither of which have anything to do with safety (particularly your safety).

On the one hand, you have people who believe it is always better to err on the side of safety - whether that means you taking your shoes off every time you board a plane, patting down/scanning every single passenger, or saying you can't read a kindle during takeoff - there is ZERO cost to the person requiring that rule, and even an infinitesimal risk (say, 1 in a billion) means that there is real cost to the individual/group saying we can forego those precautions.

Because the inconvenience/costs of the "Safety Rules" are born by others, but the potential (no matter how small) cost of not having that rule is borne by the individual who said it was no longer needed - the default position will ALWAYS be to add more safety rules.

Pushing the other direction is $$$. Anytime people with $$$ are involved, all sorts of safety rules are dropped. There wasn't a big kindle/laptop lobby pushing for the dropping of the NoElectronics rule, which is why it lasted so long.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: