Soon I hope there will be a Github-for-law that we can all at least contribute requests to, with the proper structure, formatting, review process, and validation.
I love the Count of Monte Cristo. I had adventure and mystery. Also I felt I learned a lot about being a man while reading it, though that might be due to me being 20-21 at the time so I was learning a lot about that anyways. Also I loved listening to the audiobook of Treasure Island :)
This is wrong. If you don’t wear a seatbelt and you get into an accident, your whole body becomes a projectile. One persons dumb choice to not wear a seatbelt can have potentially fatal consequences to others riding in the car who are not responsible for that decision.
The energy has to go somewhere. So if you are not wearing a seatbelt and the car flings you out like a projectile, the car itself will have slightly less kinetic energy, being slightly less dangerous.
In any case, even if you discount energy conservation, the extra danger to other people from you becoming a projectile is likely tiny. You can run some cost benefit analyses, and I'm pretty sure you'll come to the conclusion that a Pigouvian tax of something like a dollar a year is enough to offset this.
> One persons dumb choice to not wear a seatbelt can have potentially fatal consequences to others riding in the car who are not responsible for that decision.
Are you talking about people in the same car as the guy not wearing a seatbelt? Then you can exactly identify the other parties, so the transaction costs for Coasean bargaining are very low. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem Basically, if you think it's dangerous to ride along with people who don't wear a seatbelt, then don't ride along with people who don't wear a seatbelt.
As a pedestrian you can't opt out of what drivers are doing. That's a real exernality. But as a fellow passenger, you know exactly who else is in the car, and you can refuse to ride with them.
If I understand your suggestion right, it's like marrying someone with bad breath, and then asking the government to make a law to make your spouse brush their teeth?
> the car itself will have slightly less kinetic energy, being slightly less dangerous.
Extremely slightly less. What, 170lbs compared to 4,000lbs+? Is 4% weight reduction after the collision starts, minus the energy imparted to the seats and other passengers and the windshield and what not, really going to make much impact to the overall collision calculus here?
There is, because people can and do go through glass. Sure, most of the time this means that their brains are just spread on the highway like nutella. But they could also go through YOUR windshield.
I'm trying to read your comments charitably and made in good faith but I'll admit it is proving to be a challenge here.
In the UK they ran a campaign to raise awareness that during an accident a passenger riding in the back can injure the passenger in front if they don't wear a seatbelt. That seems like a serious externality to me. I don't know if you just hate seatbelts or love arguing but there are absolutely reasons that people should wear seatbelts and I'm glad most people have accepted that the inconvenience of wearing them is pretty negligible now.
If you are a driver, and you want people in the back to wear a seatbelt, just ask them to wear a seatbelt. Duh.
> I don't know if you just hate seatbelts [...]
Why would I hate seatbelts? I wear them all the time, whenever I have to take a car. I just don't buy the usual justification for forcing other people to wear seatbelts (or have AM radios..)
> [...] and I'm glad most people have accepted that the inconvenience of wearing them is pretty negligible now.
I'm all for people wearing seatbelts, too. Just like I'm in favour of people eating their vegetables and flossing their teeth. Voluntarily.
Putting yourself and a child in a flying mechanical deathtrap and you're not wearing is an unnecessary risk to their life in the same way that leaving guns loaded and unlocked in a house is. These are differences in the magnitude of risk and a large enough difference in magnitude becomes a difference in kind.
I learned this fact from watching the documentary "The Queen of trees", quite fascinating! It blew my mind when I first saw it. The documentary is free on YouTube!
I share this view too, especially about law. There is going to be a huge increase in demand for white collar work, but the problem we will face is that the skills required to supply this demand will go up, and there further will be demand for technology to lower the skill barrier to do the jobs. I think the paper to CAD transition is a perfect example.
We started with more demand for computer skills to increase manufacturing efficiency, and now there is increasingly cheaper and better software to lower the barrier to learning CAD
I envision a similar transition for law and justice.
Today we only remember the great thinkers of these times, and tend to see a linear accumulation of knowledge. If you look at the history of the times you realise that at the time there was a vast and confusing babble, it was very hard at the time to distinguish the valid science from the superstition, the blind regurgitation of classical authority, the soothsayers and yes, the fraudsters.
For example Kepler considered his work on the Music of the Spheres (google it) to be more important than, and the ultimate goal of, his research on the mechanics of planetary motion. Newton dabbled in alchemy, and his dispute with Leibnitz was very very bitchy with some dubious jostling for priority. And there was no end of dubious research and outright fraud going on at the time. So no, it was not a golden era of disinterested research.
See for example the wikipedia articles on Phlogiston, The Music of the Spheres, the long and hard fought battle over Epicycles etc
Not the OP, but I remember reading about many twists and turns on the road to various inventions described in Matt Ridley's "How Innovation Works". I personally like "Happy Accidents. Serendipity in Major Medical Breakthroughs in the Twentieth Century" by Morton Meyers.
I think services definitely make sense in flask because flask has no built in ORM, you'll end up using sqlalchemy. Even the author concedes that in some non-django applications it may make sense
> And if, after reading this, you still are convinced that a service-layer approach with business logic separate from the data models is the right thing for you, then go for it, but I’ll urge you one last time to at least strongly consider not doing it with Django, and instead building on top of a component stack that uses a Data Mapper ORM (in the Python world, SQLAlchemy is far and away the best choice) that natively incorporates that type of separation. In the long term, I think that’s going to be a much happier and more productive path than trying to fit the square peg of a service layer into the round hole of Django’s Active Record approach.
reply