zlacker

>>buro9+(OP)
Is there some generalized law (yet) about unintended consequences? For example:

Increase fuel economy -> Introduce fuel economy standards -> Economic cars practically phased out in favour of guzzling "trucks" that are exempt from fuel economy standards -> Worse fuel economy.

or

Protect the children -> Criminalize activites that might in any way cause an increase in risk to children -> Best to just keep them indoors playing with electronic gadgets -> Increased rates of obesity/depression etc -> Children worse off.

As the article itself says: Hold big tech accountable -> Introduce rules so hard to comply with that only big tech will be able to comply -> Big tech goes on, but indie tech forced offline.

>>Markus+6j
Politicians should take a mandatory one-week training in:

- very basic macro economics

- very basic game theory

- very basic statistics

Come to think of it, kids should learn this in high school

>>FredPr+Mo
Except the gas guzzling large trucks seems to be a uniquely north american problem - because of the "work vehicle" loophole.

>>philjo+BL
And Australian.

>>phs318+zh1
You can solve it by adding congestion tax depending on vehicle size and making public transit readily available so people are less likely to take their huge trucks everywhere.

>>thanks+kJ1
You grossly underestimate the average American’s desire to thumb their nose at government regulations, even if it means spending far more money than they should to do so.

Look at the prices of new trucks, then at the median salary. People should not have car payments that rival a small mortgage, yet they do.