you're setting up and attacking a strawman. didn't say all regs are bad. obviously you have to identify which regulations are good and which are not, or those no longer necessary, and find a balance so you don't quash innovation. like the example I gave with Bill Gates nuclear project.

Oh so now some nuclear industry regulations are "bad." Then who knows better than NRC engineers and scientists, legitimately aiming to ensure the industry doesn't die from mass-casualty events, public harm, or unworkable costs?

Maybe before throwing shade on something you know nothing about, it's often best to not prove that you're speaking from your tail end. ; )

EDIT: You made a bunch of edits. No, you in particular and no one else have to state which regs are bad if you're making this presumption. "Innovation" and the stability of risk management are often at cross-purposes; don't upset what works and is standardized for consumerist novelty in a fucking nuclear reactor.

in a time when institutions and experts are failing all around us, I appreciate your optimism. but it's too much like a blind faith and devotion to priests for my tastes.

and maybe they are right about every regulation, that's a possibility! but clearly something has gone wrong when we could have had a clean grid powered via nuclear energy by now. so I think it would be wise to question everything in the chain.

> institutions and experts are failing all around us

Is that what we're seeing? Which institutions and experts do you think are failing us?

Could it actually be the case that institutions and experts are 99% accurate in their output, but the information ecosystem around us is highlighting the 1% of inaccuracies and presenting them as fatal flaws (while ignoring the fact that the alternatives to these institutions and experts have less than 50% accuracy)?

Certainly you could make the case that there are some people with an ideology and/or incentives to make sure that governments don't work for the benefit of the people they are supposed to serve, but if that's the threat model then all proposed plans need to be considered against that threat.

> Certainly you could make the case that there are some people with an ideology and/or incentives to make sure that governments don't work for the benefit of the people they are supposed to serve, but if that's the threat model then all proposed plans need to be considered against that threat.

I agree, and I think all proposed plans should absolutely be considered against that threat. I certainly hope that's not a radical take on my part....

>in a time when institutions and experts are failing all around us

I'm sorry but that is not happening IMO. What is happening is non-experts decide what to do without listening to institutions and experts. We are seeing the result of what you seem to be advocating. We should listen more to the experts and institutions and look at other places that have less of these kinds of problems, like Scandinavia.

Yes, exactly. It's a lack of trust in authority that many people are experiencing, and then they give-up promoting competent national leadership entirely, but this doesn't translate into declining institutions or actual experts. Placing profits and politics over results and societal needs just leads us down the golden brick road to hubris.

There are many countries around the world that implemented good ideas (Where To Invade Next?), like Finland baby boxes and no school homework, France with proper school lunches, Italy's work day and labor relations, and many countries with adequate healthcare and free college. It's better to borrow good ideas than believe everything is excellent when there are areas that need improvement.

You say we could have that, but no other nation has it either. Presumably some nations are better at regulating than we are; what is their excuse?

Move fast, break things - if only we could innovate in nuclear energy... It’s telling that all these experts who complain about regulations can’t point to a single one being a problem.

I think ultimately innovating in fission is a dead-end. Fusion is the way forward, even if it takes 50 or 100 years to realize, regardless of ambitious startups. But it's true, many so-called "experts" throw shade FUD on regs without evidence and without an impact analysis.