News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:California moves toward ban on gas lawnmowers and leaf bl... by giantg2 on Monday October 11, 2021 @07:40AM (#28827213)
Why attack me and put down my worth instead of provide an answer? You are assuming my question is a rhetorical trick, which is also against HN's policy that states you should read people's comments in a charitable way.

That's not rhetoric. It's a real question. Reel mowers don't produce emissions, don't require batteries which harm the environment, don't require electricity to be generated and transmitted, don't require copper or electronics, and they force people to get exercise. The arguments here have been that batteries are good enough for most lawns because most lawns are small. If most lawns are small, then reel mowers are a suitable replacement as well. If it was really about the environment and people's health, then they should be pushing reel mowers.

Re:California moves toward ban on gas lawnmowers and leaf bl... by wtallis on Monday October 11, 2021 @11:00AM (#28829062)
> That's not rhetoric. It's a real question. [...] If it was really about the environment and people's health, then they should be pushing reel mowers.

Yes, there are potential benefits to your Modest Proposal. But none of them provide any further improvement to the specific harms that the law in question explicitly seeks to reduce. Instead, you ignore those stated objectives and pretend that the law has (or should have) much broader goals, so that you can propose a much more radical alternative. And you haven't tried to explain how your proposal would be a reasonable tradeoff given its obvious and considerable downsides. You've also thrown in a bit of a straw-man ("If most lawns are small, then reel mowers are a suitable replacement as well"). I'm still not seeing a reason to take you seriously.