|
Subjunctive posted:Are you saying that you think Josephine should be exempt from food regulations if they limited their cooks to, say, two meals/day each? I don't see how having N meals produced by 1 person or by N people changes the calculus, other than to perhaps favour the fewer, more-practiced cooks. Many households cook 2 meals/day without foodborne illness issues for years at a stretch, so the probabilities seem viable. In a hypothetical world, yes, or at least they would have a much stronger argument for being ignored. Just like in a hypothetical world where Uber really is just people finding carpools and then taking a small gratuity, instead of ~~Replacing the world's Taxi industries~~ jre posted:A dangerous cook cooking for their own family might poison 2 or 3 people, while bad it's not possible to have every home kitchen inspected. A dangerous cook cooking 100 meals a day could easily badly poison 20 or thirty people before they worked out where it came from which is why its worth the effort to inspect larger operations. It's not just that even. A regular cook might get a food poisoned meal maybe once every few years. That same cook that cooks at the rate Josephine wants would generating a food poisoned meal every month. That's what quality is - the probability of something loving up. computer parts fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Jun 9, 2016 |
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:45 |
|
|
Subjunctive posted:They have the kitchens inspected and the cooks certified? Maybe it's stricter now, but in my youth parents just baked up a bunch of whatever and brought it in. I'm certain I never saw anyone testing the temperature of my mom's fridge How much meat was in the baked goods ? Bake sales are a dumb example to get fixated on because there is much less risk with baked goods vs actual meals
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
It's worth noting that bake sales do, in fact, have rules; there are things you can't serve at them and will typically be rules on how the stuff must be packaged.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
jre posted:A dangerous cook cooking 100 meals a day That's what I was specifically addressing when I asked about putting a limit of 2 meals/day on each cook, though. You even quoted that part. jre posted:How much meat was in the baked goods ? Bake sales are a dumb example to get fixated on because there is much less risk with baked goods vs actual meals I guess you accidentally edited out the part about burgers and hot dogs? Baked goods need labeling and have contamination issues for allergens (and cross-contamination from uncooked dough), but if you want only meat examples you're welcome to the one I provided based on personal experience. We served easily 200 people over the course of the day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:It's worth noting that bake sales do, in fact, have rules; there are things you can't serve at them and will typically be rules on how the stuff must be packaged. Right, but the rules aren't "must have inspected kitchen", which is the standard being applied to Josephine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Also an important note: any bakesale I know has gotten authority from the proper authorities before setting up. You aren't just allowed to plop your thing down on the sidewalk and make money.  quote:"We had kettle corn and lemonade. The lemonade was for 50 cents and the kettle corn was a dollar, but if you got both it was a dollar." Zoey told KLTV. Laws exist for reasons. Maybe I'm just being Lawful Good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
jre posted:You are surely not suggesting that businesses should be able to ignore laws purely on the basis that they will make more money by doing that ? No. I'm suggesting that if a business is faced with a law that is actually a detriment to the public good, it is moral to violate the law prior to—and as an incentive to—getting it changed. The business itself may be operating amorally, focused only on profit, but if their action is a net public good, then their actions have post-hoc justification. Safety regulations would rarely fall into this category. Intellectual property laws occasionally will.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:That's what I was specifically addressing when I asked about putting a limit of 2 meals/day on each cook, though. You even quoted that part. I'm was pointing out how dumb going on about your mothers fridge was, the number of people poisoned by baked goods is a tiny fraction of people poisoned by badly cooked , or contaminated meat which is why the regulation are much stricter for cooked meals. Are you suggesting that because no-one inspected the amateur hot dog stand, which is an amazingly common way to get food poising btw, there shouldn't be any regulation at all ? Why are you so invested in defending a lovely company who are deliberately putting people at risk to make a quick buck ? Do you know the people involved ? BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:No. I'm suggesting that if a business is faced with a law that is actually a detriment to the public good, it is moral to violate the law prior to—and as an incentive to—getting it changed. The business itself may be operating amorally, focused only on profit, but if their action is a net public good, then their actions have post-hoc justification. Safety regulations would rarely fall into this category. Intellectual property laws occasionally will. Who gets to decide which laws are a detriment to the public good ?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
e_angst posted:Remember when Austin voted down the ordinance that Uber and Lyft wrote that was basically a blank check for them to ignore all city regulations? Remember when Uber and Lyft left, and various tech and financial media outlets (the ones most used to sucking VC cock) posted about how Austin would no longer be a tech hub because we dared to scorn those dear sweet unicorns? I'm surprised some of the larger international ride sharing apps didn't step into the void. I know Hailo is big in parts of Europe, and used to operate in the US but pulled out a few years back due to Uber/lyft's competition. From the outside looking in a relatively large, well developed company like Hailo would seem to be in an even better position to take advantage of Austin than any new startups beginning from the ground up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
jre posted:Who gets to decide which laws are a detriment to the public good ? The public? The courts?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Ignoring the eye-rolling simplification of business, are you saying that the food standards are lessened for non-commercial cases because they believe that non-professional cooks are more careful out of benevolence? Have you ever hung out with somebody without paying them for it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
jre posted:Are you suggesting that because no-one inspected the amateur hot dog stand, which is an amazingly common way to get food poising btw, there shouldn't be any regulation at all ? I'm neither advocating the abolition of regulation nor defending the company, as far as I can tell. If I have inadvertently done so, please let me know. (To my knowledge I don't know anyone there, but I haven't checked their investor roster.) The thread seems to have established that commercial at whatever scale Josephine was at needs to be inspected, and potlucks don't. I'm trying to establish where that line is, and why it's there. I believe that there are exemptions for political expedience which are inconsistent with the position that the laws were created to maximize public health. It would be a simple matter to ban amateur hot dog stands as a matter of policy, for example.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
Blut posted:I'm surprised some of the larger international ride sharing apps didn't step into the void. I know Hailo is big in parts of Europe, and used to operate in the US but pulled out a few years back due to Uber/lyft's competition. From the outside looking in a relatively large, well developed company like Hailo would seem to be in an even better position to take advantage of Austin than any new startups beginning from the ground up. Hailo have the benefit of working within the regulations, but that might be seen as a detriment by some of the people who prefer Uber/Lyft to licenced taxis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:I'm neither advocating the abolition of regulation nor defending the company, as far as I can tell. If I have inadvertently done so, please let me know. (To my knowledge I don't know anyone there, but I haven't checked their investor roster.) Is the scale not having 1000s of contractors making meals in unregulated kitchens every day ?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
the exchange of food for money is a good line to determine commercial vs. communal activity, in such a way that you can legislate wildcat restaurants without making normal human behavior such as home cooking or food sharing illegal if josephine was just an app that connected people who wanted to cook for strangers with hungry strangers then the health department has less incentive to care because you could already do the same thing with craigslist or to a more secretive extent with a supper club or lots of old fashioned irl relationships like having your older neighbor over for dinner
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
I can buy cheap consumer-grade playground equipment for my backyard, but commercial/public playground equipment is vastly more expensive. Hey if it's safe for my kid to play on, it's safe for any arbitrary number of kids right? Gonna disrupt the playground industry by using consumer-grade equipment instead of cowing under to Big Playground.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Uncle Enzo posted:I can buy cheap consumer-grade playground equipment for my backyard, but commercial/public playground equipment is vastly more expensive. Hey if it's safe for my kid to play on, it's safe for any arbitrary number of kids right? Gonna disrupt the playground industry by using consumer-grade equipment instead of cowing under to Big Playground. This is pretty dumb, though? The consumer-grade playground equipment you buy is safe, just not as durable as the things made for actual playgrounds and smaller scale because it's not intended to accomodate a dozen kids at once.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:This is pretty dumb, though? The consumer-grade playground equipment you buy is safe, just not as durable as the things made for actual playgrounds and smaller scale because it's not intended to accomodate a dozen kids at once. When stuff is not as durable as it is intended to be for a given environment, it tends to break. If it breaks while a kid's playing on it, because it was designed for occasional use by one kid and now there's dozens playing on it all the time, that can be unsafe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:This is pretty dumb, though? The consumer-grade playground equipment you buy is safe, just not as durable as the things made for actual playgrounds and smaller scale because it's not intended to accomodate a dozen kids at once. This is pretty dumb, though? The consumer-grade kitchen equipment you buy is safe, just not as durable as the things made for actual commercial kitchens and smaller scale because it's not intended to accomodate a dozen meals at once.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:This is pretty dumb, though? The consumer-grade playground equipment you buy is safe, just not as durable as the things made for actual playgrounds and smaller scale because it's not intended to accomodate a dozen kids at once. And if youre going to sell materials guaranteed to accomodate a dozen kids at once then we're going to want to see that it works before it collapses with a dozen kids on it
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:It's interesting that scale is so important here, though. Every church potluck works as you describe, but the law doesn't care because, AIUI, it's non-commercial. It's not clear to me how the presence of money makes the health issues different. It's basically a question of incentives and competition. Bake sales do not happen regularly and their goal is just to raise some money. Producing the cakes in a more efficient, money-saving way isn't really the point there. The people already donate the cake. They also have no immediate competition. A for-profit company, no matter the scale, does have competition. Not following health codes means saving money which means the business is now more competitive compared to those that do follow codes. Which means in order to stay in business they must now lower their prices in order to compete or hope they'll survive until customers return after people died of food poisoning or whatever elsewhere. This is obviously not a desirable outcome, so the second you enter the market as a for-profit entity, these rules apply to you. There are also other reasons, such as taking care of public health, which is why non-profit kitchens that operate on a regular basis also have to follow health codes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
jre posted:This is pretty dumb, though? The consumer-grade kitchen equipment you buy is safe, just not as durable as the things made for actual commercial kitchens and smaller scale because it's not intended to accomodate a dozen meals at once. I don't think you made the point you thought you did. feedmegin posted:When stuff is not as durable as it is intended to be for a given environment, it tends to break. If it breaks while a kid's playing on it, because it was designed for occasional use by one kid and now there's dozens playing on it all the time, that can be unsafe. Sure. But it could accomodate, say, a dozen kids coming and going in small groups throughout the week without any trouble. There's probably a scale at which it's fine to have a bunch of kids using your equipment. Just like a non-commercial rated kitchen is going to be able to produce a couple of trays of enchaladas or whatever a few times a week without issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I don't think you made the point you thought you did. no, he's right. theres a difference of scale and intent here, as well as liability. or are you going to lie about your familiarity with those things too?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:no, he's right. theres a difference of scale and intent here, as well as liability. or are you going to lie about your familiarity with those things too? Dude, while I would never say an argument should be judged on its tone, tone does have a great effect on whether someone wants to engage with you or not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Dude, while I would never say an argument should be judged on its tone, tone does have a great effect on whether someone wants to engage with you or not. i frankly don't care if you like my tone or not given that you've been caught out lying about your firsthand experience with regulations as a vague anecdotal ploy to talk about why food safety inspections aren't necessary really i'm just performing a market function itt alerting other consumers of your posts that they cause illness
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i frankly don't care if you like my tone or not given that you've been caught out lying about your firsthand experience with regulations as a vague anecdotal ploy to talk about why food safety inspections aren't necessary Okay duder.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:re: CA food safety law, both the CA legislature and CA public health authorities are on board with changing CA's cottage food production law to incorporate the sort of production the company is facilitating. The bill will (probably) be passed in 2017. I am interested in hearing more about this, do you have any links?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:I am interested in hearing more about this, do you have any links? It's in one of the articles linked by the poster who started this thread of conversation. edit: Becauase it's not really a derail.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I don't think you made the point you thought you did. quote:Just like a non-commercial rated kitchen is going to be able to produce a couple of trays of enchaladas or whatever a few times a week without issue. Well yes if you believe the fairy story that its "meal sharing" in the same way that uber is "ride sharing" and not just the facilitation of unlicensed take aways. The vast majority of home kitchens can't store the meat for those safely , nor store the cooked product safely until they are collected. jre fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Jun 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Spazzle's not arguing against food safety laws. He's complaining about how this thread is knee-jerk pro-regulation no matter what the regulation is, and how people in this thread have made arguments which literally consisted of "startup company breaks law, therefore startup company is bad". However, much of the rest of D&D consists of complaining about how government practices, laws, and regulations are unfair, unjust, bigoted, sexist, racist, hyper-bigoted, giga-bigoted, whatever, and for that reason I say that this thread is kind of a bizarro D & D. This thread is overwhelmingly pro regulation because startups are overwhelmingly prone to ignoring loving important regulations. There has yet to be a need to say "oh well maybe we don't need that regulation after all" because the ones being ignored are all things like "basic food safety" and "accepting liability for your workforce" and things like that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:It's in one of the articles linked by the poster who started this thread of conversation. I think you have provided an incredibly dishonest portrayal of the statements made concerning this topic by legislators and regulators. A bill backed by a special interest group has been sponsored by a single legislator, but that does not imply it has the support of the CA legislature. Additionally there is a quote by the head of CCDEH which is a department that executes educational programs concerning public safety, including food safety, but they can only act as lobbyist to the California department of public health and the various county agencies that are the actual regulators. On top of that, they do not express support of the specific bill, but support of the idea that cottage food regulation changes might be supported if they do not sacrifice safety.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
It's totally unacceptable that the general attitude in this thread is contrary to somebody's impression of the general attitude of the subforum at large. I think the problem is that most of you are evaluating policies based on facts about specific situations. Instead, you should base all your judgments on vague, simplistic notions of "Government good!" or "Government bad!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
From what I have seen, regulations supported in this thread have been given supporting context. If not, then it is absolutely fine to call that out, but keep in mind those discussions may have taken place earlier in the thread and posters are not going to be keen to rehash old territory to support objections made by every new poster that jumps in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:From what I have seen, regulations supported in this thread have been given supporting context. If not, then it is absolutely fine to call that out, but keep in mind those discussions may have taken place earlier in the thread and posters are not going to be keen to rehash old territory to support objections made by every new poster that jumps in. It's good practice for real-life (and outside this thread/these forums internet) political arguments to have at least an elevator pitch to explain your context, if you ask me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Sure. But it could accomodate, say, a dozen kids coming and going in small groups throughout the week without any trouble. There's probably a scale at which it's fine to have a bunch of kids using your equipment. And if I charged people to play on my residential-grade equipment? That would be ok also?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:It's good practice for real-life (and outside this thread/these forums internet) political arguments to have at least an elevator pitch to explain your context, if you ask me. I agree and I believe in this case, that had been done. Food safety regulations sprang out of literal death and misery in the Gilded Age, and have been tremendously successful at reducing said death and misery. Many such regulations have erred on the side of ensuring safety (such as meat and cheese holding temperatures) for the purpose of saving lives despite low risk. Additionally such regulations concerning cottage industries are in place because home industry is incapable of absorbing and controlling liability at scale. Thus I could easily be convinced that food safety regulation is not achieving its purpose of safety or managing liability. I am even open to a discussion concerning cost benefit analysis of safety vs efficacy. But neither of those arguments have been supported here. For instance, if the regulations were reduced and something happened, what would liability look like in this case? Keep in mind that liability has been categorically denied by most sharing economy startups.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Food safety regulations sprang out of literal death and misery That's where vast swaths of all regulation comes from. And every time someone whines about the "onerous burden of regulation" they should be reminded of that relationship.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:This thread is overwhelmingly pro regulation because startups are overwhelmingly prone to ignoring loving important regulations. I sincerely believe that some posters in this thread would defend to the death even the most stupid, pointless, and wasteful government regulation if it gave them an opportunity to rag on a startup company. This thread has moved beyond "make fun of stupid and bad ideas and other dumb stuff in startup companies" and "chastise startup companies for producing/having sociologically dangerous ideas/effects". It is currently the "make lazy kneejerk criticisms of startup companies" thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I sincerely believe that some posters in this thread would defend to the death even the most stupid, pointless, and wasteful government regulation if it gave them an opportunity to rag on a startup company. So you are also here to attack imaginary arguments as well? Maybe I could say something similar about you, that you are one of the people that comes out of the woodwork to defend startups from imaginary hypotheticals. Which is a true statement supported by the quoted post.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:45 |
|
|
silence_kit posted:I sincerely believe that some posters in this thread would defend to the death even the most stupid, pointless, and wasteful government regulation if it gave them an opportunity to rag on a startup company. on the other hand, encouraging people to circumvent local/state regulations so they can turn a profit and you can take a cut while arguing that you don't bear any liability is unethical check it out, here's my new app that teaches kids math! it's called Numbr and how it works is that you pool together your pocket change with your friends (encouraging emergent social relationships and positive community network linking) and then everyone guesses a Numbr (pat. pending) and whoever gets closest wins all the money, minus a 10% fee for overhead. in this way we empower children to learn about salesmanship, probability, and money management
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 20:57
|
|