[datsci_est_2015]

> being against dumb regulation that only ads unnecessary bureaucracy or stops/limits progress

Does such strawman regulation even exist? Some regulation is intentionally designed to limit “progress”, where “progress” happens to have negative externalities.

It’s kind of a self-legitimizing opinion. Of course anyone would be against unnecessary regulations. I think the real world is not arguing about whether a regulation is necessary, but rather if the economic burden it creates is worth the positive impact it has on society, which is highly contentious, highly subjective debate.

[homer456]

It takes a minimum of 600 hours of training to get licensed to cut hair in California.

Pex plumbing is banned in Chicago as a union protectionist regulation.

The "chicken tax" regulation scheme has screwed up the US truck market for decades.

Electrical code requirements for the wiring of kitchen islands have changed drastically with very small justification within a short span of time.

To this day it is illegal to trade onion futures in Chicago due to an attempt to corner the market on onions decades ago(probably over a century can't be bothered to check).

Many European countries have draconian laws about air conditioning that are killing people this summer.

The affordable care act is written in such a way that the only way for insurers to increase their profit margin on health plans is to increase the cost they pay out to providers ("gold plating")

CAFE fuel economy standards have lead to the arms race of increased vehicle sizes for unnecessary reasons.

[rgmerk]

> Many European countries have draconian laws about air conditioning that are killing people this summer

Cite your sources.

There are specific issues in specific places (eg heritage restrictions in Paris), a higher prevalence of shared infrastructure rather than single family homes, and a higher level of renting rather than home ownership.

And there are people on the green-left end of the political spectrum in parts of northern Europe with weird hangups about air conditioning.

But as best I can tell this claim is false; the biggest reason why air conditioning is not so widespread in Northern Europe as in the United States is that the climate simply hasn’t, until recently, required it.

[yason]

> biggest reason why air conditioning is not so widespread in Northern Europe as in the United States

It certainly is a transitional period where each summer more and more people realize that eventually something needs to be done, "maybe a/c next year" for many years until the year of installation finally comes.

In Northern Europe it certainly is still a rare occurrence that everything gets heated so warm that the air does no longer cool during the night and you can't cool down for the next day. Yes, we do get heat waves but they don't last very long. Yes, summers are mostly getting hotter but it's still nothing like in southern Europe. We might have several weeks of 25-28C with a lot of lakes and sea to dip into.

Admittedly it can be tormenting in city apartments where you might not have a place for A/C even if you wanted to, and where you might not have enough outside walls to effectively cross-ventilate. Further, the stone and pavement in a city absorb heat like a sponge which keeps the average a few degrees warmer than greenleaf areas across the hot season.

Yet I think maybe half-ish of households (or at least detached houses) already do have A/C. Installations have been steadily creeping up in the last 25 years. But those units aren't there because of their cooling capacity (which isn't necessarily always even used). Those are air-to-air heat pumps that keep the house warm in the winter, and can be used for cooling in the summer.

[kQq9oHeAz6wLLS]

> climate simply hasn’t, until recently, required it.

I would qualify that as it hasn't required it since the invention of air conditioning.

Which also isn't strictly true; the high temperature for Paris on July 1st this year is identical to the high for the same day back in 2015[1], and there are several times since 1970 that the temperature was over 30C.

Other sources[2] indicate 1947 was just as brutal as 2019 and 2022, and the warmest night was in 1772 (27.5C)

[1] https://weatheronthisday.com/intl/paris/7/1

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Paris (standard Wikipedia reliability warning applies)

[rplnt]

Outside air temperature isn't an issue. It's not like people drop dead the moment it hits 40. The problem is that after a few days of that everything is heated up through and you have no place to escape it. That's new and hasn't been happening before.

[account42]

But "somewhat longer heatwave" isn't as scary sounding as "HOTTEST EVER RECORDED TEMPERATURE IN $LOCALE!!!!!!" which is why all the scaremongers keep screaming the latter.

[ragequittah]

We're warned of heatwaves and given instructions on how to not die all the time now. Not once did this occur when I was a child where I live. Record temperatures are more shown as an almanac style this is what's happened today whenever I see them. Personally I wish more scaremongering were happening right now.

[rgmerk]

Yes, there have been hot days across northern Europe before; however, the frequency of very hot weather has increased substantially.

It may not have gotten the headlines of this year’s heatwave, but we were in Switzerland and Germany for a month last July. For three of those four weeks, it was stinking hot. The maximum temperatures weren’t so bad, but the nights were oppressive, and there was no letup. If that’s going to be the norm most summers, it absolutely justifies investing in air conditioning.

[mastermage]

German here: you are not allowed to install anything thats visible from the outside without the owners aproval (70% of people Rent in Germany) or even the aproval of the Apartment Owner Association (Imagine HOA but for Apartments and every bit as dumb)

[dubbel]

German here: 53% of the Germans lives in a rented home.

Source: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/d...

[mastermage]

whoops sorry I think i mixed the numbers up with the EU average, which is close to 70% point in case is that its much much more than in other countries.

[mrguyorama]

So then in Europe you are just as banned from installing an AC unit as I was here in the states in a rented apartment.

Hint: that's not "It's banned in Europe", that's "Landlords generally suck in any possible way"

[inigyou]

Person living in Germany here: everyone does it anyway, if it's a temporary installation.

[mastermage]

I have seen enough people complaining about someone putting up an AC even the Midea Portasplit.

[reichstein]

> https://www.build.aau.dk/report-from-aau-warns-danish-homes-...

The Danish Building code has requirements for retaining heat in the house, which is great in the cold winters, but devastating in the heart of modern summers. Combined with rules that practically require large south-facing windows to satisfy the total energy requirement limits, it gets very, very hot. And air conditioning subtracts significantly from your energy rating, making it almost impossible to include AC in a new building and satisfy the emission rating that any new building must satisfy.

The code allows only 25 hours a year where indoor temperature exceeds 28 degrees, but the validation of a building uses old temperature data, so on practice it's more hours of higher temperatures, and for houses that, even if you want to add AC later, wasnt designed for that.

Abs to add insult to injury, if you renovate an older building, you _can_ be required to bring it up to modern specs. That can be so expensive that it's cheaper to tear it down and build a new building. Because you can't do something half-good?

The building code _is_ a real problem, and changes ... well, haven't happened yet, so the buildings built today will be unlivable for as long as they stand in the new hotter summers.

[inigyou]

Practices that retain heat usually also retain cold, or?

[KptMarchewa]

Yes. I don't get that hang up. I bought new apartment in 2024. It has triple pane windows, and 20cm of styrofoam on the external walls.

I can cool down entire 70 square meters apartment with single 3.5kw split; that has worked well in the recent 40 degree heatwave. It does not even use "higher gears" to maintain the 24-25 degrees inside.

Not to mention it's usage overwhelmingly correlates with sunshine availability.

[zchrykng]

Only if you have cold to retain...

[djankauskas]

These are excellent examples. Regulations are not inherently good or bad, and one of the issues we seem to have in the US is a lack of honest accounting, sometimes purposefully and sometimes due to a lack of state capacity, what the costs and benefits of different regulations are.

[Forgeties79]

> Many European countries have draconian laws about air conditioning that are killing people this summer.

I keep seeing people say this but they don’t have any evidence, seen it tons online the last few weeks even on HN. What’s the deal? One person the other day went so far as to say that multiple EU nations have banned AC, which is completely false. You can absolutely have air-conditioning in Europe. Some places have stricter rules about permanent installation, such as HVACs in older areas, but there are plenty of air-conditioning units people can just pick up and use the same day in those cases. You can get AC units in European nations. You don’t have to just roast for no reason because of the government.

[rplnt]

Just to add, the regulations you mention aren't even about AC, it's about modifying buildings' "looks". You can still install AC if you figure out where to put the outside unit - roof, balcony, inner yard, ...

Not everyone has the ability to install personal unit where they live, that's true, same way they can't install satellite dishes for example.

[zahlman]

> decades ago(probably over a century can't be bothered to check).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_Futures_Act passed in 1958, just FYI.

[scott_w]

I’ll take your word on the other points but this one:

> Many European countries have draconian laws about air conditioning that are killing people this summer.

Needs some debunking. In fact, I think you may have been fed lies because the UK government felt the need to specifically call this out:

https://mhclgmedia.blog.gov.uk/2026/06/25/air-conditioning-r...

In short: AC in the home is legal in the UK subject to following regulations, both national and local. Councils are generally happy to tell you how to comply, in my experience with building control.

[AnthonyMouse]

Reading that sort of thing is kind of amusing, e.g.:

> In most cases, planning permission is not required to install it for a small home if it would not materially affect the appearance of the building from outside.

Substantially all air conditioning units affect the appearance of the building from the outside because they require a coil or vent somewhere on the exterior of the building to expel heat.

> Building regulations already require new residential buildings, including houses, flats, student accommodation, residential care homes and children's homes, to be designed to minimise overheating.

If planning permission for aircon was denied, worry not, because the building code now requires measures that will keep some new buildings to a temperature ten or twenty degrees cooler than the older buildings (planning permission for aircon likewise denied), which is quite a difference when even the newer buildings are over 100 degrees Fahrenheit.

They wouldn't need to spin it like this if there weren't actually buildings where people want to install air conditioning and are prohibited from it, because if that was the case they would have said that.

[scott_w]

You're completely misreading regulations. "Materially affect" does not cover things like "puts a unit outside" because otherwise putting a satellite does would "materially affect the appearance of the building from outside," yet millions of people get Sky TV.

> If planning permission for aircon was denied

Again, this is not part of the article because it literally says you don't need planning permission! There are regulations you must follow about the size and location but, as long as those are followed, you don't need planning permission. At most, you alert Building Control who will tell you the process and, as long as you follow it, they will sign it off.

For the avoidance of doubt: getting work signed off by your council's Building Control department is not planning permission. As long as your work follows the regulations, they will sign it off. Planning permission is ONLY needed if you want to do work outside of what building regs normally allow for residential properties.

> They wouldn't need to spin it like this if there weren't actually buildings where people want to install air conditioning and are prohibited from it

They wouldn't need to spin it like this if the media and their useful idiots like you didn't outright lie about what was actually happening.

[AnthonyMouse]

> "Materially affect" does not cover things like "puts a unit outside" because otherwise putting a satellite does would "materially affect the appearance of the building from outside," yet millions of people get Sky TV.

They're referring to regulations by the local council. All of them are different. Millions of people being able to install a satellite dish is entirely compatible with any number of different people in different localities being refused because the condenser is "ugly".

> Again, this is not part of the article because it literally says you don't need planning permission!

It literally says:

> In most cases, planning permission is not required to install it for a small home if it would not materially affect the appearance of the building from outside.

Which strongly implies both that there are cases when it's required anyway and there are cases when it would "materially affect the appearance of the building from outside" since otherwise they wouldn't need to qualify it.

[scott_w]

> the condenser is "ugly".

"Ugly" is not part of planning regs. Local council planning regs cannot override statute and they don't deviate that much. You'd know this if you lived in the UK (which you don't).

> Which strongly implies both that there are cases when it's required anyway

I explained why you might need planning permission: because your planned work sits outside of building regs.

> there are cases when it would "materially affect the appearance of the building from outside"

Yes, those are things like "it's too big" or "it's a listed building." Instead of hand-waving about things you don't understand, put some fucking effort in and show these cases that are obviously reasonable but still being blocked.

Here, let me add yet more research since you won't do it yourself: https://www.checkatrade.com/blog/expert-advice/air-condition...

A list of reasons air-conditioning might require planning permission. Are you telling me that you, Anthony, know more about building regs in the UK than:

* Residents of the UK who have to work with them when they want to building work on their home.

* Companies who work with building contractors in the UK.

* The UK Government.

[Asmod4n]

> Many European countries have draconian laws about air conditioning that are killing people this summer.

There are very few laws which can say what you are allowed to do with your owned house. One of them is when it is of historical value. Then you aren’t allowed to change pretty much anything.

The rest are just landlords who want to fuck you over.

[gusgus01]

Are you agreeing with the parent and giving examples of regulations that have been debated? Or are you trying to give examples of some of the "strawmen" regulations?

A lot of these examples are pretty subjective or missing context...

[autoexec]

> Does such strawman regulation even exist?

Yes, the DMCA is a great example, but corporations write those regulations and bribe government to pass them. That's not really an example of evil government as much as it is an example of evil corporations, although it does illustrate how much work is needed to limit the influence of money in politics.

[AnthonyMouse]

> That's not really an example of evil government as much as it is an example of evil corporations

It's the corporation's job to advocate for favorable regulations and the government's job to enact regulations that benefit the general public rather than special interests. Only one of them is bad at their job.

> although it does illustrate how much work is needed to limit the influence of money in politics.

It's actually the perfect example of something where "money in politics" isn't the problem. The companies that lobby for the DMCA are the media companies. They donate their share of money but by far the largest source of their influence is their ability to run sustained unfavorable coverage against politicians who cross them, which would continue to be the case even if they couldn't transfer a dime into the politician's own coffers.

[account42]

Corporations aren't wild animals that just happen to have an anti-social nature. They are fictional entities / groups and people and are allowed to do whatever we want to allow them. It's perfectly valid to say that corporations that keep pushing for anti-society legislation get shut down entirely instead of having the government and voters have to continually resist them. We don't allow individuals to do whatever they want to further their own interests either and lock up or even execute the worst misbehavers.

[AnthonyMouse]

Corporations are like wild animals.

Individual people are diverse and creative. The behavior of large organizations differs because that individual behavior is getting merged into an aggregate. The choices of any given individual are diluted to such an extent that the organizations then behave stochastically in response to incentives, and therefore the same as one another when they're operating under the same set of incentives.

Which corporation would you propose to shut down? It would have to be all of them, and then the ones that replace them again. And the government itself, since it too is a bureaucratic organization that will engage in regulatory capture to expropriate more funding/power.

You cannot prevent the incentive to seize power, which comes from human nature. What you need is a system which is structurally resilient against its concentration/centralization.

[autoexec]

> It's the corporation's job to advocate for favorable regulations

Bribery is not advocacy.

> the government's job to enact regulations that benefit the general public rather than special interests.

No argument there, but so far companies and corrupt politicians have conned a large percentage of the public into accepting that it's okay and that any constraints on what a company wants to do is a terrible thing. We're currently under a very pro-bribery admin.

> The companies that lobby for the DMCA are the media companies. They donate their share of money but by far the largest source of their influence is their ability to run sustained unfavorable coverage against politicians who cross them

I'm not entirely convinced that media coverage is more influential than bribes, donations, and the revolving door. That argument also only works for the media industry and not the other countless industries which bribe government. The oil and gas industry have been getting their money's worth https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2024/05/10/energy-indu...

[AnthonyMouse]

> Bribery is not advocacy.

The revolving door is bribery, but now propose a solution to it that doesn't preclude every member of a politician's extended family from having a job in private industry regardless of whether that person had any say in their relative running for office.

Running issue ads pretty much the definition of advocacy.

> That argument also only works for the media industry and not the other countless industries which bribe government. The oil and gas industry have been getting their money's worth

The industries that it does work for are some of the biggest problem ones. Media consolidation is a major long-term problem that the government seems entirely incapable of redressing, and the same issue presents with tech companies. Twitter/Facebook/Google at this point have more influence over what people believe than CNN/MSNBC/Fox News.

Moreover, influence over the media is only one way that corporations influence politicians. Let's take your example. From soup to nuts, the US oil and gas industry employs more than 10 million people, and those people are concentrated in specific places. (This is also why coal in the US is dying and never coming back; employs less than 1% as many people.) The auto industry employs another 10 million Americans and has a strong preference for cheap gas.

The major alternatives to oil and gas are electric vehicles (majority of worldwide EV batteries made in China) and solar panels (made in China again). The US could make those things, but it would require significant taxpayer subsidies, since China subsidizes them too. Moreover, it will never be the same number of jobs because EVs and solar panels are simply less labor intensive. EVs are mechanically simpler and require less maintenance/repair than ICE powertrains and solar panels are essentially semiconductor manufacturing, which is not a major source of blue collar jobs.

Meanwhile the main argument against oil and gas is CO2, which is a huge international problem that countries have a poor incentive to tackle individually. So the political incentives to address it in the US are screwed regardless of whether the industry pays the politicians a cent, because the politicians don't want to lose millions of jobs and billions in tax revenue (which, despite the subsidies, the oil industry still pays on net).

More to the point, it's the media that keeps telling people that it could be fixed with campaign finance reform, even though it can't, because that's the one that privileges them as the ones who can run advocacy pieces without paying a third party to air them.

Whereas to actually make a dent in the part of the problem related to money being used to pay for attention, you need something more like antitrust so that you don't have megacorps like Comcast NBCUniversal, Google and Facebook in control of what such a large proportion of the public believes. Which is exactly what the media corporations don't want, so they redirect blame onto something else.

[braiamp]

Only the regulation that doesn't evolve with the time or written so that it stays within the confines of a context that doesn't exists. Certain big country constitution is a prime example of that.