Hacker News Reader

Comment by FundThrowaway | Hacker News Reader

Almost every time we have a BBQ or other outside event someone buzzes a drone overhead and just sits there watching us. Almost every time I go out hiking I hear the high pitched whine of a drone flying around the country park. It seems no matter where I go there is someone flying one. They are a total nuisance, create tons of noise pollution in areas that are usually quite tranquil, invade privacy and just annoy me all around to be honest.

View on HN

where do you live? I'm in the Bay Area and have never seen any drones flying overhead! I'm myself a drone enthusiast, and I take great care not to make anyone feel uncomfortable (at least not intentionally) when I'm flying a drone

I live in norcal (sacramento) and spend a lot of time outdoors here, in the bay area, and near Tahoe and we see them consistently nearly every time were out, even when we're paddling on the water.

Phoenix area here - drone nuisance an occasional but non-negligible problem here too. Sometimes they're a minor annoyance [e.g., 4th of July fireworks viewing], and sometimes genuinely creepy [hovering over backyards in my neighborhood, sometimes at night]

I observe that the majority of drone owners use them with a mind to avoid making others ill-at-ease, but y'know, tragedy of the commons and all that

Not really tragedy of the commons.

If the resource is peace and privacy then "tragedy of the commons" seems like a reasonable metaphor.

Can you post in a little more detail as just prefixing the bit you disagree with with "not" isn't terribly useful.

If resource was peace and privacy (those aren't resources), and they were zero-sum, then it'd arguably be tragedy of the commons.

People being dicks and drawing unwanted regulatory attention towards themselves and other people ... is just people being dicks.

I appreciate that 'tragedy of the commons' is a very hip phrasing these days, but its usefulness benefits from not being misused.

"Resource" (Merriam-Webster), definition 1c: "a natural feature or phenomenon that enhances the quality of human life".

I would say silence does indeed meet this definition.

> If resource was peace and privacy (those aren't resources), and they were zero-sum

Not to say I agree with your dubious attempt at bringing 'silence' into the fold of 'resource'.

When you start mining silence by the barrel from deep space, then we can start treating it as a commodity resource.

A resource can be locally limited despite being globally (or universally) unlimited. Energy for example (to a certain degree)

Also I'm not sure "zero sum" is the same thing as "limited". The former imposes stricter requirements.

I'm sticking to my guns on this one.

I can't consume all the available quiet and therefore prevent you from having any.

You can consume all the quiet in specific area at a specific time. If that's not a limited resource then nothing is.

> You can consume all the quiet in specific area at a specific time. If that's not a limited resource then nothing is.

a) I don't know how you'd measure 'all the quiet' to determine that I'd consumed all there was.

b) even if I did, it doesn't prevent you from consuming as much (up to all) of 'the quiet' as you wanted, too.

Which brings us back to why it's not a tragedy of the commons, and why the analogy doesn't work either.

This seems to be a problem easily solved by a shotgun. Don't like guns? Try a slingshot instead.

Ah yes, try firing a shotgun in a city park to remove public nuisance and noise pollution.

It's a felony to shoot an aircraft, which will then end your ability to own firearms.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com