To be fair, I’ve been in said government for over 30 years, and I’ve never been involved in or even seen anything idiotic or corrupt in the agencies in which I’ve worked. I myself and the people I’ve worked with have been in government only because we’re motivated to make public service our priority in life.
We are perpetually being required to do more and more with the same resources or less, and we do our best for the public. Nobody I know in this work is getting rich or even earning enough to be comfortable and prepare for retirement. I would earn far more in the private sector.
For me, there will be no retirement, thanks to the low benefits and pay. I also know by now that there will be no end to the ad hominem insults about our integrity, our motivations, and our work product by people who are promoting their own agendas and don’t know enough about what we do to offer any fact-based criticism.
You get comfortable benefits. Pay for furlough. Good job security compared to the private sector, and many paid days off as a GS. A quick search shows.
And what better way of spreading some of that government love around then by asking the public to do with less lighting choices.
I’m open to cited resources supporting your claims. I just can’t take things on face value.
Stares at Government CAFE standards that killed small cars and trucks and incentivized the SUV and supersized pickup.
Well those Sunlike bulbs tested pretty good on the thermals, and they look serviceable to an extent. There’s also the full diy route. Things still may not be predictable, but you might be able to fix some things yourself.
I’m referring to decisions made at the highest levels.
Eg, the EPA banning HC refrigerants even though they have ZERO GWP/ODP (global warming potential, ozone-depletion potential), and instead are bought and paid for by Dupont and similar interests. Eg, phasing out what’s juuuust coming up on its patents running out (CFCs) and mandating what juuuuust got its patents (HCFCs).
Same with the FDA and what it touts as “safe and effective”, which ain’t. Giving gold stars to “heart-healthy” ultraprocessed foods like sugar-laden cereals while poopooing natural foods like eggs and milk.
I could go on, and on, and on, but won’t. Just saying that I’ve seen plenty of idiocy coming from those agencies that are supposed to be doing the right things, but have been corrupted at the highest levels, and are instead looking after those who pay them off.
Most of those bulbs can typically be salvaged, as long as you know what’s busted.
Eg, those “filaments” in LED bulbs can probably be pulled and made into arrays for a real DIY solution.
I got a busted solar light (not motion-sensing, just “dusk to dawn”), and the disc with CW/WW emitters is pretty easily salvaged. They all light up (common, CW, WW) from 3V or so, so they’re all in parallel, and can be easily mixed’n’matched to whatever CT can be had between both extremes.
It’s just supported around the edge in the plastic housing, so it looks like heatsinking isn’t an issue. So why not make a flat disk of an enclosure, with a 3-wire cable brought out to a remote driver? Or, hardwire it to CW/WW/mixed with a series resistor and power it via usb? So many possibilities from just one piece.
I just had a curly CFL crack in my hand (at the little crossover “bubble” at the very top), as it was probably was still hot when I was unscrewing it. Wellp, I know the driver’s perfectly good, so now I got a mini HV supply that I can use for nefarious purposes, too.
So, even busted stuff can be patched up and repurposed, as long as people get arsed enough to do it, vs just tossing it all out.
Your source is incorrect. We get paid eventually for furlough only when it is caused by a lack of a federal budget being approved. In the meantime, we can’t pay rent or the mortgage or our children’s tuition unless we somehow saved enough to keep doing that, which is impossible for long, given our pay. We don’t have better job security compared to the private sector. And I can’t use the days off to which I’m formally entitled because I wouldn’t be able to get all my work done and that would impose costs on the public.
Your claim about lighting choices and your claim about CAFE standards are both debatable and you have only made claims - you haven’t provided the evidence to support either of them. In addition, two examples, even if proven, don’t address the point I made about painting all government as corrupt or stupid. Anyone can point to decisions that in hindsight didn’t turn out as well as was hoped. That’s the nature of government and trying to address new problems. It also happens to all of us in our personal decisions about our own lives. But making government regulations is much more complicated that the personal decisions in most of our lives, and there are many more variables out of the control of the decision makers.
The specific issue of the influence of well-monied lobbying on legislation is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. However, libeling or slandering the government agencies with broad generalizations doesn’t address that topic at all.
I can point to more than two examples of decisions I disagree with. But that’s a far cry from the broad generalization you made earlier (“very little” that isn’t either idiotic and/or corrupt).
The document you provided did not claim most consumers “prefer” 80 CRI more than higher CRIs. This is what it said about 80 CRI:
“NYSERDA stated its support for the inclusion of a minimum of 80 CRI for non-modified-spectrum GSLs, noting that an 80 CRI or above has been demonstrated to ensure sufficient visual acuity for general illumination situations.”
“EEI stated that while a CRI of 80 was adequate, a higher CRI is always better and a CRI of 90 would be preferable, if possible.”
“NEMA stated that the proposed CRI requirement excludes many lamps in the scope of this regulation that are already normalized at a minimum CRI of 80 due to consumer preference and therefore their inclusion in the requirement would pose no regulatory burden for manufacturers.”
As we can see, they said consumers prefer a minimum of 80 CRI, while recognizing that 90 CRI is preferable. Your claim that “the DOE is preying off of the weak and under-educated” because you somehow think they’re recommending 80 over 90 CRI is ridiculous.
Consumers don’t “prefer” 80 CRI. That’s an absurd claim. Most don’t know any better and wonder why the cheapest 2700K LEDs they bought looks like yellow light. Or they wonder why those LEDs with their 5 year lifespan burned out in 3 months in their enclosed ceiling fixture. NYSERDA’s statement is especially dirty given the low uptake rate of CFLs. The poor uptake rate of that product was in part because of the 80 CRI. People complained of the sickly greenish color. While the 80 CRI of CFL was fine for office environments, it was not sufficient for home use. Many people did not adopt it as a result.
A fancy way of saying “we get paid for furloughs”. And there are plenty of ways a GS can work with their creditors/landlords/etc on arranging payment on a later date.
Huh? GS’s have much better job security compared to the private sector. But just keep projecting guy.
It isn’t debatable. Jeep lobbied vary hard during the early 80’s to ensure its Jeep Grand Cherokee was allowed follow the more lax fuel efficiency standards of trucks. The Grand Cherokee of that time was an SUV targeted towards affluent suburban buyers, people that would normally buys cars and station wagons. American automakers couldn’t compete with the imports, so they carved out their own market with pedestrian smashing SUVs.
CNET’s tests of 90 CRI candlelabras very much showed how much more yellow an 80 CRI LED is. And at the end of the day, while duv might have some affect, if you’re missing that red light content you mostly looking at distorted yellow light.
No, saying we only get paid (later) for furloughs in one case where furloughs occur is not the same as saying we get paid for furloughs, period.
I know from personal experience that we don’t have much better job security compared to private sector workers. The comment you linked to is not from a federal employee, and it speaks in very general terms that don’t describe what really happens. In reality, not being able to be fired “at will” is not helpful to government employee when it is very easy to make up a reason, real or not real, why the employee is underperforming or has violated an obscure and minor rule. This is done regularly without any hesitation by managers. So, in reality the distinction made by the author of the piece you cited means nothing.
The same is true for the broad comments the author makes that promotions are made according to explicit and transparent criteria. That is nonsense in real life. Promotions are as much based on non-performance-related criteria in government as they are in the private sector. I won’t go into detail here, as that wouldn’t be smart, for my sake.
And, as I said above, all of us can give examples of government decisions we don’t like, or that ended up with unexpected consequences, or that were made due to the influence of well-funded lobbyists. None of that proves that most or all decisions by government are idiotic or corrupt, which is the point made by others that I actually disputed. I’m not going to get drawn into “whataboutism” discussions, or discussions about different subjects.
You have some serious issues with projecting. It’s clear when you don’t cite any sources, go on making claims, and then criticize me for not citing resources when that’s what I’ve been doing this whole time. You’ve linked 0 articles or studies supporting to your claim while I’ve cited at least 5.
That’s just begging the question. Which it’s already been shown that SUVs are leading to increased road carnage, and I’m not going to waste my time google’ing that for you. Talking with you is a waste of time, and it really shows what’s wrong in the government.
Everything I said is backed by my personal experience for 30+ years in government, and from actually reading the sources cited in the original linked article, and from reading the sources cited by you. I am not going to respond to your personal attacks, and I’m not going to discuss whether one or another particular decision by one or another agency was good or bad - because I was clearly commenting originally on the broad generalizations being made about government decisions being idiotic and/or corrupt in most or all cases.
I discussed my observations of consumer behavior here where price is seemingly the dominant factor in making buying decisions, the clearest expression of preference.
Yeah, those already buying LEDs and CFLs, not those still holding onto tungsten or halogen. Context is key here, and the other issue is consumer ignorance. Just because they don’t know how CRI affects them doesn’t mean that they won’t care if they knew.
It’s the same like with flashlights. People can be lumen-hounds, regardless of how crappy those lumens might be, Or they can opt for the less-efficient but higher quality emitters that give nice pleasant light.
Too many, probably most, people, have never compared good/crappy lights side-by-side, only oohed and aahed at the brightness. And asking them to possibly pay more for a not-as-bright light? Nah. They won’t bite. They need to actually see and experience the actual difference.