[cool_dude85]

>Wild - whoever did this should lose their job.

Why's that? Because a guy who's apparently friends with the owner of the company that produces these things told you that it saves emissions? Doesn't it seem reasonable to verify these claims?

[some_random]

No that doesn't seem reasonable at all if it's been proven to work _really well_ in several configurations and there's no particular reason to expect that the results would be drastically different in other very similar configurations.

[cool_dude85]

Who proved it works really well in several configurations?

[squigz]

And how do you codify the threshold for what "very similar" configurations don't need to be tested and those that do?

[appreciatorBus]

Of course we should verify such claims.

Just as we should also verify claims that every regulation that has ever been written into law is by definition Good (tm) and can never be questioned.

It's possible for the friend of the company owner to astroturf an online form to get a good regulation eliminated, just because it didn't benefit him.

It's also possible for the such wealthy individuals to astrotruf in favour of bad regulations, just because it would benefit him.

[samdoesnothing]

The null hypothesis is that interventions are just as if not more likely to cause harm than do good.

[Dylan16807]

Verifying is great!

How many types of truck engine do you reasonably need to test with? The number should fit on one hand. And really you should only need to do the full test with one model and limited verifications with others. That'll get it down from $27M to $200k, which would be a far more reasonable requirement.

[shortrounddev2]

Some kind of testing should be required but 27mil seems egregious

[ehnto]

Yeah why does the certification process cost so much is one question I have. Would this be a conversation if the cost of the test were more reasonable?