Before that would happen, you would have to make sure that the most likely job after leaving the regularatory agency wouldn't be one of the companies they are supposed to regulate.
I suppose the opposite of regulatory capture is captured regulators...
A government agency will have less incentives to be corrupt, in theory. On the flip side, it will be incompetent and demotivated.
If you think about it, kosher and halal stamps on food products are something like this, and they existed for thousands of years. Those aren't given by the governments, but private entities.
I want to see 20 private international companies that earn money researching food safety and selling consultancy to food producers to align their processes with best practices.
Having spent many years working in both government and the private sector, I don't see any great fundamental difference in competence.
The only place I have ever worked with a much higher than normal level of competence was a hedge fund that made a point of only hiring intelligent people, and fired anyone who they didn't like very fast.
As for motivation, I actually saw a lot more motivated people in government than I have elsewhere. Many really believed in their mission of public service. I don't see most private sector employees burning with the company mission statement.
Maybe the VC tech scene is more like the hedge fund I worked at, but really, most private sector businesses are not like that at all.
I can't speak for Halal but in Israel Kosher is considered a scam by quite a few people. The idea that Kosher is given by a private entity isn't exactly correct. It's a rabbinical institute, not a private business. Their incentives are problematic.
In order to get a Kosher stamp you need an "observer" who is some guy you pay to hang around and make sure you do everything right. Sometimes the guy is actually helpful, but usually it's just some nephew of the Rabbi who hands out the kosher certificate.
Their main focus is to keep you purchasing only other products deemed kosher. Not the quality of the food or even cleanliness. If you annoy the wrong people you can lose your certificate and essentially get black listed. You can't open on a Saturday etc.
I used to joke that the easiest way to gauge the quality of the restaurant is in an inverse proportion to the size of its kosher sign. Most restaurants in Tel Aviv (excluding, Humus, Falafel or Shuwarma places) are not kosher.
> A government agency will have less incentives to be corrupt, in theory. On the flip side, it will be incompetent and demotivated.
And you have what evidence for this? The reality is, is that government departments often achieve much with very little. Case in point the interview with the former dodge engineer on HN earlier today. I think the reason why the myth persists is because everyone wants to have their demands prioritised while at the same time pay the minimum amount of tax, leading to continuous understaffing and everyone being unhappy (I would exclude defense from that assessment, because they suffer much less from cuts than most other spending).
> On the flip side, it will be incompetent and demotivated.
This sounds like it came from someone who has never spent more than a passing interaction with government employees.
The government employees I’ve worked with seem to actually care about fixing things, doing their work well, and maintaining their group’s objective (whatever that may be).
As someone who has some experience with government agencies I can tell you the most intrinsically motivated, not-doing-it-for-the-money-but-for-the-cause people I have met in my life have been government employees. Sure they are rarely the public-facing clerk in some office, but there are people who do amazing work while they could literally earn double when they went for the private market.
The idea that government employee = lazy/disorganized/unmotivated while private sector employee = hardworking/organized/motivated is not true. In fact the most hard to work with clients (because they wouldn't be on time, don't do work, do it lazily, etc) I ever had were all private sector and my client list includes literal art students in their twenties who go out partying all week, so that means something.
What could this mean for dental or orthopedic titanium implants? From my understanding these also corrode at a small rate and release titanium ions into the body (nothing is apparently perfectly inert). I assume titanium ions oxidize and will result in titanium dioxide particles deposited across the body. So far, it has been said to be non toxic, but if research is coming out about toxic effects from food consumption route, could this have implications for people living with implants long term?
Yes, they release particles in your body and this seem to cause issues for at least some people. But if there is a long time span between getting the implant and chronic health issues appearing I don't think people will be able to pinpoint that titanium implants might be the cause.
I’m not quite sure how to look this up, but what’s the downside to stainless steel? I know titanium and bone can actually “grow together” so titanium is sometimes better / worse for type of implants.
(I mainly ask as I have a rather large stainless steel plate in my left arm- which I hope to never need to have removed… but the fact they can be removed prompted a comical conversation with my partner about re-using medical implants)
If only some government agency would ban things like this.
Oh well, we can dream.
Before that would happen, you would have to make sure that the most likely job after leaving the regularatory agency wouldn't be one of the companies they are supposed to regulate.
I suppose the opposite of regulatory capture is captured regulators...
A government agency will have less incentives to be corrupt, in theory. On the flip side, it will be incompetent and demotivated.
If you think about it, kosher and halal stamps on food products are something like this, and they existed for thousands of years. Those aren't given by the governments, but private entities.
I want to see 20 private international companies that earn money researching food safety and selling consultancy to food producers to align their processes with best practices.
Having spent many years working in both government and the private sector, I don't see any great fundamental difference in competence.
The only place I have ever worked with a much higher than normal level of competence was a hedge fund that made a point of only hiring intelligent people, and fired anyone who they didn't like very fast.
As for motivation, I actually saw a lot more motivated people in government than I have elsewhere. Many really believed in their mission of public service. I don't see most private sector employees burning with the company mission statement.
Maybe the VC tech scene is more like the hedge fund I worked at, but really, most private sector businesses are not like that at all.
I can't speak for Halal but in Israel Kosher is considered a scam by quite a few people. The idea that Kosher is given by a private entity isn't exactly correct. It's a rabbinical institute, not a private business. Their incentives are problematic.
In order to get a Kosher stamp you need an "observer" who is some guy you pay to hang around and make sure you do everything right. Sometimes the guy is actually helpful, but usually it's just some nephew of the Rabbi who hands out the kosher certificate.
Their main focus is to keep you purchasing only other products deemed kosher. Not the quality of the food or even cleanliness. If you annoy the wrong people you can lose your certificate and essentially get black listed. You can't open on a Saturday etc.
I used to joke that the easiest way to gauge the quality of the restaurant is in an inverse proportion to the size of its kosher sign. Most restaurants in Tel Aviv (excluding, Humus, Falafel or Shuwarma places) are not kosher.
> A government agency will have less incentives to be corrupt, in theory. On the flip side, it will be incompetent and demotivated.
And you have what evidence for this? The reality is, is that government departments often achieve much with very little. Case in point the interview with the former dodge engineer on HN earlier today. I think the reason why the myth persists is because everyone wants to have their demands prioritised while at the same time pay the minimum amount of tax, leading to continuous understaffing and everyone being unhappy (I would exclude defense from that assessment, because they suffer much less from cuts than most other spending).
> On the flip side, it will be incompetent and demotivated.
This sounds like it came from someone who has never spent more than a passing interaction with government employees.
The government employees I’ve worked with seem to actually care about fixing things, doing their work well, and maintaining their group’s objective (whatever that may be).
I actually misremembered. Titanium dioxide is or will be banned in all school foods, and will require explicit labeling in louisiana https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2025/06/04/did-louisiana...
I thought i was doing my usual "oh they already did" thing but it only affects me. Oh well.
> A government agency will have less incentives to be corrupt, in theory. On the flip side, it will be incompetent and demotivated.
Then captured by private interests having the deepest pockets
As someone who has some experience with government agencies I can tell you the most intrinsically motivated, not-doing-it-for-the-money-but-for-the-cause people I have met in my life have been government employees. Sure they are rarely the public-facing clerk in some office, but there are people who do amazing work while they could literally earn double when they went for the private market.
The idea that government employee = lazy/disorganized/unmotivated while private sector employee = hardworking/organized/motivated is not true. In fact the most hard to work with clients (because they wouldn't be on time, don't do work, do it lazily, etc) I ever had were all private sector and my client list includes literal art students in their twenties who go out partying all week, so that means something.
.. In the us. Other places are not this dysfunctional, so no generalisation please.
[dead]
What could this mean for dental or orthopedic titanium implants? From my understanding these also corrode at a small rate and release titanium ions into the body (nothing is apparently perfectly inert). I assume titanium ions oxidize and will result in titanium dioxide particles deposited across the body. So far, it has been said to be non toxic, but if research is coming out about toxic effects from food consumption route, could this have implications for people living with implants long term?
Yes, they release particles in your body and this seem to cause issues for at least some people. But if there is a long time span between getting the implant and chronic health issues appearing I don't think people will be able to pinpoint that titanium implants might be the cause.
There are limited publications about the possible effect of titanium implants, for example https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30174768/
I’m not quite sure how to look this up, but what’s the downside to stainless steel? I know titanium and bone can actually “grow together” so titanium is sometimes better / worse for type of implants.
(I mainly ask as I have a rather large stainless steel plate in my left arm- which I hope to never need to have removed… but the fact they can be removed prompted a comical conversation with my partner about re-using medical implants)
This is one reason why zirconia implants are probably preferable for many uses. But for whatever reason they haven’t caught on.
I suspect the dose is rather different.
Isn't this the compound that's in basically all white paint? Hope this is not leaded paint all over again.