I clicked through to the tweet about Washington supposedly banning all manufacturing and was suspicious that they had screenshots of very broad definitions of 3-D printing but not any of the text that supposedly bans all manufacturing. So I pulled the bill text itself and while it does have that definition it only bans using 3-D printing, by that definition, to manufacture gun parts. (Federal firearms dealers are excepted). Idk if this is addressed in the replies (I don't do X anymore) but the people who made those tweets are either basically illiterate or are lying to you for clout. And legislatures do dumb stuff but this claim should have set off your bullshit detector in the first place. 99% of "dur-dur come laugh at these stupid law" takes are misleading and bad faith. (Here's the text if anyone wants to read it themselves: https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2320.pdf?q=20260124194036)
Came here specifically to say this. Might be a bad law but the tweet is extremely wrong. Brian should retract that statement from the newsletter, it’s plainly false.
Although the words “subtractive manufacturing” do not appear in the current bill. So either the tweet is about a different bill or version of this bill, or it’s making stuff up.
As always I enjoy the reading lists presented by this Substack. Wang’s guest opinion essay in the nytimes seems like a must read. On a related note I just finished the book “apple in china” and here is a random fact about china that I thought was bizarrely interesting. in Chinese there is no word for IKEA so IKEA is translated to “suitable home”.
The cheap shot at union labor is not supported by the data. Union projects have the least cost and schedule risk. And if you don’t know that the NABTU unions are absolutely paranoid about incorporating the latest technology into their training programs, dig around a bit. Collectively they co-sponsor with their employers 1,600+ training centers spending over $2 billion of their own money each year.
That said, I quite enjoy your Substack so keep up the good with.
When I was at Katerra there was extremely strong union opposition for our prefab building projects in California. They set up a big anti-Katerra website, had people try to go undercover in the factories to "expose" the company, the works. This sort of opposition is extremely common for prefab construction, and for labor-saving technology in general (Philadelphia plumbing unions fought to prevent building codes from allowing cheaper, easier to install PVC piping, for instance). Outside of construction, it was only a little over a year ago that US longshoremen went on strike to try to prevent the introduction of dock automation.
I'm sorry, but the idea that unions aren't opposed to new technology that might reduce the demand for union labor is just completely divorced from reality.
I found the drinking water article to be a weak argument. Costs have doubled in an industry that is largely depreciating assets. Maintenance costs increase with time, and we know new infrastructure is wildly expensive unrelated to water. Yet the costs have only doubled in 40 years. A comparison to a comparable industry would be helpful
Further, people routinely pay hundreds times more for bottled water than municipal water.
A better job of quantifying the cost/ benefit of regulation would have been interesting. Perhaps a study of US/ Mexican border town. Seems like a natural experiment.
The EV battery degradation article commits what I think is a frustratingly common argument. They mention that the results indicate that the batteries are "built to last beyond a typical vehicle’s service life", then don't define what that service life is, and only provide indicative numbers up to 8 years (81.6%).
Feels like they are only writing from the perspective of someone buying a brand new car. This doesn't reflect the typical person actually concerned about declining battery capacity - say, someone weighing up whether to purchase a used 2019 EV.
The average car on the road is 12.6 years old in the USA (and about 15 years in my country of New Zealand), so as a rule of thumb we might expect a given vehicle to be in use for twice as long, say 25 years.
The actual numbers seem broadly reassuring - I don't think its unreasonable for a used car consumer to expect a tradeoff between significantly lowered range and an expensive battery replacement at, say, 15 years. But the article breezes past this.
Great roundup, thanks! I haven’t read the water cost link yet but I think historical utility management/operations might also play a significant role. In 2014 I wrote a grad school paper on the Detroit Water and Sewer Authority, a very large, very old system that had a longstanding culture of tolerating nonpayment and deferring maintenance/repair/upgrades. To finally start addressing this problem they had to raise rates and make customers pay; this was the trigger for Flint pulling out of the system and (now infamously) going its own way.
Are you sure the image of planes is real? Gemini suggests it is not (mixed features from different models and non-sensical model numbers). I did not investigate further.
Can you do a piece on LNG terminals? Also do you think electric motors will replace the traditional method for compressing natural gas as seen in the recent project in Texas?
I just wanted to mention how much value I get out of these roundups, and to say thanks for putting them together every week!
I clicked through to the tweet about Washington supposedly banning all manufacturing and was suspicious that they had screenshots of very broad definitions of 3-D printing but not any of the text that supposedly bans all manufacturing. So I pulled the bill text itself and while it does have that definition it only bans using 3-D printing, by that definition, to manufacture gun parts. (Federal firearms dealers are excepted). Idk if this is addressed in the replies (I don't do X anymore) but the people who made those tweets are either basically illiterate or are lying to you for clout. And legislatures do dumb stuff but this claim should have set off your bullshit detector in the first place. 99% of "dur-dur come laugh at these stupid law" takes are misleading and bad faith. (Here's the text if anyone wants to read it themselves: https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2320.pdf?q=20260124194036)
Thanks for the flag, I've corrected this.
Came here specifically to say this. Might be a bad law but the tweet is extremely wrong. Brian should retract that statement from the newsletter, it’s plainly false.
Although the words “subtractive manufacturing” do not appear in the current bill. So either the tweet is about a different bill or version of this bill, or it’s making stuff up.
As always I enjoy the reading lists presented by this Substack. Wang’s guest opinion essay in the nytimes seems like a must read. On a related note I just finished the book “apple in china” and here is a random fact about china that I thought was bizarrely interesting. in Chinese there is no word for IKEA so IKEA is translated to “suitable home”.
Please talk more about insurance!
I don’t understand the ghost gun story. The bill defines 3D printing broadly (both additive and subtractive), why does that “ban all manufacturing?”
It doesn't, I pulled the text and that twitter guy is either unable to read a whole statute or lying for clout: https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2320.pdf?q=20260124194036
Thanks. Brian, if Sam is right I think you should include a correction in your next newsletter.
The cheap shot at union labor is not supported by the data. Union projects have the least cost and schedule risk. And if you don’t know that the NABTU unions are absolutely paranoid about incorporating the latest technology into their training programs, dig around a bit. Collectively they co-sponsor with their employers 1,600+ training centers spending over $2 billion of their own money each year.
That said, I quite enjoy your Substack so keep up the good with.
When I was at Katerra there was extremely strong union opposition for our prefab building projects in California. They set up a big anti-Katerra website, had people try to go undercover in the factories to "expose" the company, the works. This sort of opposition is extremely common for prefab construction, and for labor-saving technology in general (Philadelphia plumbing unions fought to prevent building codes from allowing cheaper, easier to install PVC piping, for instance). Outside of construction, it was only a little over a year ago that US longshoremen went on strike to try to prevent the introduction of dock automation.
I'm sorry, but the idea that unions aren't opposed to new technology that might reduce the demand for union labor is just completely divorced from reality.
You have stories. There are many about poor management decisions too. Here is some data.
https://www.ipaglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Value-Union-Labor-Construction-Projects-IPA-Study.pdf
I found the drinking water article to be a weak argument. Costs have doubled in an industry that is largely depreciating assets. Maintenance costs increase with time, and we know new infrastructure is wildly expensive unrelated to water. Yet the costs have only doubled in 40 years. A comparison to a comparable industry would be helpful
Further, people routinely pay hundreds times more for bottled water than municipal water.
A better job of quantifying the cost/ benefit of regulation would have been interesting. Perhaps a study of US/ Mexican border town. Seems like a natural experiment.
The EV battery degradation article commits what I think is a frustratingly common argument. They mention that the results indicate that the batteries are "built to last beyond a typical vehicle’s service life", then don't define what that service life is, and only provide indicative numbers up to 8 years (81.6%).
Feels like they are only writing from the perspective of someone buying a brand new car. This doesn't reflect the typical person actually concerned about declining battery capacity - say, someone weighing up whether to purchase a used 2019 EV.
The average car on the road is 12.6 years old in the USA (and about 15 years in my country of New Zealand), so as a rule of thumb we might expect a given vehicle to be in use for twice as long, say 25 years.
The actual numbers seem broadly reassuring - I don't think its unreasonable for a used car consumer to expect a tradeoff between significantly lowered range and an expensive battery replacement at, say, 15 years. But the article breezes past this.
Great roundup, thanks! I haven’t read the water cost link yet but I think historical utility management/operations might also play a significant role. In 2014 I wrote a grad school paper on the Detroit Water and Sewer Authority, a very large, very old system that had a longstanding culture of tolerating nonpayment and deferring maintenance/repair/upgrades. To finally start addressing this problem they had to raise rates and make customers pay; this was the trigger for Flint pulling out of the system and (now infamously) going its own way.
Are you sure the image of planes is real? Gemini suggests it is not (mixed features from different models and non-sensical model numbers). I did not investigate further.
I wasn't able to confirm (though you can find similar-looking pictures at nearby Swiss airports). Replaced it with a different image.
Can you do a piece on LNG terminals? Also do you think electric motors will replace the traditional method for compressing natural gas as seen in the recent project in Texas?
Replaced this, thanks.