Current polling data suggests the opposite. People are fine with lockdowns and government restriction... but only as long as it also seems like the government is taking steps to fix the problem.
A majority of Americans support quarantine efforts.
And it isn't just like a 51-49 split either, it's 70+ for both.
Somewhat famously, Bloomberg made his fortune hiring math and physics degrees instead of people with MBAs. Both fields are eminently admired and can apply to many, many jobs. It's now become somewhat common in the financial industry to hire at least a few mathematicians or physicists.
A couple months ago, I was on my commute home when the thought occurred to me: taking multiple history classes at the same time was no issue for me, but just the thought of taking more than one math class during the same semester made absolutely no sense to my brain. I couldn't even wrap my head around the idea of trying to learn two separate math concepts simultaneously.
He's been ignoring such evidence for a month already.
Quark Blast wrote:
Does New Zealand have a vaccine?
Your point about the world population is irrelevant. Either New Zealand has a vaccine, or it doesn't.
You claimed that covid-19 can only be solved through a vaccine. Since, we already know that New Zealand has effectively solved the situation for themselves, that means either they have a vaccine, or you are wrong.
You like to b!@@~ about how I get pedantic. The reason I get pedantic, is you refuse to acknowledge simple facts, and you make b##&@!%! claims that violate those simple facts.
Does New Zealand have a vaccine?
Quark Blast wrote:
Does NZ have a vaccine? Yes or no.
New Zealand has had 11 new cases in the past month. Adjusting for population, if the US had the same rate, that would be 750 new cases over a 30 day period. Right now, we over 25,000 per day, or 750,000 new cases over the same period.
I would consider a reduction from 750,000 to 750 to be extremely successful.
I don't care about the factors. Tell me why a reduction that significant is not successful.
If you have to rely on mitigating the success by pointing to it being an island, or less dense, you've failed, because you are not addressing the fact that they did succeed. Saying anything else would be an attempt to b~!~+@+# us.
I am willing to discuss the economy and how other countries have handled the virus, but those are separate points. If you have to use those to distract from this point, then you've failed, because you are trying to b#~%!@+! us.
New Zealand has essentially eradicated the virus from the island. For your earlier claim to be true, then they have a vaccine. Do they have a vaccine?
Quark Blast wrote:
I'll note that the flattening the curve approach only works if/when we get an effective vaccine.
No, this isn't true at all.
There are other ways to eliminate/reduce the impact of covid-19 without a vaccine. Flattening the curve also help put those methods into place, and does not require a vaccine.
For example, flattening the curve to put in place widespread testing and contact tracing also works.
Delays in games are really common. For example, here's a list of 16 games that are being delayed just this year.
I think I'll stick with my "History of Rock Music 1970 to the Present" next semester.
(due to how the GI Bill and the U of MN both work, I get to take some random classes that aren't for my degree this next semester)
I'm well aware that many shows/movies get aspects of science wrong. It's just when I perceive a glaring disregard for scientific literacy... I'm getting less tolerant of it now.
This sounds like Christian Rock to me. And this perception that I had also applied to the show. I don't think that the show was largely Christian, but it had as much scientific literacy as your average Sunday mass. It definitely turned me off.
Finishing my BA in History in the fall (focus on Colonialism/Imperialism).
I used to be more interested in world history and broadly US history, but as time has gone on I find myself more and more drawn to local history, which still includes the above. I wrote my paper on Anishinaabe treaty rights in regards to current pipeline plans, and how historians have a role to play in the outcome.
I am working on my application to grad school to become a teacher (social studies).
By accident, I've almost got a minor in religious studies. I'm an atheist, but the roleplayer in me is fascinated by religion. I've studied Native American philosophy, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. I haven't studied any African religions as a course, but you cannot help but encounter it when studying early African history. I've also taken a scientific philosophy class, and it has definitely ruined some science fiction for me.
My study of history has definitely infected my gaming. Not in that I look for some sort of realism to it, but that the past in my games is always in dispute. Just because my players find a source that makes a claim about the truth does not mean the source is correct.
Okay, but his test doesn't address the hypothesis.
1) Loss of alcohol does affect taste. I've done a blind of Evan Williams bourbon and Evan Williams bourbon BiB (80 versus 100 proof) and could tell the difference. (I've also sampled whiskey left out over night which had no discernible alcohol in it... I imagine that bird bath water with leaves in it would have a similar taste)
2) Alcohol evaporates faster than than water.
3) As the amount of liquid decreases in a bottle, the available space for gas increases.
For the moment, let us assume that some amount of gas inside the bottle escapes every time the bottle is opened. That means that some of the alcohol that evaporated and saturated the bottle also left the bottle. When it is resealed, more alcohol will evaporate to saturate the interior gas again (assuming the gas present does not prevent alcohol evaporation). After an unknown number of opening/closing of the bottle, the alcohol content of the liquid inside will decrease enough to be detectable to human taste buds.
Nothing above is scientifically unsound (other than the taste test of the Evan Williams, but you're free to conduct that test yourself. You can also substitute Wild Turkey 81 and 101 if you prefer, or conduct as well).
There are two questions:
Example: Lets assume that I can tolerate a 6 proof loss from Wild Turkey 101 without noticing. The last 1/4 of the bottle will get finished after 6 times of opening the bottle. Then as long as the proof loss/opening is less than 1, no difference will be detected.
Example 2: Lets say that in Longmorn 16 I can detect a 4 proof change. I will nurse the last 200 ml with very small pours of 15 ml. If the proof change is more than 0.4, than the last 3 pours will be of lower quality with a change in flavor.
(side note, I routinely pour myself less than an ounce at a time)
I do think the concept of neck pours, or unsealing and resealing a new bottle to drink a few days later is psychological in origin. Myths from faulty human perception that have been perpetuated.
After some additional research, I'm also less worried about corks during long storage (obviously not in direct contact with the whiskey, the high alcohol content does start to dissolve the cork). Also, I will be more careful about using "oxidation" as a chemistry blog set me straight on that term.
Quark Blast wrote:
I am addressing this point specifically. I'll move onto other points, once we get done dealing with this one.
Your claim is b*+$+#. I just told you why. Either you accept that it is a b#%&++#% claim, or you hold onto it.
If you are going to hold onto it, you need to demonstrate that it isn't b$!$!!#%.
Otherwise, you're just using b#$@*!@# to prop up your argument.
This is where you and I come to disagreements. You say things that are clearly stupid, and you cling to them, even when you get called out on them. If you stopped doing that, we'd get along better. For evidence of this, notice how often you and I have had areas where we at least somewhat agree in the past few months. That can happen more often, but you have to let go of this stupid s#+@.
Every time I try to clarify the discussion you jump down my throat and misrepresent what I am saying.
I bolded part of your post. That is not the question I was asking.
I italicized part of your post. Using a hypothetical is a tool we can use to clarify a discussion to better understand this question.
But hey, if you want to just argue without any point, please continue. If you would like to possibly move further in the discussion, let me know. I think a hypothetical would allow us to clarify some issues.
So, my question would be which scenario you think is a better strategy Gorbacz:
1: GenCon unilaterally declares that the convention is cancelled, and accepts all the liability for doing so.
2: GenCon negotiates with the city (and probably the state) for considerations and assistance, and doesn't announce cancellation until those negotiations reach a compromise or fail.
For historical context, GenCon was one of many, many businesses that threw their weight into opposing a bill that passed in Indiana, and pressured the government to pass a new bill protecting people who identify as LGBT.
GenCon is massively important to the economy of Indianapolis. The choice isn't preserving income or people's lives. This is a false dichotomy. This choice is how to provide as much economic stability as possible while prioritizing people's health and well-being.
I don't know the particulars of the convention you helped out. Heck, I don't even know what convention it is. But since it isn't GenCon, that means if it is a gaming convention, it is smaller. GenCon has more options and obligations than a smaller convention. GenCon has leverage to push the city of Indianapolis into at least some compromises. If the city and state are unwilling to work with GenCon, GenCon has the option to take their business elsewhere, literally.
So, maybe before we declare them insane for not having cancelled the convention already, we wait to see what actually happens over the next few weeks and months. If they bungle this process, I will join you in criticizing them. All I'm saying is maybe we wait until an actual decision is made.
I am arguing for nuance, factual information, and not leaping to conclusions.
Evidently, arguing for those things in times like this means that I value money over human life. That seems like a really f&$&ing strange leap in logic to me, but I guess it is where we are at these days.
You've reviewed GenCon's legal and financial documents?You've reviewed Indianapolis city ordinances?
You've reviewed Indiana state law?
Please, I would be very curious to learn more. Which clauses in GenCon's contracts are you referring to in how they should handle their cancellation? I will also be very curious as to how a Polish lawyer came to be involved in business contracts in Indiana. Since you are claiming to have reviewed these documents, I assume that such a thing is possible, and I bet it is an interesting story.
There is some sarcasm, because I am skeptical of your claim, but if your claim is true, I am genuinely interested. This week I wouldn't have much time to read any legal documents, but since I do have access to a university law library account, I wouldn't mind doing some research and reading next week if you can point me to some specific sources. I can access the HeinOnline, Westlaw, Bloomberg Law, and a couple other databases.
Where exactly did I say they should put lives at risk to protect their money? Please highlight where I actually said that.
Or is it something you ASSUMED about me?
I am suggesting that instead of engaging in wild speculation... we slow down, and look at legitimate information. We stop making accusations about people when we don't actually know what is going on.
Or maybe I should be more like you and accuse you of things you haven't said.
You are free to speculate about how high your horse is as well. I'm just not terribly impressed.
I agree, that as things stand right now, even if the event isn't cancelled... no one should attend. If you need me to pat you on the back for reaching the conclusion, here you go... good job on that observation, I think it's spot on.
This doesn't change the fact that the OP is correct, holding an event like this is lunacy.
What event exactly is being held?
Consider for a moment how you might criticize certain political groups for how they've used or ignored factual information about the decisions they've made... then consider how much actual factual information that genuinely exists and inspired this thread.
Is anyone here privy to the language and clauses of GenCon's agreements with the city?
Is anyone here privy to the financial agreements, insurance policies, or other similar business agreements that GenCon has in place?
Is anyone here privy to the laws and regulations of how the city can or cannot make their own decisions about the convention?
How familiar is anyone here with the state law of Indiana concerning declarations that might impact any of the above?
These are just some of the basic facts that would be required to even start actually understanding what will actually happen in the next few weeks or months, and yet currently our discussion about these events has none of those facts.
If you know these facts, I'd be curious to hear what you think the best course of action is for the organizers of GenCon. If you don't know these facts, it would seem to me to be lunacy to declare that you do know what is best.
I think this epidemic is a wonderful time for us all to reconsider how much rampant speculation we engage in when discussing people's lives and livelihoods.
Interestingly, both Xenophon (4th century BCE) and Columella (1st century CE) agreed on short names. I would disagree that it needs to end in a vowel, it's easy to drop the last letter when yelling (or soften it after lengthening the vowel).
I'd also add that a lot of two syllable Greek and Roman words/names make good dog names.
Many years ago, several roommates and I adopted a dog from a shelter and his name was Clarence. The dog was extremely sad. One of the roommates wanted to name him Tidus (we were playing FFX at the time). I felt that the dog needed more dignity than that, so we named him Titus, after the Roman emperor.
Another method I like is to do a google search for foreign words. Pick the word you want in English, and look up the translation in multiple languages. Then pick the one you want to use. Currently, my black dog is named Cenka (Serbian for shadow). He isn't quiet like one, but he does stick pretty close.
Ah, so you weren't trying to disagree with him when you said this:
My bad, I thought you were disagreeing with him. I apologize.
US economy contracted by 4.8% in Q1. It is likely to drop by another 20% or more in Q2, but it could by as much as 30%. This bagel is going to be as painful as the worst of the 1930's bagel. I still think it is possible that we start to see recovery start to happen by 2022, and whatever the new normal will be by 2025... depending on a lot of factors (i'm severely hedging here; I have no idea how likely a quick recovery is, I just believe it is possible).
A lot of it will depend on who finishes the vaccine, and how that vaccine is manufactured and distributed.
The numbers won't be in for a few more weeks, but we're probably already at around 14-15% unemployment, which would be the highest since 1940. The current official number is 4.4%, but that was accurate up to March 13. There is no actual distinction between recession and depression. It just used to be that economic downturns were called depressions. Then, cause they didn't want to spook people, they started calling them recessions. It's possible in the future we'll call them bagels.
If this is a bagel, it's likely going to be a severe one.
The segmented response... quote/response/quote/response/quote/response/quote/response is a really bad format for reading, makes it easy to make mistakes when quoting that post, and it separates portions of an argument that might be related, but treats them as independent.
I suspect it leads to really myopic reading of posts as well. In general, I think the best solution is if we are disagreeing with EVERYTHING people say and have to respond to it line by line... the conversation is improved by writing shorter posts.
To clarify, I am not being argumentative here. I am pointing out how we can have a clearer discussion by reducing miscommunication.
None of the sources of information that I've seen indicate that price is the primary driver on energy source choice in China. Price is probably a factor, but it's not one of the primary ones.
China announces plan to continue building electricity infrastructure during the pandemic to help boost the economy. No mention that such construction will be of renewable energy.
I told you not to read too much into the short term reduction of CO2. Wait until after the economic recovery actually starts to analyze what effect this economic crisis is going to have on the climate.
If governments push fossil fuels as part of a jobs program, then the short term environmental benefits will all disappear. If they push more renewable programs, then the gains could become permanent. I suspect several small nordic countries are likely to engage in the latter, but I'm highly suspicious of similar claims everywhere else.
And I'd really only be concerned if you're going to pour slowly over a very long period of time, like a 6 months or longer (ie, pouring a small amount every week or two during that time). If the last 20% of a bottle gets finished in 1-2 months, you don't have to do anything special.
Also, it can happen subtly and you don't notice. For example, my Laphroaig 18 probably changed some over the 3-4 years that I babied it (I didn't know about this stuff during that time either). It was still very tasty at the end, but it probably tasted different than it did when I first opened it. There were also very long periods where I didn't open it. Like I brought it to a Dec 31, 2018 New Year's party for a tasting, and then didn't open it until Dec 2019 when I finished it with some friends.
I'd say approximately 20% remaining is when you should start to be conservative in how many times you open a bottle. There are some options.
1a. Seal it with plastic wrap and tape for long term storage. If you do this, you'll want to tip it to wet the cork a couple (literally 1-2) of times a year, or the cork can go bad. Don't rest it on it's side like a wine bottle, don't shake it, and really just a quick tip and return to standing is fine every now and then. If it's sealed from oxygen, whiskey will stay good for at least a century.
1b. Buy smaller bottles and transfer the whiskey. The smaller bottle has less room for oxygen, and so will oxidize less when opened and close. (Do not use flasks for this, they are not long term storage solutions)
2. Share with friends. Easiest and most obvious solution. If you don't open it, it can sit for a while and you can save it for a special occasion.
3. Infinity bottle. Take an empty (or near empty) bottle and pour the whiskey in. When another bottle is almost done, pour yourself a glass, and pour the rest into your infinity bottle. Some people keep multiples (they prefer each type of whiskey separate, bourbons in one bottle, scotches in another), others just put everything in and see what happens. If the bottle starts to get full, pull it out to share with friends. As it starts to empty, that means you're sharing too much, or not buying enough whiskey, but you also have room for more.
I will say that an all-bourbon infinity bottle is really, really tasty. It can be a funky adventure when you add Irish and Scottish whiskey, and results will vary much more dramatically. It is also a low-stress way to try your hand at blending (which is super fun IMO, I started this year by blending my own concoction for eggnog).