Wine bricks saved the U.S. wine industry during Prohibition (2015)
vinepair.com
vinepair.com
1. you buy 5 gallons of grape juice for ~$20 per gallon.
2. yeast is dropped into your grape juice
3. you come to the store to decant your grape juice into wine bottles and cork them up.
Since no alcohol is bought or sold, you avoid the (very high) taxes on liquor. You end up with ~28 bottles of wine for ~$4 per bottle.
It's not the greatest wine, but it's ok for sangria and cooking, and it's a good story if you hang out with people who like to talk about tax loopholes...
I have some questions though:
1. do they teach you about sanitization and airlocks, or is it simply "toss some yeast in this bottle"
2. I'm guessing no aging? it would be awesome if they allowed you to pop some in a barrel for aging
3. (not really a question) but wow, $20/gallon is still kind of spendy!
Never seen a shop do ageing, so the wine will be noticeably "young". My parents like dryer and sharper white wines anyways (Pinot Grigio, Riesling, etc.) so it doesn't bother them. Also note that due to taxes and such, the cheapest wine you'll find commercially is C$11 a bottle, so even at C$20 / gallon you're getting a great deal if you like the resulting wines.
Personally, I quite like the wines my folks get through these shops - properly chilled they make a wonderfully refreshing beverage in the summer, and we'll often drink a few bottles on the back deck together when I go to see them.
I've been making my own wines for years now. Occasionally I'll do a full from-scratch wine, but more often I buy a $40 kit from Midwest Supplies [0] that has all the components - grape juice concentrate, fruit essence, yeasts, kieselsol and chitosan, potassium metabisulfite as well as full detailed instructions. All you need is four gallons of distilled water. 28 days later, ~30 bottles pretty good wine! It won't win awards or anything, but it'll make a fantastic table wine and great for everyday meals.
The only downside is that you'll spend a bit of time cleaning and sterilizing things and you'll remember all the stuff you forgot from high school chemistry class. :)
Edit: mostly interested in Sauvignon Blanc, Cabernet Sauvignon, vino verde, and maybe tempranillo. The kits seem pretty expensive. Trader joes has very tasty bottles in those styles (maybe not the CS) for $5.
To me wines are actually less work to homebrew than beer. Especially if you're working from a kit, there's no need to cook anything - just dump everything in the fermenter and go. Beyond that the process is largely similar. Primary fermentation -> secondary fermentation -> bottling -> drinking. They're pretty forgiving too.
In general, whites take a bit more work to get a really good looking product than reds. For a white, I'll usually rack at least three times over about a week, and then filter it so I get a nice, amber-clear end product with no sediment. Note that this doesn't really impact the taste much, just the appearance. Reds I usually don't bother to rack more than once or maybe twice.
When I am done I usually sit my bottles upright in a cool, dark area for a few days before putting them in the wine rack on their sides.
This one [0] specifically is a family favorite. Has a nice light, somewhat fruit taste that's great for a warm summer evening. This one is best kept cool (I keep a few of my bottles that we're about to drink in a wine refrigerator.)
[0] https://www.midwestsupplies.com/collections/riesling-recipe-...
Not wanting to be pedantic or snobbish, but it is "vinho verde", because it is a Portuguese type of wine (I am Portuguese, and that is why I care about this :)
PET plastic fermenters (Better Bottle, FermZilla, Fermonster, etc.) are much nicer to work with.
Cleaning any bottle with a narrow neck is extra work, but you can get it done with a pipe cleaner, and it's best not to clean at an elevation or to do so in a deep basin.
These are things that come naturally after handling significant glassware for a period of time.
As soon as I set this 5-gallon glass container of near-boiling liquid in the snow bank I realized my error because of the loud, CRACK sound. I lifted it up by the neck, but only the top half came away and I was left holding a comically large broken-bottle shiv. My roommates at the time all came out to properly laugh at me and I resolved to cool my wort before putting it in the fermentation vessel from then on. And also to stick with plastic fermentation vessels!
Also they make widemouth glass carboys which are very easy to clean. But they shatter all the same.
If your going to avoid glass go 304 stainless (SSBrewtechs BrewBucket etc.) plus it basically lasts forever.
There is one grape juice supplier called Château-Vieux-du-Roi which is from a region close to where Châteauneuf-du-Pape is produced in France. We have taken Châteauneuf-du-Pape bottles and put the Château-Vieux-du-Roi wine inside. Blind taste tests from folks who have had the real Châteauneuf-du-Pape often fail to tell the difference.
We have to age the knock-off Château-Vieux-du-Roi for 2-3 years to get it to the same quality, but by golly is it ever delicious wine. If you're impatient, it's still quite tasty after only 6 months to a year of aging in the bottle.
Considering a bottle of Châteauneuf-du-Pape goes for a minimum of $30 CAD, it's an incredible savings.
BOB PARR: All right, listen closely. I'd like to help you, but I can't. I'd like to tell you to take a copy of your policy to Norma Wilcox on... Norma Wilcox. W-I-L-C-O-X. On the third floor. But I can't. I also do not advise you to fill out and file a WS2475 form with our legal department on the second floor. I wouldn't expect someone to get back to you quickly to resolve the matter. I'd like to help, but there's nothing I can do.
You always say “Be true to yourself”, but you never say which part of yourself to be true to!
… which stuck in my head because so many Disney (and other?) movies seem to be all about being “true to yourself,” and in my experience they conspicuously fail to address the fact (in my belief system) that all humans have both good and evil, selfish and selfless within (we’re born screaming, demanding others’ attention; but even in the womb we listen to and begin to love familiar people, and in many situations we sacrifice much for our loved ones and even strangers).
DISCLAIMER: this is not an invitation to start debating these subjects, these are just crudely picked examples.
I'm sure most are aware but your description about eugenics is a bit off. It seems like you are putting a positive slant on it or suggesting thats the goal, whether intentional or not. Eugenics is about denying a class of humans (however you classify that class) from the ability to reproduce. This is highly unethical and given our tendency to classify on race, usually associated with racist agendas (such as the Nazis). I had to look up Wrongthink but it seems to be a term the Alt-Right is introducing... possible a play on thoughtcrime and newspeak (both Orwell) to defend their controversial opinions [0].
0: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/alt-right-has-a-word-for-...
He's a total arse don't get me wrong, but baseline humanity using nothing but its wits and hard work to make 'heroes' who inherited their powers obsolete is a sentiment I don't imagine is too alien to the readers of HN.
He's a villain because he's trying to replace the hereditary caste by violence, and by consuming them. The tension is there outside of him -- and Mr. Incredible is a bit of an arse to Billy at first -- but it's his means, not his ends, that are the problem.
We see this at the start of the film where Mr Incredible and his friend get tangled up in a rescue operation in a burning building despite having been pretty firmly rejected by baseline humans they're attempting to help, if I remember right one of them literally gets frozen alive by Mr Incredible's friend as they escape which is rather violent. We also see it when he throws his insufferable boss through several walls in a fit of anger, which is a display of his ingrained violent nature and lack of control over his superhuman powers which presents a threat to innocent bystanders. It's might-makes-right with a veneer of heroic respectability over the top, their true nature is very different from the nature they present to the public.
Either that or I'm reading way too much into a film that's mostly aimed at kids!
The anime Mob Psycho 100 goes into this idea heavily and its really great.
The incredible (heh) thing about this is that My Hero Academia answers it. In the world of MHA, nearly everyone has a superpower, or Quirk, of some sort; but superheroes are still a distinct class of professionals who have honed their quirks through training and, in general, developed courage, self-sacrifice, and inner resolve way beyond even the average superhuman. The greatest heroes distinguish themselves by exemplifying these values the most (though having powerful awesome Quirks helps). It was the perfect thing to come along at a point of maximum capeshit saturation.
Your vote is good if you vote for good people and good policies. Yes. But if a person votes for bad people and bad policies, then I don't see what's so good about it.
Voting in general however I believe is good because it makes people be part of the system, and feel they are part of it.
And so, if voting is good, maybe we should have more voting.
I think the woke culture is a bit flawed, because if there is something that is objectively bad, and something that is objectively good, why even have democracy at all? Let's just put there the sun king and move on?
The entire point of voting is that you are allowed to vote for whoever is running. Of course, the notion of a "bad policy" is as old as voting itself, but the noblest democracies are those which don't judge people for voting as they see fit, or else what's the point of voting at all? Just appoint a righteous elite to do all the political appointments for you.
However, just as there's been no consistently wise electorate, neither has there been a consistently wise elite class. In the end, in both cases, the best you can do politically is build a bulwark against corruption because you can't avoid it, which is why the stablest governments are the ones that make the job of the highest political seats as difficult as possible to actually do anything and put the bulk of the power in the hands of committees that have to argue about things to come to a decision.
> And so, if voting is good, maybe we should have more voting.
Voting on its own is not inherently good. Plenty of dictatorships operate under the guise of voting, where either candidates opposing the ruling party are entirely absent or voting for them is punishable in various ways (which is why the political polarization in the west is particularly chilling). There are plenty of "People's republics" out there that are neither republics nor representative of the people (unless, perhaps, you narrowly define "people", as the US originally did).
What is arguably good (at least in the liberal western mind) is maintaining a system of political friction (checks and balances) that ensure different parts of the government are effective limiters on each other's authority to make it as difficult as possible for a tyrant to seize control. IMO Trump was a pretty solid litmus test of the resilience of the American government against tyrannical takeover.
The downside of this, as we're seeing the recent competition between east and west, is that tyranny can be much more effective at getting stuff done than democracy can hope to be, at least in the short term. However, strong tyrants still die and eventually a weak tyrant takes their place and the country falls apart.
The (theoretical) strength of representative government is that it outlives any one or handful of strong rulers. I say theoretical because technically ancient Egypt's history spans more years than the entirety of human history after Christ (so far), but as can be seen in their history, they had plenty of royal family squabbles and foreign invasions in that time. How they retained national cohesion through it all would be an interesting study.
Generally attributed to Egypt's relatively high population density at the time. They grew a lot of grain. They had a lot of people.
There’s the rub. In the United States we’re permitted to choose from either one or two candidates, both of whom have been sponsored by one of two national private clubs or one of their local chapters. You will not see any mention of nominations or political parties anywhere in the US Constitution, and yet that’s the system that determines who is eligible to run. In California a single club controls who is permitted to run for most local and all national offices.
It’s so obviously kayfabe that I’m baffled that there are rubes out there who think this is a real choice anymore than picking “any” card from a magician’s deck is.
It also ought to make one wonder who exactly the first person plural is in that overworked phrase “our democracy.”
Democracy is a means of securing regular, peaceful power transitions. Whether the outcome is particularly good or bad is not relevant, because all power is transient.
The alternative is a civil war/revolution every now and then.
I wonder if they should apply to all positions, or would it lead to a somewhat poorly run country because all people in charge are all noobies?
I wouldn't say "demanding". During the first weeks you actually have to wake up the newborn for feeding, otherwise you're running the risk of malnourishment.
They're so utterly helpless, confused and tired that they can fall asleep even when hungry.
I never grew out of that, lol
In a future five years from now
I'm a hundred and twenty pounds
And I never get hung over
Because I will be the picture of discipline
Never minding what state I'm in
And I will be someone I admire
And it's funny how I imagined
That I would be that person now
But it does not seem to have happened
Maybe I've just forgotten how to see
That I am not exactly the person that I thought I'd be
[...]
And in my mind
When I'm old I am beautiful
Planting tulips and vegetables
Which I will mindfully watch over
Not like me now
I'm so busy with everything
That I don't look at anything
But I'm sure I'll look when I am older
And it's funny how I imagined
That I could be that person now
But that's not what I want
But that's what I wanted
And I'd be giving up somehow
How strange to see
That I don't wanna be the person that I want to be
---
Amanda Palmer, "In My Mind"
> The most dangerous thing you can do is to take any one impulse of your own nature and set it up as the thing you ought to follow at all costs. There is not one of them which will not make us into devils if we set it up as an absolute guide. You might think love of humanity in general was safe, but it is not. If you leave out justice you will find yourself breaking agreements and faking evidence in trials "for the sake of humanity," and become in the end a cruel and treacherous man.
"I always wanted to be somebody, but now I realize I should have been more specific." - Lily Tomlin
(San Pedro cactus contains mescaline. It's perfectly legal to grow for ornamental purposes.)
Over here, huffing nitrous oxide is a thing, but it's sold as pressure gas for whipped cream dispensers and the like.
Wine bricks were designed to get around a ban.
In the 2000s the NY state police started searching and seizing all UPS trucks exiting the reservations because the practice of shipping cigarettes had become so common that the state was losing significant tobacco tax revenue. They argued that UPS had to be aware of what they were carrying because the shippers were tobacco stores and the parcels were exactly cigarette box sized, thus they were willing accomplices. After several days the Native American governments backed down and agreed to not ship cigarettes anymore.
Would that matter? Fully legal duty-paid cigarette boxes would presumably be the same size and shape from the same origin.
Assembly instructions: "And now never ever connect pin x and pin y, because then you'd have a working modem, which would be illigal...
I remember there being distributed proof-reading groups on Usenet and IRC where you would get 1 page of OCR'd text and the corresponding scanned image and you would manually go through and verify and correct the source code.
[1] https://books.google.com/books/about/PGP_Source_Code_and_Int...
Here's the entire proper Perl 5 code:
undef $/;print<>$<>
The buggy version is slightly shorter but I depended on an incorrect reading of some tricky wording in the docs and didn't test thoroughly enough. I'm considering turning the tattoo into a diff.I recommend Crypto by Steven Levy as a high-level refresher on the events of the time. (https://www.bookfinder.com/search/?isbn=9780670859504&st=xl&...)
I read (cannot find the source now though) that's similar to today's homemade alcohol/beer in Japan, where there's a limit of what % of alcohol you can make at home. So all the official instructions include a last step: "mix in water until the alcohol percentage is below the legal limit". Of course people just ignore this to have stronger alcohol.
https://grapecollective.com/articles/prohibitions-grape-bric...
> The grape of choice for home winemakers quickly became Alicante Bouschet. Thick, tough skins helped the grape survive the cross–country journey, and it grew in large quantities
> By the end of Prohibition in 1933, other grape varietals and fruits had been ripped up and 40,000 acres of Alicante had been planted.
> “Grape bricks had a disastrous effect on the early American wine industry,” Suttner wrote in an email. Grape bricks’ place in Prohibition history is largely glossed over, but Suttner was able to learn about them through period newspaper articles and Eric Burn’s book The Spirits of America. “By encouraging the production of cheap, fast–growing grapes like Alicante Bouschet at the expense of other, slower varieties, American wineries limited themselves severely.”
I guess, because it somehow worked that one time, it became memorable as an exception, while in most cases it wouldn’t fly in court.
Like the companies selling whip cream chargers by the case of 600... You know, for the people that need to make whipped cream by the gallon at home.
One charger cartridge is good for maybe a pint of whipped cream. You'd need 4+ chargers for a gallon of whipped cream. A restaurant could easily go through 50 chargers a week.
https://www.amazon.com/iSi-Professional-Whipped-Cream-Charge...
Most coffee shops use these as well to make whipped cream for drinks.
I can definitely see the use case in a coffee shop though.
Why not? I've seen people go to a smoke shop to buy weird decorative vases before.
So not surprisingly something being illegal or not isn’t the critical factor, it’s the willingness to enforce the law (e.g. marijuana was essentially legal in SF well before the law was changed - you could smoke on the street and the cops wouldn’t do anything).
So this could work in general in cases where at a high level (federal) the legislation satisfies some puritanical ideological goals, but individually, or at the local/state level, nobody really buys into it so its enforcement is so so.
Something being on paper is basically meaningless. It’s all the “soft” cues that we use and you pick up those cues through experience.
Traffic is one of the other things that HN "just doesn't get" because the rules are fuzzy and the fuzziness is contextual.
Is it because starch yeasts can keep on keeping further than glucose ones?
For instance this[1] one can achieve up to 25% under right conditions.
[1] https://www.whitelabs.com/yeast-single?id=146&type=YEAST&sty...
No yeast can digest starches afaik. It's why you need a mashing phase to turn starches into simpler sugars when brewing beer.
I've also come across "triple distilled" turbo yeast that's supposed to be less harsh but not as high ABV.
I dunno how it works but apparently you can get to 25%
https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B003JTHVHY/
Some related tidbits from that book:
Like the compressed grape bricks, grape juice was perfectly legal. And making your own wine for family consumption was also legal.
So in San Francisco, many homes had basement wine cellars, and you could arrange a delivery from the grape juice truck down a chute into your wine barrel.
If you preferred fresh grapes, you could go to the Drumm Street station to pick up boxes of Napa County grapes straight off the train. Then go next door to the barrel maker and take it all home.
http://santarosahistory.com/wordpress/2019/05/will-wine-coun...
Your ears are self-cleaning. They automatically push earwax (slowly) to the outside. A Q-tip is only meant for the outer rim of your ear. There's a saying ENTs use I found while researching my problem: "nothing smaller than your elbow should enter your ear". My ENT told me to stop using the Q-tips. If you find your ears produce a lot of wax, you can just use a tissue on the outside. Or if you're willing to heed the warnings, carefully use a Q-tip, but don't insert it into your ear canal.
(Throwaway because I don't like mixing personal medical info with my regular account)
Like, during the 'rona lockdowns you weren't allowed to have more than X visitors, but no policeman would want to go door to door to see if people were having visitors.
(actually don't quote me on it, the visitors thing may have been advisory)
True and that's kind of the joke. They aren't even allowed to do visitations without evidence of malpractice. But the laws surrounding it are even stranger: The beer produced should only be consumed at home, any outside consumption would require taxation, therefore homebrew competitions ask you to tax your submissions. They've actually went to homebrew competitions and busted people on the grounds of 10€ pP at most (But remember if I self report/pay it would only be a few ct - so even less). Homebrew meetups have never had problems before.
The background of the law (at least in folk telling) is that the big guys were worried about malt-extract making homebrewing so easy as to make commercial brewing superfluous.
which is funny, since it takes a lot of work to make good beer! most of that goes into sanitization, since with extract you aren't doing a mash, but it could lead to some very bland beers.
And yet there are plenty of countries where this happened…
they all tasted good as well
If you're ever in Bavaria again, you should make a visit to Bamberg. It has an incredibly rich culture around beer. They are famous for smoked beer, though its just two breweries of about 20 making it. The others all have absurdly high quality beer at fair prices all with a certain amount of personality.
If it tasted half decent I'm curious if there could still be a market for something like this, given it seems to be able to be stored dry?
IME, one gallon batches about two hours of work from start to a clean kitchen. Five gallon batches take much longer to cool after boiling, so are a much bigger headache.
His output was like 30 bottles of red and another 30 of white, so in gallons that would be a little more than 21 liters each or 5 gallons each.
He gave away most of it to family and his friends - we had a lot of his bottles on regular barbecues he hosted - and even had my cousin help him design and print funny bottle labels.
[0] A "Schrebergarten" with a small almost-a-shed house.
Not quite the same, but in Germany they sell Federweißer, which is an unfermented wine, but the yeast is already on the bottom.
It turns from sweet grape juice (day 0), to sweet wine (day 2-3), then slightly sweet more alocoholic wine (day 4-5), until it turns into wine fully.
Quite a lot of people enjoy it. It's not a proper competition to normal wine, but it tastes good in its own way.
Google "wine kit" instead; they have plastic packages of grape juice rather than solidified wine bricks. I've never tried one, because there's so many interesting things you can make without pre-packaged ingredients. So far I've made ginger wine, elderflower wine, cranberry wine, and chocolate mead. It's been a really fun hobby.
There’s always laughter and good red wine
At least, I’ve always found it so
Benedicamis Domino!
~ Hilaire Belloc
A missed chance to call these "bricks" instead of bottles!
One experiment in South Africa was banning the sale, or transportation, of alcohol. (Production and consumption was still allowed, just not sale or transportation.) This resulted in a marked decrease in hospital admissions, traffic accidents and domestic crimes. [1]
The ban would morph during the first year of Covid, alternately covering things like trading hours, availability in restaurants and so on. Some restrictions were more effective than others, and overall effectiveness decreased as the population got smarter about stocking up with sufficient quantities to bypass any restrictions.
Even the hint of restrictions now (such as was rumored to happen, but did not happen, when Omicron was first recognized) resulted in huge surges of sales. Generally speaking though more restrictions resulted in fewer hospital admissions.
Clearly prohibition taught us that a blanket ban on alcohol just incentivizes organized crime. So it's not like a long-term ban is useful. But the effects of lowering alcohol consumption are also clear. Balancing these two very conflicting points of view is going to be a challenge for society as we move forward. [2]
[1] Clearly not all decreases are solely because of this, less traffic means fewer accidents for example, but it's considered to be a high contributing factor.
[2] https://businesstech.co.za/news/government/547654/what-all-t...
More seriously,because it would simply be impossible to run these social experiments in normal circumstances.
There are other examples; New Zealand and Australia tested a "closed border" approach, Sweden adopted a "personal responsibility" approach. Some places had curfews. The shere variety and scale of the last two years have generated enormous amounts of data, and matching data to long-term consequences will keep anthropologists busy for years.
And just might inform better choices when the next one happens.
Regardless of how you define tyranny, how can you be so blithely supportive of rule-by-decree in supposed democracies? Especially for the purpose of running "social experiments?"
Covid Restrictions gained the grudging mandate of the masses, and in many places only by a hair, due to legitimate public-health concerns. Even in that context the subversion of legislative processes should be concerning. Running "experiments" on a non-consenting populace is at least the definition of dictatorship or oligarchy, if the word tyranny doesn't work for you.
Because that is the reason we life in a democracy with checks and balances implemented. In Germany some decrees were canceled by our (up to the highest) courts, others were declared to be in line with the constitution.
We elect officials (setting the policy) every four years to rule us in our name. So we hand them the right and the power to "rule-by-decree" as long as they do not leave the grounds of the constitution (and we have courts to check against that).
> for the purpose of running "social experiments?"
I actually think (and believe) that most politicians in most countries tried to safe people. As much people as possible while also taking other factors like the economy and the health sector and stuff into account. And yes: They overshot sometimes. Yes, they made massive mistakes. Yes, they sometimes filled their own (or buddies') pockets. Yes, the more this pandemic progresses the less I think our politicians really know what they are doing.
But I never felt, that policies were implemented for the purpose of running an experiment. But the different implementations now offer the possibility to learn from them for the future. Like scientists looking at different implementations of daylight savings time and learning from that. Or different implementations of regulations regarding wearing helmets while driving motorcycles, regarding seat belt usage or even regarding the ability for contraception and abortion.
The fact that we are allowed to disagree and publicly argue against restrictions, to challenge them in court imho shows that we are living in a democracy.
But yeah - keep going on arguing about a straw man (that nobody but you put in place) like:
> Running "experiments" on a non-consenting populace is at least the definition of dictatorship or oligarchy, if the word tyranny doesn't work for you.
For what it's worth, I think many of the covid restrictions were at the time believed to be necessary measures, but that's actually not the debate that's taking place here.
I'm not suggesting that they were unrelated to the issue at hand - and I'm not implying they were unethical.
I believe most govts acted in good faith, with limited information, and (quite literally) no experience to draw on. Even today we don't really know what the "best approach" was, what we can say though is that a future pandemic will have better data to work with.
Had all countries had the exact same response we would not really know if what we did was best or not. Lockdown, travel restrictions, alcohol bans, closure of businesses, closure of sport, limited social mobility, police enforcement, no enforcement - all these and more were tried in one place or another.
They were experiments with forseen, and unforseen consequences.
Sure there was over-reach here and there, but for the most part it was a best effort response from no known experience.
I don't believe it could be called tyrannical.
It was understood this was a temporary health emergency, and the primary goal was to save lives. In most places, most people, saw this as a fair trade-off - and least in the immediate term.
One interesting analysis in years to come will be the effect of politisizing a health emergency as a party-political event, as distinct from there being broad political consensus to the action taken.
My WW2 knowledge isn't deep but I seem to recall this being a big problem back then. But I guess it's all good now.
Little impact on many factors that had previously been put down to population growth.
It decisively proved that overcrowded infrastructure and inflated house prices were definitively supply side problems, rather than demand side problems.
Tell that to the families that had loved ones in the Unit 731 experiments?
I'm just saying that by prefacing something with "well since we're in a state of tyranny it would be neat to [do a thing]"... it doesn't always fly and not all data is necessary to have when it comes at a cost of human lives.
Every action taken by every govt was in effect an experiment since nothing of this sort had occurred in living memory, and past instances occurred in a very different world.
In SA there was a hypothesis that reducing the burden on the health sector was a priority, and that a significant contributing factor to hospital load was alcohol, hence limiting alcohol consumption (via limiting sales) was worth testing.
The experiment upheld the hypothesis, but at the same time highlighted negative impacts on the alcohol sector as a whole. To determine the best hospital outcome, while balancing industry requirements, a number of approaches short of an outright ban were tested. These outcomes will likely influence policy moving forward and equally provide important data for the next time hospitals need to be protected in this way.
New Zealand experimented with a sealed border, and eradication approach (successful), Australia did the same with somewhat less success. Again the impacts of those policies can be studied for sometime to come.
The opposite of these experiments was to experiment by doing nothing (Sweden for example) - even doing nothing was an experiment.
I'm not saying covid was fun, or that the very real human cost should be minimised, but clearly some countries fared better than others. Being able to understand why that is the case will be really important next time.
That was the same worldwide because nobody was outside.
Holy retcon, Batman!
Generally speaking, emptier roads encourage more speeding and reckless driving, increasing the severity of car accidents.
even in your link some EU countries reported increases.
The biggest problem I run into is two lane highways where the semi trucks constantly block the left lane going just at the speed limit while trying to pass other semis in the right lane going just under the speed limit - literally a 1mph difference between the two. The speed limit for cars is 10mph above the truck limit but your lucky to do the truck limit consistently. California was particularly bad in that regard.
People from Oaklahoma are also a constant scourge on the road, they can not tolerate someone going faster then them, so if you try to pass on the left they will pull in front of you and bumble along at the speed limit or one mile over (def a culture thing, cops in OK have a zero tolerance policy for speeding, no margin, regardless of conditions, passing, etc.). On an open road you can just pass them on the right but in any moderate traffic they cause a lot of problems. Check the plates the next time someone does that, pattern isn’t hard to see.
Roads in West Virginia are basically paved over goat trails, I watched some douche in a pickup take a blind 5 mph turn at about 85mph trying to blow past a small sedan he obviously thought was going to slow and wedged himself in a stream about forty feet beyond the road. Luckily nobody was coming the other way around he turn or it could have been really tragic.
Looks to me like there's a general societal breakdown, also looking at the proliferation of videos of people walking out of stores with stuff they didn't pay for.
So I wonder how much was learnt from the error rates and signal strength variations from wifi enabled devices in a phased array radar setup in order to track human beings walking around their homes. I wonder what patterns were discovered and if it was possible to discover when arguments and falling outs showed up. What other data was garnered that could predict certain behaviours?
I also wonder what would be discovered which will help with the isolation of space travel, like limited human contact, small human group dynamics, things like that.
The answer to alcoholism is to de-glamorize it. Young impressionable minds are susceptible to such glamorization.
If governments around the world are seriously committed to reduce alcohol consumption, better shun it, rather than putting in laws to prohibit or restrict it.
Ultimately, if the people reject it, it will come down. And that is the only way it works.
The question you should be asking wrt South Africa is how they're enforcing the ban on sales - because people will sell regardless. The general problem with any kind of ban that goes against what a significant part of the society enjoys is that it either goes most unenforced, weakening the rule of law in general; or is mostly enforced, and then you end up ruining numerous lives by running them through the law enforcement grinder.
Yes, the effect of a permanent prohibition is well known (illegal alcohol production, which given how easy alcohol is to produce at home is unenforceable) but this was not that.