It's somewhat better than a UBI
A UBI is going to normalize condition and make “them” see there’s even more to participate in.
Sounds like you still prefer maintenance of a steerage class, assuming you’ll be a bit higher on the totem pole. But I mean, real talk is you’re still just one of billions. How you feel the world as-is is a meaningless measure for how you would fit into a UBI world. And I have no particular obligation to your sensibilities. shrug emoji You’re a “them” to me is not an unreasonable statement.
Also I have no idea what "normalize condition" means?
Are there any good estimates of the total economic costs of this security theatre?
> The source did not give an exact number, but said the failure rate was close to 80 percent. Members of Congress called the results "disturbing" in a public hearing following a private, classified briefing to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-11-0...
archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20221116171835/https://www.usnew... https://archive.ph/hzA1y
Locking the airplane cockpit door, along with awareness that hijackers will kill you (as opposed to fly you to a different country and you are free in a couple days if you stay quiet) are also factors. I don't know how to separate them from anything the TSA does, but I have to believe those are both more important.
A change which contributed to the complete loss of an aircraft and all aboard when the pilot left to go to the toilet and the copilot locked the door to crash it into a mountainside. The law of unintended consequences in full effect. Had such a change not been enacted that flight likely would have survived.
It used to be that you'd go through a metal detector and be done with it, and that's still the way it is in, for example, Greece. My local airport (second largest in the country, but still no SFO) gets you from the entrance to the gate in less than ten minutes.
I don't know why we've accepted this bullshit. It's not as if some malicious actor couldn't just hit a train or bus instead and kill just as many people, yet we accept all this hassle and invasion of privacy for exactly zero benefit.
No but the people putting the suitcase - that you had to take apart yourself - through the scanner will steal things from you - my credit card and powerbank went missing during the process this summer.
Probably yes. But for their fun, not yours.
You're not going to see many politicians vote against such systems because the second some incident occurs, their stance against protectionism will be crucified by opponents and gobbled up by the general public. This is one reason why the US defense budget continues to balloon. Anyone who pushes to reduce spending can easily be painted to the masses as someone who doesn't care about or want to secure your safety. This dynamic also plays into use of fear for power, so those in power drum up fears and explode risk in their own interest.
... like masks.
But seriously, a lot of the same people that objected to the TSA madness also objected to the mask mandates.
But this time a lot of people who didn't object to the TSA objected to masks.
I’m not surprised more people actually objected to the latter.
It reminds me of Norway's response to the Utoya massacre. IIRC in a speech at the time the gov said they weren't going to change their system because of one terrorist. (I might be remembering wrong but that's what stuck with me.) The US on the other hand took the opportunity to ram through as many "security" provisions through as possible which are with us to this day and can no longer be questioned as to whether they are indeed necessary or helpful.
This is something, I will do it!
Fill in useless mask mandates or shoe removal as you see fit.
The problem is not that they are ineffective but that people followed them poorly. I've seen countless people wearing them super ineffectively like leaving their nose completely out, and many people when they wear surgical masks they don't bend the metal bar to fit to their nose and instead basically have like a canopy instead of a mask which of course doesn't do much.
That's not true. There are good studies, followed up with full contact tracing in the environment it happened in, that show aerosol transmission in everyday situations (such as planes and restaurants)
Additionally on the poor fitting masks, triple layer surgicals are more effective (not effective enough) when double masking (which that situation is surgical first, cloth second.. this is the same as using a mask brace to ensure a tight fit)
However, the findings from Aaron Collins found that yes, they are better with a mask fitter.. but they still fail to qualify at the same level as an N95, KN95, or KF94 level of protection. (Those are the levels of protection you require when dealing with airborne based contaminants) On top of that it made it more difficult to wear.
Do they reduce COVID 19 transmision is basically the same question as does a book stop a bullet. Yes. Is if sufficient? No. (Safe vs Safe-er)
With aerosols, it's a lot out there, they're light, move from low pressure to high, and they float. (You need better protection, and you have to ensure that the filter does it's job, surgical don't and can't do that.. although the CDC tried to hack their way through that with "fit adjustments")
With droplet, it requires those being projected, more affected by gravity, and it requires an entry point into entering you. (They're heavilier particles, and typically this is less likely to spread)
All of the masking in the US is regulated by OSHA for the work world. (And is only for the working world.. no N95s for children) That's why N95s are required in hospitals (with workers, and only for workers are N95s required to be fit tested) in this case. Unfortuantely with a lot of the papers you see .. they tend to minimize what other country's population standards. I think they (KF94s, FFP2s, KN95 [if you have a trust worthy regulation body] etc) would be a better fit for the general population.