forgot_my_pwd

I live in a great town that's about an hour commute from the big city where I work. I would never make as much money as I do now (or find as engaging work) if I looked outside the city. I also have no interest in moving.

Granted I don't hate commuting. Since I take the bus I get a significant amount of reading done.

How many of us don't want to commute to the office 5 days a week, but also don't necessarily like the idea of working from home when not at the office?

My personal ideal is a dedicated office space in a location very close to my home, like in the nearest downtown, where I would pay a certain amount per month in return for a set of days on which I could reserve personal office space.

The issue with working from home for me is that I feel my personal life and work life become messy and entangled if I do too much work at home. Similar to how good sleep hygiene involves doing as few activities other than sleeping on your bed as possible, I feel for my mental wellbeing it's better to physically separate my work life and home life as much as possible.

This has been my thinking for a few weeks now. Aside from bringing us significantly closer to herd immunity, it would increase the pool of eligible plasma donors for plasma antibody therapy.

And those are just the public health benefits. Saving millions of jobs and livelihoods is no small benefit either.

The salaries for NYC and San Francisco seem way too low. Only using base salaries significantly deflates compensation.

It would be easy to issue certificates to people who have been vaccinated. Businesses already have guidelines for who can enter their premises, like wearing shirts in restaurants in spite of not wearing a shirt being legal.

Yeah it seems like there is a straightforward free market solution: you don't get a vaccine, businesses may not allow you on their property or in their stores.

It certainly sounds like you have a pre-existing grudge, so I suppose this supports what I'm saying.

Why didn't the EU pour more resources into treatments and vaccines? I think I'm going to blame them.

See how that works?

I suppose if you already have a grudge against the US you can pick and choose which facts you focus on to try to piece together a narrative that blames the US for this... But of course that narrative is extremely flimsy.

Assigning blame to any one country for a pandemic which is affecting literally the entire world is petty and disingenuous.

All countries on Earth could have done more to prevent this.

Well it's certainly part of the reason.

More philosophically, when one's voting agency is shared with another person, as is the case in ballot harvesting, the opportunity for abuse multiplies. This is why most states have outlawed ballot harvesting.

Consider: I come to your door with a ballot. You had not thought about voting because you didn't particularly care about the candidates, but I am an agent for candidate A and because I got to you before the agent for candidate B, I convince you - good salesman that I am - to vote for someone you wouldn't have otherwise.

Thus the voting process become less about what the voters themselves think or care about and more about which candidate has the most resources to send agents out to ballot harvest.

The corruption that such practices invite completely undermine the voting process and it is only with a blatant disregard for the voting process - a fixation on power above principle - that a state would allow such practices.

What a rhetorically weak and unintelligent opening, which shortsightedly ignores that Presidents who won the popular vote in the past have started wars and engaged in infidelity before. The idea that somehow policies and behaviors that the author has a personal problem with would be avoided by bowing to the popular vote is just silly.

> "Equal representation of states in the Senate, for example, gives citizens of low-population states undue influence in Congress."

As for the above quote, I would have expected more from the HLR. The entire reason why Senators are apportioned as they are is to give low population states extra influence. Supporters of progressive economic policy will immediately understand the reason: smaller states should get the same number of Senators as larger states to balance their weakness relative to these states. Similar reasoning is used to justify transfers of wealth from the wealthy to the poor.

One little talked about reason why this is especially good for the country and its people is that it provides an extra check on the impulses of powerful states that may want to push policy which may not be beneficial for the entire country, or is shortsighted.

It stands to reason that small states may have profoundly different perspectives than large states and so by forcing these different perspectives to come to terms with one another better policy will be the result. If one state or region had complete dominance, there would be no opportunity for debate and the benefits of the reflection that such debate forces.

The entire US system is built with the idea of balance in mind and everything is structured so that the various forces in the nation balance one another.

I think it was a stupid thing to say, no doubt. He often says stupid things. But he makes up for that in other areas, which is why I will vote for him.

It is often the case that soft social pressure is the best way to enforce desirable behaviors amongst people.

Within friend groups where there are no formally established laws or codes of conduct, there are certain implicit standards of behavior people are expected to abide by, and part of why they do is because of the threat of social ostracism.

In a broader scope, in ancient societies social ostracism was often used to deal with those who violated the norms of society; in Athens ostracism was an official punishment.

I'm not saying we can or should literally expel billionaires who don't put their liquid wealth towards philanthropy, but far too often we focus on formal, legal means of compelling the super wealthy to part with their money, such as through taxes that are easily avoided.

Social pressure put upon the super wealthy using tools like this could be more effective than people expect. There is the threat of social ostracism, but also the reward of social approval granted to the patrons of philanthropy.

And all that because of a virus that has a fatality rate about between .2 and .5% which mainly targets people who are already on the verge of death to begin with.

We need to begin opening our country back up and implementing more targeted lockdowns and isolations for the most vulnerable.

Not only will this bring us to herd immunity faster, we will have a huge pool of recovered people available to donate plasma antibodies to those suffering from the virus.

Taking the recent deluge of antibody test data that's been released in the last few weeks from around the world indicating infection rates are far higher than official numbers indicate and the growing threat of economic misery for tens of millions, this is the best way forward.

Nowhere did he mention bleach, this is an example of stretching being done to make it sound like he said something worse than he actually did. I believe most people see the media's making a story out of this for what it is, just another example of biased vendetta driven reporting.

No one was saying to inject bleach. And Trump was probably just crudely restating some experimental treatment he had heard about in one of his many briefings. Speculative disinfectant treatments have been mentioned.

It's a very minor issue and clearly grasping for a smear by the President's opponents.

Anyone who tried to drink bleach because of Trump's offhand comments that in no way endorsed doing so is beyond help or hope.

Many studies across the world are showing infection rates for Covid-19 are far higher than official numbers indicate. These studies appear to support the spirit of their statements.

Imbalance. There has always been the assumption in media that all sides will have their champions, and this has traditionally been the case.

Unfortunately that no longer holds as certain entities have a stranglehold on online communication.

Perhaps the free market will fix this. Perhaps not. Are we willing to allow a small cadre of like minded individuals manipulate the internet in the meantime?

I believe that's an intolerant situation and am not willing to wait.

A natural byproduct of a functioning society has always been otherwise avoidable deaths: car accidents, workplace accidents, flu deaths, etc.

The idea that we can hide out until the virus completely disappears is a fantasy. The only sustainable path forward is targeted lockdown and isolation for the most vulnerable along with mustering our energies for testing and treatment.

But that misses the point. The very fact that a few people at Google/Youtube have the power to censor whomever they want for whatever reason they choose is a problem in itself.

Are the doctors in the video saying untruths or misrepresenting data? I think what they said in the video was eminently reasonable. But perhaps I'm wrong. Luckily we have the freedom to publicly critique their claims - assuming our critiques aren't censored by major internet companies - which is how falsehoods and untruths should be dealt with, not with censorship.

It's quite interesting how close galaxies are to one another relative to how far stars are from one another.

The distance from the Milky Way to Andromeda is only about 25 Milky Ways, but the distance from the Sun to Alpha Centauri is about 29 million Suns.

>“I adopted the attitude that those bar girls are all bitches, that they aren’t worth anything, and all they’re in there for is to get you to buy them a drink, and they’re not going to give you a goddamn thing”

Who hasn't said something of this sort or spirit at one time or another. Both men and women. Even if it wasn't part of some thought experiment, it's an irrelevant anecdote...

But that is value for whom? For the women who benefit. Not necessarily for the business itself, which is what this paper argues.

*until the company fails because it can't compete with un-unionized competitors.