matz1

Society is a collection of individuals.

>But as a society, we could value reparability

Only if there is large enough individuals who value reparability.

>And laws are there to enforce what the society values

That laws exist when there is enough individuals to support it.

Of course it's going to be not the same for everyone.

>You've lost me here. Really?

Yes, among all other thing I concern about, reducing the chance of infection passing between us is the least of my concern.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against reducing the chance of infection. I support reducing the chance of infection but not with mask.

Because mask has more downside than its ability (if any) to reduce the chance of infection.

>Is this the part where I discover you have a completely different view on the whole topic and this discussion was pointless from the beginning?

I don't know about you but I do not found this discussion to be pointless

>Yes I am. I am reducing the chance of infection passing between us.

No, you think you are doing good for me but reducing the chance of infection passing is not a concern for me at all so its not doing any good for me.

>I think we probably won't get any further benefit from this discussion. I've lost patience with a lot of people over this. I find it slightly depressing that this has become the identity issue it has.

Not surprising because you dismissing other people concern and treat it as 'not big deal'.

>But it's no big deal.

It's no big deal for you, fine. I acknowledge that but It is a big deal for me.

>I'm a grown up and I deal with it because it's a good thing to do for other people.

well not to me, when you wearing mask when interacting with me you are not doing a good thing for me.

I'm much prefer for you to not wear mask when you interact with me but still I wouldn't force you.

Its also one of the reason for me to not wear mask when interacting with other people, its a good thing to do for other people.

Because not everyone the same, do you expect everyone to have same experience ?

>Wearing masks is usually only a minor inconvenience

Maybe it is minor inconvenience for you but for me its a huge inconvenience.

I strongly against mask mandate.

The problem with N95 mask :

- communication barrier, it destroy ability to use facial expression to aid communication.

- uncomfortable

- inconvenience

- not free

- environmental waste

But if someone want to wear mask, I wouldn't stop you as long as you don't force it to other people.

>Re "How humans work": My underlying argument is that humans are and behave in a certain way, and you can't change that. Humans, just live everything else, cannot be molded into anything you can imagine.

Disagree, if anything its the contrary, human as like any other living organism always evolve, always changing. Its language, its culture is constantly evolving/changing, even its physique.

>You also write that some underlying issues need to be fixed. What issues do you mean by this? What is the root cause that you'd like to fix?

Lets take one example, assume I'm gay. Let say If people know I'm gay I will be discriminated. There is 2 way to solve this issue: Hide that I'm gay or fix the discrimination issue. I would much prefer the later approach.

When the underlying issue is fixed, I would not need for self-censoring.

>I think I could say similar arguments, but for supporting privacy, instead of transparency. The imbalance of power absolutely arises from the information asymmetry, but we can't really design a system where everyone is equally watched, because some will have ways to hide some of their information, and therefore increase their power, and by that power hide even more information. Until you deny humans every form of autonomy, they'll have ways to achieve this, and will strive for this, and so transparency not just doesn't work, but in fact makes the power imbalance even worse

Embracing and learning on how to adapt on transparency is the only feasible way. Technology is always progressing. As technology progresses information becoming easier, cheaper, faster to transmit.

Good luck trying to stop the progress of technology.

Yes someone will always try to hide they can try but its going to be come more and more difficult and increasingly costly.

>Also, I don't think you can embrace transparency, no matter how much you'd like to, because of how humans work

what do you mean by this ? How human works in this context according to you ?

>but the importance of privacy is recognized in places like the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights,

Just because its written there doesn't mean its set in stone.

I certainly disagree that privacy is a rights.

>Or, looking at the opposite, constant exposure can lead to things like the Chilling Effect,

It can lead to that but then we should fix those thing instead of privacy

I'm not saying that transparency can solve everything. I'm saying that we learn/adapt on living with transparency.

>which, in layman terms, means always-on self-censoring due to constantly being watched,

When the root of the issue is fixed, the need of self-censoring is disappear.

As technology getting better and better, it becoming more and more difficult to hide information. Imagine smaller and smaller device that can record more and more information and transmit it faster and faster.

Information wants to be free.

Its simply more pragmatic approach to embrace and adapt to transparency.

> the powerful would still have ways to achieve it, while the less powerful wouldn't

The imbalance of power come from information asymmetry. e.g The government has more information then the citizen thus they are more powerful but if we strive for transparency for both side then the playing field is leveled.

Sure you can do that by privacy for both side but then you are fighting against the progress of technology.

Citizen can organize too. Government can try to prevent that but there are much more citizen then government people. Citizens has strength in number.

>Assuming many people even learn about your arrest -

Thats why I argue for citizen to surveil the government too to level the playing field.

>Because it seems to me if you're the one with power,

So where does their power come from ?

Information advantage ? No, if both side has the same information

Strength in number? there are more citizen then the government people.

The difference with hong kong is the surveillance is one sided, goverment can surveil their citizen but the citizen can't surveil the goverment.

The surveillance/transparency has to be on both side.

Government can't just do whatever they want if they also being surveilled.

>making the government too powerful and not accountable. If only activists and journalists will try to have the privacy,

Then I much rather for everyone to have no privacy so it level the playing field.

I don't have to worry about having to hide stuff.

>Or, what if something harmless becomes illegal

So this is the actual issue then ?

Instead of resorting to hiding, should instead fix the root issue: change the law.

>Now maybe they did spend some time learning it and looking into, but there is no way to know for sure

Why are you so concerned on this ? Isn't the goal of a paper is to communicate information?

>It only proves that they have copy and paste.

Yes they copy paste but it doesn't prove that they don't really understand it.

They may very well found your definition is the best way to describe it.

As long as the reader of the paper understand what being communicated, imo it should be fine?

I can understand if its a school assignment where the goal is specifically to prove that the author know their stuff.

For a scientific paper, requiring a concept to be described in different way for the sake of it seem to be inefficient and wasting time.

plus now they have to do all kind of new ridiculous covid protocol

testing tests all patients being admitted to the hospital

no wonder they are overworked

It maybe but independent housing has it downside: commute time and high cost.

Those are not contradiction. He is the CEO of tesla because he feel like he has to otherwise tesla will die.

One way, the company could maybe give some amount of money to help with the moving out cost or maybe allow for the employee to stay for a bit longer while they looking for new place to live.

Yes, it can be painful but not necessarily have to. Its not like there is no way to mitigate the pain.

What I mean by conversion including demolishing the office building and building apartment instead not just retrofit existing office building to be a living space.

Because they can't just convert some of the space in their campus to housing because of zoning.

This is why zoning is really bad. Those company could have converted some of those space into housing. Provide it to the employee as benefit for cheap/free. I believe quite significant number of employee would happily live on campus.

There is but I'm glad that there is not enough support for it. It sucks if sugary drink is banned.

In the end its always battle between two sides. The winer get to decide the rules.

>Thus "vaccine sceptics" don't impact only themselves but can cause effects on others

It goes both way, mandatary vaccine don't impact only themselves but can cause effects on others.

It certainly impact people who do not want to be vaccinated.

Obviously I would prefer employer to not mandate anything regarding vaccine.

I work from home but manage small sports club. I would never ask anyone for their vaccination status nor requiring them to be vaccinated to join.

Obviously there never be 0 risk. Anything in life has risk. I'm driving to park carry a risk. I'm drinking the two bottle of beer carry a risk. Would I afraid ? No

> It's similar to how a house fire can spread to neighboring houses regardless of the homeowner's preference to have it put out or not.

If I can make my house fireproof (analogy of being vaccinated) then I would not worry about my neighbor house not being fireproof catching fire and spread.