Lurker > adjl

Fam_Fam posted...

its brave to make a decision that you know millions will criticize you for in order to take care of yourself over making those people happy.

she knew she would get a lot of shit for it.

ironically, it should not be considered brave to do what she did, but people like you make it something that people to be scared to do

Pretty much. It shouldn't be a question of bravery/cowardice at all, just a matter of making an informed decision based on analyzing the risk (in which case, her decision is absolutely correct, given the extreme danger associated with "powering through" the problem). Because people get so uppity about it, making the decision in the face of that backlash is something that takes no small amount of courage.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

OhhhJa posted...

So he died of a heat stroke and they're calling it covid and trying to humiliate the family. Nice

Why are you the way you are?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

agesboy posted...

this is a total non-sequitur tangent, but fun fact, a displayed 99% chance to hit in most fire emblem games is actually a 99.99% chance to hit, because the game rolls two random numbers instead of one. the average of the combined rolls is considered, and the end result out of this is that higher percentages hit more often than expected and lower percentages miss more than expected. to get a true hit rate of 99%, the displayed hit rate would have to be around 90%!

the more you know

Yeah, I went into that in more detail in another post. And then Fates used some weird system that meant true hit was still higher/lower than the displayed value (for above/below 50, respectively), but didn't have quite as pronounced an effect as the 2RN system did. Knowing that really just makes all those 99% misses even more infuriating.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

If you're not entering a new lane, don't signal. There's nothing you actually need to indicate to anyone, and in fact, signalling is likely to make people think you're making a lane change you aren't actually making. If you are entering a new lane, signal.

SunWuKung420 posted...

Therefore, signaling when it's not needed and is actually confusing, is unsafe.

Eh, I'd still say to err on the side of signalling. A confusing signal is mostly just going to result in people slowing down to see what you're doing, which is more annoying than genuinely dangerous. By contrast, failing to signal when it is needed is going to limit people's ability to react, which is going to be dangerous. Ideally, signal at all the right times and none of the wrong times, but if in doubt, signal (and then think about the situation afterwards to figure out what the best course of action actually was, which is something everyone should do any time they think they might have made a mistake).

OhhhJa posted...

Yeah, this seems like terrible advice imo. People on the highway changing speeds when in a lane people are merging into causes more issues than anything. I go to merge and some jackass starts slowing down so it's more difficult to anticipate their movement

I generally play it by ear to make sure they've got a clear space to get in, depending on where they are relative to me. Sometimes that means slowing down, sometimes speeding up, and sometimes going into the other lane (mostly if there's enough traffic behind/in front of me that I can't adjust my position within the lane). Done properly, that all happens well before it's time for them to actually merge, so when that time comes, it's obvious where they'll fit.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

BlackScythe0 posted...

There isn't anything fundamentally wrong with that.

If there's a reasonable alternative, no. If not, you're just making the problem worse.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It explicitly says "public right of way", which is the paths the public take, not just any public land i.e. if you're out of the way as you're supposed to be, there's no problem.

The ordinance restricts "sitting, lying, or sleeping or storing, using, maintaining, or placing personal property in the public right-of-way." The measure makes it illegal to sit, lie, sleep, or set up encampments within 500 feet from "sensitive use" properties, such as schools, parks, and libraries, and other areas such as "overpasses, underpasses, freeway ramps, tunnels, bridges, pedestrian bridges, subways, washes, spreading grounds, or active railways."

The ordinance also makes it illegal to sit, lie, sleep, or set up encampments within 1,000 feet of or on a "street, sidewalk, or other public right-of-way."

You seem to be approaching this as though all they're asking is for homeless people not to leave their crap in the middle of the road. That would be pretty reasonable. Stuff in the middle of the road is potentially hazardous and just gets in everyone's way. It goes far beyond that, though. Not being allowed to be within 1000 feet of any sidewalk or public path or in any park basically means they aren't allowed on public land in any capacity. Heck, that even rules out a solid chunk of private land, given that many lots don't even extend 1000 feet from the sidewalk. This is unambiguously a matter of making it illegal for homeless people to dwell within LA city limits.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's as though distasteful things don't need to be on display.

They do need to be on display, though. They don't have anything in which to hide so they aren't displayed (or if they do have a tent or something, that's treated the same way as if they were unsheltered). That's what makes them homeless. The fact that people would rather pretend they don't exist doesn't change that need.

Reigning_King posted...

There are so many sympathetic people on this board it brings a tear to my eye. I'm sure all of you would be happy to let some homeless people camp in your yard or even move into your home with you. At the very least I'm sure you donate plenty of your extra money and possessions to those less fortunate than you and you aren't just saying things because they "feel" right without actually thinking them through.

Given that you've personally shared tales of you effectively becoming homeless due to a series of poor decisions and unfortunate accidents, then taking advantage of the charity of strangers that helped you in your time of need, I'm really not sure you should be so smug.

Regardless of that, though, this is a systemic problem that cannot be solved by the actions of a few charitable individuals (at least, not anyone normal, since most of the 1% could all but single-handedly house most of their cities' homeless population without seeing any change in their quality of life, but that's largely a separate issue). At best, I've got room here to house one person and have two camp in my back yard (not that my lease would allow it). That's not going to make an appreciable dent in the local homelessness problem, especially considering that I can't afford to feed an extra three adults, nor can I do anything to provide any of the additional services (counselling, rehab, professional training, etc.) they may need to get back on their feet.

This is a problem that needs systemic solutions, not individual charity. One does not in any way need to exhaust their personal charitable resources before being "allowed" to advocate for those systemic solutions. That would be stupid. There is absolutely no logical basis to gatekeep like that. So stop it.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Lil_Bit83 posted...

I'll never understand punishing the homeless, for being homeless.

There's a very widespread attitude that anyone that is homeless is homeless entirely because of their own failures, and therefore they deserve whatever suffering they're experiencing. There's also a widespread attitude that they should experience that suffering somewhere where people who aren't homeless don't have to see, because being reminded that people are on the streets is upsetting to people that would prefer to ignore society's problems. Punishing them for being homeless is just a part of that attitude. People would rather see homeless people suffer for daring to tarnish their view of the world around them than actually solve the problems.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Nah, just not dumping it in the road. Keep your s*** out of sight and you're not running foul of the law.

The legislation in question is pretty explicitly saying that they can't leave their stuff anywhere on any public property, so...

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zeus posted...

That is a fix, the same as curbing other criminal conduct.

Does making homelessness illegal stop people from being homeless? Has anyone in the history of ever even once said "you know, I was going to be homeless today, but that would be illegal, so I don't think I will"? No? Then it's not a fix.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Criminalising dumping their s*** in the middle of the street, not homelessness.

So... make it illegal for homeless people to own more than they can carry on their person at all times. Got it.

InfestedAdam posted...

I live in Los Angeles County and about 10-15 miles from Downtown Los Angeles. I am willing to support programs to help the homeless but I am truly stump on what would really make a difference regarding said issue. I have read/heard stories from former street dwellers about how mental issues are a major thing and said people must want to seek help instead of help being given/forced on them.

I have read meaningful and detailed explanation from others on what probably needs to be done but I still cannot help but feel a lot of these good ideas are only ever good on paper. Even then, I feel we still gotta try.

Look into what Medicine Hat, Alberta did. To oversimplify it, they pretty much just gave every homeless person a home. They then immediately proceeded to also offer whatever supports were needed (since it's so often much more complex than just "I can't afford a home), along with routinely checking up on people to make sure things were on the right track to get their lives in order. It's a little more nuanced than that, but the bottom line is that they've successfully eradicated chronic homelessness and the vast majority of the people they've gotten off the streets that haven't already graduated from the program are well on track to do so. Even better, they've saved money doing it, because it's actually cheaper to just pay for a barebones apartment for somebody than to pay cops to chase them around indefinitely and for emergency medical care on a regular basis. Who knew?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

streamofthesky posted...

BTW, everyone talks about the masks, ie airborne transmission. It's been a year and a half now, any update on the danger of surfaces?

Recent research has been suggesting that surface transmission is far less significant than airborne. There's still enough that disinfecting surfaces and washing your hands and whatnot are good ideas, but it's not nearly as dangerous as people were previously worried it might be.

OhhhJa posted...

With over 50 percent of the country being vaccinated, I find it hard to believe the vaccine is really all that effective with the recent surge we've had. Herd immunity has historically been around 70% vaccination and we're not that far from that figure

First of all, by no metric is over 50% of the country vaccinated. As of yesterday, 49.9% has two shots, but they won't be fully vaccinated for another two weeks. Two weeks ago, that figure was 48.9%. It's very, very close to 50%, such that rounding and saying "half the country" would be fine, but it's definitely not "over 50%."

Second, only being at 50% and not 70% means there are 67% more unvaccinated people than there should be for herd immunity to be achieved (50% unvaccinated is 2/3 larger than 30% unvaccinated). That is "far from that figure," even if we presume that the threshold is indeed 70% for Covid (some estimates are suggesting that it is, so I'm fine with that, but it may be quite a bit higher). When you're trying to reduce what's left, you see augmenting returns on each additional percentage point of reduction you apply.

You'll see that incorporated into video game mechanics sometimes. The armour stat in WoW, for example, provides less damage reduction with each additional point, leading to the belief that it has diminishing returns. In practice, however, if you calculate its impact on the final damage you take, you find that those apparent diminishing returns are just counteracting the augmenting returns inherent in any multiplicative reduction in damage, so damage reduction ultimately scales linearly per armour point. This is most obvious if you consider the difference a 1% increase makes if you're going from 99% to 100% reduction, which is why so many games implement a hard cap (75%, in WoW's case) to prevent anyone from ever reaching such levels.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

I'm glad you appreciated that.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

wolfy42 posted...

I mean, how illegal are they making it, like, you spend a night in jail and get food and drink while there illegal? What are they gonna do, fine them?

Seriously how do they make it actually negatively impact the homeless, and what are they gonna do if the thousands of homeless just ignore it?

If most other anti-homeless legislation is anything to go on, they'll be fined, obviously never pay that fine, spend a night or two in jail for missing their court date for not paying said fine, then pick up where they left off when they get out and repeat the cycle again. Periodically, if too many homeless people are gathering in one spot, you'll see large police raids to disperse them, at which point they'll go somewhere else.

The end result of this, of course, is a whole lot of money spent on police and legal resources with absolutely nothing to show for it and a homeless population that will never never have the credit rating they need to rent a place of their own (since those missed fines destroy it). But hey, at least some voters might not have to look at quite as many homeless people. That's gotta count for something, right?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

What? The Covid vaccine is behaving like every other vaccine in history?

I am shock and a Paul.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Why fix homelessness when you can just make it illegal instead?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

It's also worth remembering that electric cars aren't necessarily carbon-neutral or "green", either, because that electricity still needs to come from somewhere, and unless you're getting it from fully hydroelectric/geothermal/wind-powered/solar-powered sources, there's still a carbon cost. Along with the environmental impact of batteries, plastics, and other manufacturing elements.

EV's are the ideal moving forward because of the possibility that the electricity fuelling them will eventually be clean. By contrast, you can never run a gas-powered car without burning gas (outside of weird fringe cases where people have re-engineered their cars to run on fried eggplants or whatever). The costs that go into manufacturing EV's do also offset some of the potential savings even with clean energy (to say nothing of the non-zero environmental cost of that "clean" energy in the first place), but that's also something that has room for improvement.

Also, as much as you're still ultimately burning gas or whatever to produce the electricity for those cars, burning gas for electricity production is much more efficient than burning it to move a car. The fact that cars have radiators at all (which ultimately amount to "get rid of all the energy we can't capture from that gas") is a testament to that. Power plants, on the other hand, capture every joule they possibly can from the fuel they burn. Also, because of the limitations in what batteries can actually hold (hydrocarbons are much, much more efficient as energy storage per unit of volume/weight than even the best batteries will ever be), making EV's viable has entailed making a lot of modifications that improve their energy efficiency, most notably regenerative braking (which just blows my mind at how elegant a solution it is), allowing them to get significantly more mileage out of the energy that's put into them.

EV's certainly aren't as perfect a solution to the climate crisis as people would like to think they are, but they are a major step in the right direction, and will only get better.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

The other thing a lot of people forget is the sheer size of the US, and how absolutely s*** mass transit is in most places. Cars are pretty much a necessity here in ways that they aren't in other countries. So we're pretty much going to generate far more waste in that respect than most other places, regardless of whether we're using combustion engines or electric.

Really, the size of the US should be incentivizing mass transit, not discouraging it. Using a personal vehicle for long-distance travel is hideously inefficient, and the fact that the country's been deliberately designed around doing so is stupid.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Mild to moderate asthma (primarily exercise-induced) and a possible mild allergy to kiwi.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

OhhhJa posted...

Ya know... funny info for the know it alls. I looked up what vaccine side effects mean for your immunity, and what I'm finding is a bunch of information saying you can't determine strength of your immune system by the reaction you have. Whether you have a fever and headache or no symptoms at all, you still can't determine that

Which means you've now done research that proves your "I didn't have a reaction because my immune system is awesome" point wrong, all on your own (we'll ignore that most people have little to no reaction to the first shot, so the premise was flawed from the outset). I'm so proud.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

I'm an indirect product of domestic violence. My parents had a mutual friend in an abusive marriage that decided to get out, so they helped her hide from her husband while she got everything sorted out. That included letting her stay with them (also repainting her car so he couldn't recognize it, and other such tricksy business. It was apparently quite the scheme) in their 2-bedroom apartment for a few weeks. At this point, they'd been married for about a year and a half, but my mom was in the midst of her residency in another city, so they hadn't seen nearly as much of each other as most newlywed couples could by that point, and having somebody else living in a relatively small space was kind of cramping their style. Conveniently, at some point in all of this, they won a stay in a local hotel, so they took that opportunity to get away and enjoy some privacy. 41 weeks later, me!

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

faramir77 posted...

I replayed MM last year and also made a direct connection to COVID. It's almost spot on how people actually reacted to a major traumatic event.

Unsurprisingly, the comments mostly amounted to "It's just a video game stop ruining my escapism by reminding me of real-world problems" (with no small amount of irony), but I thought it made some pretty decent points. One of the things I love so much about MM is the ability to explore how the townsfolk react to the apocalypse, and the parallels to what's going on now are hard to deny.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

OhhhJa posted...

That's my thinking. If this is the case, it needs to be identified and presented to the public as such

Research is pretty publicly available on the matter. It's not exactly esoteric knowledge that Covid affects more than the lungs.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Mead posted...

Someone should create an accurate portrayal of sex to educate young people in schools and teach kids that porn is a poor reflection of reality

I think that would have been a better way to make the argument

I've seen people advocate for showing kids porn in sex ed, under the rationale that it provides an opportunity to examine it critically and understand what is and isn't realistic so they develop mroe reasonable expectations around sex. Naturally, the reaction was about on par with what this lady got, but I think there's some merit to the idea. As much as people would like to pretend otherwise, pretty much anyone that's started puberty is going to be checking out porn at some point or another. Might as well preempt that and give them that experience in a controlled environment where they can have questions answered and misconceptions addressed.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

OhhhJa posted...

I've only had the first dose.

Ah. Well then the next couple days may be a little rough for you. Personally, I was fine the day of (got my shot at ~2:30 pm), woke up the next day feeling low-energy and kind of achey all over, but otherwise alright, and then around the 22-hour mark I was shivering violently as I sat in front of the toilet contemplating whether or not I was actually going to puke. I spent the rest of that afternoon huddled under a blanket, napped a bit until I woke up because the fever switched to the uncomfortably sweaty phase, and then was really low-energy and occasionally feverish for the rest of the day. The day after that was comparable to how I woke up (tired, achey), but I improved from there.

YMMV, but I'd suggest planning to be out of commission this weekend.

OhhhJa posted...

But it also sounds like you don't really understand the immune system. People with really strong immune systems can often be infected with something and not even realize it because the front line of their immune system is taking care of business.

The side effects to these vaccines are caused by the immune system, though. The fever, aches, fatigue, and whatever else hits you are entirely a product of your immune system reacting to the vaccine. If you don't have side effects, it's not because you knocked out the "infection" before it could do anything, it's because your immune system didn't respond very strongly.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

OhhhJa posted...

My arm was sore for more than usual with vaccines but it left a pretty weird bruise on my arm that didn't go away for at least a week

That probably means whoever gave you the shot poinked a blood vessel that they shouldn't have. Nothing catastrophic, just bad poinking technique.

OhhhJa posted...

I had zero symptoms other than a sore arm though. My immune system kicks ass

Actually, that kind of suggests that your immune system was too weak to respond to the second shot, even after the first dose.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

OhhhJa posted...

Nitpicking bulls***. Why have I never heard of anyone having erectile dysfunction and brain damage from asymptomatic respiratory illnesses prior to this one? If asymptomatic people getting brain damage isn't weird to you then I don't know what to say

A major part of Covid's pathology involves blood clots, which can very plausibly cause both of those problems. It's also not at all unusual for people with clotting issues to only discover those issues when something major happens because of them. That naturally leads to the conclusion that a Covid infection could seem asymptomatic but end up causing erectile dysfunction or brain damage.

Sure, it's not something with much precedent, but it's not remotely implausible.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Elitism, mostly. Specifically elitism upon which their entire sense of self-worth is founded.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

OhhhJa posted...

This is a respiratory virus. Why is it causing erectile dysfunction and brain damage? Lol its weird bruh

I don't even know where to start with this. Are you aware that the circulatory system is a thing?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

faramir77 posted...

One element I found interesting is that few characters outside of Dragon Roost and Forest Haven even know there's an evil threat to the world. I'm not sure how I feel about that. Link's motivation comes from saving his sister and avenging her, the obligation to save the world is stated but not really SHOWN. As far as the Hylian people in the world are concerned, Link isn't really a hero at all. The Koroks really just see Link as "that guy that went and got Makar out of the Forbidden Woods", he didn't really save them all or anything.

As much as that's weird, I don't think I'd really say that's a bad thing. Whatever people were aware of, the world was indeed threatened. If anything, that almost works as a better motivation, since you get to see the daily lives that would be destroyed if you fail.

Though, comparing it to something like MM, where everyone knows the world's in danger and you get to see people react to it differently (I actually saw an opinion piece likening it to the world's response to Covid, particularly noting the people that deny there's any danger at all), that does offer more depth and room for interesting worldbuilding.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

As much as anyone can justify anything's existence. In truth, there's no particular reason for anything to exist. I'm not about to suggest that I deserve any special consideration beyond that.

If you don't want to follow your nihilism to its actual conclusion, though, and want a more personal justification, nature abhors a vacuum. If I did not exist, somebody else would fill my place, and there's a good chance they'd cause more suffering than me. They might also do better, but I'd like to think I'm above average in the "not a dick" department, and averages are all you can really cite for a comparison like this.

More broadly, if humanity didn't exist, something else would have taken their place. The niche of "intelligent apex species" would eventually be filled, and there's a fair chance it would not be with a species that gives any weight at all to the morality of their consumption. Heck, even without leaving the species, look at the number of cultures throughout history that did strive for sustainable, ethical consumption, but were ultimately conquered by cultures that had no such reservations. Nature is not forward-thinking. Those that plan for long-term survival are often destroyed by those that consume more rapidly to become more powerful on a short-term basis. Humanity's (limited) ability to delay gratification and make long-term decisions that promote survival is really what has allowed them to become so dominant for so long.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Unbridled9 posted...

People get cause and effect screwed up ALL the time.

Pretty much. By and large, people just suck at understanding situations and not being stupid about them.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Man, it's almost as if different people were built differently and have different reactions to things.

People aren't built so differently that some people can fit oxygen molecules through their masks and others can't. People are built differently in terms of how they feel about having cloth over their face or the irritation of breathing warmer, moister air, but feeling that discomfort and interpreting it as difficulty breathing doesn't actually mean they're having trouble getting air in. If it did, you'd be able to find experimental evidence validating that.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

But no, we're going with the one-size fits all "If it's fine for me it's fine for you, stop whining and suck it up" mentality. Okay, gotcha. I'm on board now.

Nah, you don't have asthma. I can breathe fine, therefore no one else on Earth has breathing problems. They're a myth invented by pharmaceutical companies to sell you antihistamines. I'm sure if you just asserted yourself more, you'd be able to breathe just fine. You're really just being difficult about this whole lung thing in general.

I know you're smart enough to understand the difference between subjective self-assessment and a formal diagnosis based on objective, measurable criteria. To that end, I'm not actually going to correct you, just suggest that you should maybe spend some time in your room thinking about what you've done wrong.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

I don't bother going to stores/businesses that require masks anymore. other stores don't, they can get my business.

Thank you for being part of the problem.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Reigning_King posted...

Huh? Seems like you moved the goalposts there but whatever.

From what to what?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

To be fair, the sore arm is pretty secondary to the general malaise that comes with it. The first shot was fine (my arm was much sorer than it has been for pretty much any other vaccine, but that was nothing), but the second pretty much incapacitated me for a day, and my girlfriend was out of commission for 4-5.

Of course, that's still a trivial price to pay for all the benefits that immunity offers, so that's a pretty moot point.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Unforeseen circumstances are a thing and I would expect the lockdown/pandemic is not something anyone could have really seen coming.

I'd be sympathetic to this point, if not for this:
helIy posted...

Per the suit, Johansson's team attempted to renegotiate her contract after the decision to debut the film on Disney+ was made, but Disney and Marvel were not responsive.

Yes, the pandemic threw a wrench into things, and the original contract couldn't have predicted that, but she tried to renegotiate the contract to account for those unforeseen issues, and they refused. That's 100% Disney in the wrong.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

I don't need it, the virus won't harm me even if I do get it. I'm young enough and healthy enough, and my immune system is strong.

The virus is more likely to harm you than the vaccine. Period. Literally every piece of available data from some of the largest scientific studies ever conducted lead to this conclusion. It doesn't matter how low-risk you think you are for a serious Covid infection, the vaccine is safer.

OhhhJa posted...

If this stuff is actually true, it makes me seriously doubt it's a naturally occurring virus that simply hopped species. Sounds like some kinda weird bio lab experimental virus

Of all the possible combinations of all the possible words in the English language that you could string together to announce to the world that you understand almost nothing about biology, I think this might be the most effective for communicating that point.

We live in a world where nature has produced unicellular organisms with literal spears made of silica that they use to tear open their prey and lap up (well, pinocytose) their innards. Where flatworms will try to stab each other with razor-sharp penises in a violent duel for the privilege of reproducing without the reproductive investment of playing mommy. Where Japanese honeybees will lure predatory giant hornets into their nests, then swarm all over them and vibrate so hard that they literally cook the hornet alive (just 1 degree F below the maximum temperature the bees can withstand).

The notion of nature producing a virus that causes permanent scarring on affected organs when it infects people is not remotely implausible. Nature has created tons of far crazier shit than that.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Reigning_King posted...

You were this close to getting it. I'll leave it to you as homework if you want.

If what you've said isn't what you mean, feel free to clarify, but I very much doubt anything you say can convince me that you understand the situation.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

KodyKeir posted...

And mask wearing, as you can still spread the virus if you have received both your shots. (Get ready for your third)

Eh, there's some room for debate there. Delta seems pretty decent at being transmitted despite vaccinations, but they nonetheless reduce that risk. Hence the CDC's announcement that fully-vaxxed folks don't need masks. Announcing that was ill-advised and hopelessly naive, but the conclusion that vaccinated people don't represent a major transmission risk is sound.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

for most of last year I got notifications a couple times a month saying someone at my site had tested positive. about once a month this year.

never caught it.

Okay? That doesn't mean you magically have a low chance of catching it, it just means the risk you do have wasn't realized. That risk was likely fairly low, but that's not so much because you're magically less likely to be infected for inherent personal reasons as because the exposure you did have to those positive people wasn't particularly high-risk, and most of that depends on countermeasures (distancing, masks, cleaning workstations...) that will ideally be lifted someday.

Reigning_King posted...

itp: low population density areas don't exist

Relatively sparse areas often have lower case counts, obviously, but without vaccinations, that's very much not something. It only takes one infected tourist to start a cluster, and if people aren't practicing countermeasures to prevent that cluster from growing (which is not something we want to rely on indefinitely) and the area isn't anywhere close to achieving herd immunity, it's going to grow.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Blighboy posted...

The entire management team is likely rotten. Tbh I'm kind of curious of how many employees or former employees you see now condemning the behaviour were in fact abusive themselves.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's most of them. Presumably, Afrostabby's getting the brunt of the actual direct consequences because he was actually named in the suit and that makes him a convenient scapegoat, not remotely because he's the only one that's guilty.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

How many times have you tried making this exact point, only to have it thoroughly shot down by everyone that has any idea what they're talking about? I can remember at least two other instances, but I'm pretty sure there have been several more.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Ingredients: Rice

Step 1: Cook rice.
Step 2: Rice!

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

OhhhJa posted...

It's not really a gamble if something is incredibly rare. If something incredibly rare happens, it's probably safe to assume it won't happen again the next day

That is the precise definition of the gambler's fallacy. A rare event happening one day does not in any way influence the chance of it happening again the next. Without external influences, it is equally likely or unlikely every single time.

It is indeed probably safe to assume that it won't happen the next day, but that assumption was just as likely to be safe on the day that it happened.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

which is why people who have low chance of even getting it, (let alone serious effects) shouldn't be forced into getting the shot

The only people that have a low chance of getting Covid are people that live in areas with very few Covid cases, which is only reliably attainable with high vaccination rates. If you choose not to get vaccinated because of a low chance of getting Covid, that means you're relying on other people to take the (quite minimal) risk for you so you can reap the benefits without any of the (quite minimal) risk, and that makes you a pathetic moocher.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Jen0125 posted...

I didn't even call her ugly. Or fat for that matter lol.

Whatever it was. I just used the first example to come to mind.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Reigning_King posted...

It's not in any meaningful way, so no.

A sixfold increase on a scale that can't be explained by random variation is not meaningful?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Whatever the details, responding to "your girlfriend's ugly" to mocking somebody's partner for having a stroke is very much not okay.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Reigning_King posted...

I wasn't even talking about them being the hypocrites in the first place.

You're talking about people being hypocrites for listening to the CDC both before and after they changed their mind. Getting from there to directly calling the CDC hypocrites is pretty simple, thanks to the transitive property, but that is in fact irrelevant. The central point (again) is that you think it's hypocritical or contradictory to continue listening to the CDC after they changed their mind in response to new evidence, which is a blatant misunderstanding of how science (and recommendations made from it) works.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

faramir77 posted...

The Alberta government just announced that COVID positive people will no longer be required to isolate while sick starting August 16th. This comes as Alberta is beginning their 4th wave.

Jesus Christ.

Every time I forget what a colossal knob Kenney is, he does something incomprehensibly insane to remind me.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Reigning_King posted...

It doesn't though, your understanding of context is either really bad or you're fishing for statements I've made that can be misconstrued.

Sure it does. The central point is that you accusing the CDC of contradicting themselves because they changed their position according to new evidence indicates you don't understand the situation. That's no less true if we instead say that you accusing the CDC of hypocrisy because they changed their position according to new evidence indicates you don't understand the situation.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Revelation34 posted...

July 4th celebrations.

The timing works out for that: cases started climbing around the 8th-10th (particularly where the 4th was a Sunday, so I'm guessing a lot of people made a long weekend of it and started travelling on the 2nd). If that was all that was at play, cases would have spiked around the 10th-12th, but because so many people are doing nothing to slow it down, it seems to be turning into a full-on outbreak. Lovely.

Revelation34 posted...

It will be even worse for the winter holidays.

One can only hope people are being less stupid about vaccines and precautions by then.

108,775 cases yesterday, by the way, bringing the 7-day average to 63,248, almost six times what it was on June 27th and showing no signs of slowing down. Still think it's not a comeback, @Reigning_King ?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Notschmendrake posted...

i think he mean hotwife, as in the fetish term for a woman whose husband allows and encourages promiscuity

BOOM larry is that child's father, confirmed

Though entertaining, sadly, that's not a very plausible typo.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.