(05-16-2020, 08:45 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-16-2020, 07:57 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]and again, the state doesnt innovate. Political incentives dont generally tolerate calculated risk.
Free people solve problems in creative ways. Some would have seating outside. Some would use low dose UV lighting similar to a TB treatment facility (overkill for a pathogen that's not truly aerosolized.) Some would keep the thermostat @ 78 instead of 74. Some would use higher pricing to ration socially distanced restaraunt space. The point is that by allowing diffuse calculated risk taking you dramatically increase the probability of finding the right solution through trial and error. When you do find a widely scalable solution it will quickly reach universalty through market CONSENSUS.
By that I mean, if someone operates at 90% capacity with overhead uv and an ambient temperature close to 80 degrees & replicates the conditions of outdoor transmission rates (next to nothing) then that model will naturally spread to other vendors. Conversely, with top down strategies you have strategies that are granted universality through government fiat but in order to meet political demands from emotional sources, namely fear, instead of market demands to meet economic forces.
Okay buddy.
If your vision of a nice time out of the restaurant is asking the hostess detailed questions about their covid 19 mitigation practices before you even sit down, then you're a weirdo! JJ will be standing at the podium asking detailed questions about the wattage of the UV bulbs, and how long they've been in operation, and pulling up studies on his phone to make sure that it's sufficient.
Nobody else wants to do that.
Nobody else will do that.
The mounting demonstrations (some armed) would disagree with you!
(05-16-2020, 08:45 AM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ] (05-16-2020, 07:21 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Senator, I'd like to invoke my 5th amendment privilege : )
Dang, you ruined my follow up, which was going to go something like this:
Quote:Because on a messageboard, a bunch of people visit the internet having made rational choices about their risk, but the situation gets riskier for each new person that visits this board. But they don't realize their choice was riskier until they read a mikesez post. And anyways, they need to avoid work and might as well stick it out. Suddenly you go from clear thinking and almost no risk of brain damage to muddled, pretentious drivel and a high risk of brain damage. In fact, the risk of brain damage incteases exponentially with each new mikesez post, just like the risk of you getting infected increases exponentially with each new infected person in your community (whatever the hell that means).
Regardless, if you understand the metaphor, you see that the only possible mitigations to messageboards are organized at the social level, not the individual level. Therefore the government should regulate mikesez posts.
Back to the conversation. I find it hilarious that he uses this metaphor to prove his point. There is an innovation that is going to solve traffic jams. It's AI and self-driving cars and it's being developed in.... wait for it... the private sector. I'm not a libertarian. I think there is a role the government should play in societal affairs, but I just had to point out the obvious flaw in this dude's reasoning.
Whatever this means...
If 1% of the people in your community are infected, you have a small risk of getting infected when you go out in a crowd. You might say that level of risk is acceptable, and go out.
But if 5% of the people in your community are infected, you have a larger risk of getting infected when you go out. You might say that is unacceptable, and choose not to go out.
When the virus has an R0 greater than one, however, the more you make the first choice, when the risk seems low, the more crowds form, and the closer everyone gets to being in the second situation.
Very similar to how a traffic jam suddenly appears out of traffic that was smooth just minutes before.
As for AI fixing traffic jams. Suppose someone in the private sector really does make a car smart enough to somehow avoid traffic jams. Suppose you make a "rational" decision to buy that car. what's going to happen the first time your car encounters a car that's not so smart? Or that does have its own AI, but is not communicating on the same frequency or by the same protocol as a car you bought? How will your two cars know to avoid each other? Just with proximity sensors? Just treating other cars as dumb moving obstacles? That's what human drivers do now. Sure, a self-driving car might be able to do that faster and more reliably with fewer accidents, but it certainly wouldn't eliminate traffic jams. The self-driving car is certainly going to have to slam on its brakes pretty frequently when there are a lot of cars on the road. Explain to me, how do you think AI is going to eliminate traffic jams?
(05-16-2020, 09:38 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-16-2020, 08:45 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Okay buddy.
If your vision of a nice time out of the restaurant is asking the hostess detailed questions about their covid 19 mitigation practices before you even sit down, then you're a weirdo! JJ will be standing at the podium asking detailed questions about the wattage of the UV bulbs, and how long they've been in operation, and pulling up studies on his phone to make sure that it's sufficient.
Nobody else wants to do that.
Nobody else will do that.
The mounting demonstrations (some armed) would disagree with you!
Those armed demonstrations just want the restaurants and the barber shops to open back up.
They're not going to ask detailed scientific questions about virus killing strategies. They're not going to ask about the air circulation patterns. They're not going to ask if any of the staff aren't feeling well.
They're just going to go eat food indoors and get their hair cut and assume that someone's smarter than them took care of it.
(05-16-2020, 09:44 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-16-2020, 08:45 AM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]Dang, you ruined my follow up, which was going to go something like this:
Back to the conversation. I find it hilarious that he uses this metaphor to prove his point. There is an innovation that is going to solve traffic jams. It's AI and self-driving cars and it's being developed in.... wait for it... the private sector. I'm not a libertarian. I think there is a role the government should play in societal affairs, but I just had to point out the obvious flaw in this dude's reasoning.
Whatever this means...
If 1% of the people in your community are infected, you have a small risk of getting infected when you go out in a crowd. You might say that level of risk is acceptable, and go out.
But if 5% of the people in your community are infected, you have a larger risk of getting infected when you go out. You might say that is unacceptable, and choose not to go out.
When the virus has an R0 greater than one, however, the more you make the first choice, when the risk seems low, the more crowds form, and the closer everyone gets to being in the second situation.
Very similar to how a traffic jam suddenly appears out of traffic that was smooth just minutes before.
As for AI fixing traffic jams. Suppose someone in the private sector really does make a car smart enough to somehow avoid traffic jams. Suppose you make a "rational" decision to buy that car. what's going to happen the first time your car encounters a car that's not so smart? Or that does have its own AI, but is not communicating on the same frequency or by the same protocol as a car you bought? How will your two cars know to avoid each other? Just with proximity sensors? Just treating other cars as dumb moving obstacles? That's what human drivers do now. Sure, a self-driving car might be able to do that faster and more reliably with fewer accidents, but it certainly wouldn't eliminate traffic jams. The self-driving car is certainly going to have to slam on its brakes pretty frequently when there are a lot of cars on the road. Explain to me, how do you think AI is going to eliminate traffic jams?
(05-16-2020, 09:38 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]The mounting demonstrations (some armed) would disagree with you!
Those armed demonstrations just want the restaurants and the barber shops to open back up.
They're not going to ask detailed scientific questions about virus killing strategies. They're not going to ask about the air circulation patterns. They're not going to ask if any of the staff aren't feeling well.
They're just going to go eat food indoors and get their hair cut and assume that someone's smarter than them took care of it.
If they ask "detailed scientific questions" all they'll get is the back and forth bull [BLEEP] we've gotten from the self appointed "experts" last 6 weeks. If they go out and live their lives they might or might not get sick. If they get sick there is a <1% chance they'll die. Not really that much different from any other day.
Test results came back late last night. Negative, thankfully.
(05-16-2020, 09:44 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-16-2020, 08:45 AM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]Dang, you ruined my follow up, which was going to go something like this:
Back to the conversation. I find it hilarious that he uses this metaphor to prove his point. There is an innovation that is going to solve traffic jams. It's AI and self-driving cars and it's being developed in.... wait for it... the private sector. I'm not a libertarian. I think there is a role the government should play in societal affairs, but I just had to point out the obvious flaw in this dude's reasoning.
Whatever this means...
If 1% of the people in your community are infected, you have a small risk of getting infected when you go out in a crowd. You might say that level of risk is acceptable, and go out.
But if 5% of the people in your community are infected, you have a larger risk of getting infected when you go out. You might say that is unacceptable, and choose not to go out.
When the virus has an R0 greater than one, however, the more you make the first choice, when the risk seems low, the more crowds form, and the closer everyone gets to being in the second situation.
Very similar to how a traffic jam suddenly appears out of traffic that was smooth just minutes before.
As for AI fixing traffic jams. Suppose someone in the private sector really does make a car smart enough to somehow avoid traffic jams. Suppose you make a "rational" decision to buy that car. what's going to happen the first time your car encounters a car that's not so smart? Or that does have its own AI, but is not communicating on the same frequency or by the same protocol as a car you bought? How will your two cars know to avoid each other? Just with proximity sensors? Just treating other cars as dumb moving obstacles? That's what human drivers do now. Sure, a self-driving car might be able to do that faster and more reliably with fewer accidents, but it certainly wouldn't eliminate traffic jams. The self-driving car is certainly going to have to slam on its brakes pretty frequently when there are a lot of cars on the road. Explain to me, how do you think AI is going to eliminate traffic jams?
(05-16-2020, 09:38 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]The mounting demonstrations (some armed) would disagree with you!
Those armed demonstrations just want the restaurants and the barber shops to open back up.
They're not going to ask detailed scientific questions about virus killing strategies. They're not going to ask about the air circulation patterns. They're not going to ask if any of the staff aren't feeling well.
They're just going to go eat food indoors and get their hair cut and assume that someone's smarter than them took care of it.
Who needs the nutmeg now, Brother?
(05-16-2020, 10:55 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Test results came back late last night. Negative, thankfully.
Good, though not unexpected mostly.
This is your weekly reminder that Floridans were a handful of drunk, uninformed votes away from being a prisoner in warden Andrew Gillum's penitentiary.
Elections have serious consequences.
(02-26-2020, 03:41 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]Don't worry, everything will be just fine.
![[Image: b2ap3_amp_face-masks-korean-wedding.jpg]](https://www.commisceo-global.com/images/easyblog_articles/1897/b2ap3_amp_face-masks-korean-wedding.jpg)
I posted this on Feb 26 when it appeared to be extreme (prior us experiencing our Lockdown). Now, those measures look very relaxed given the fact they are not social distancing (6 feet apart)
Just so I am clear, the Dumbocrats latest kick is "believe science", yet these same buffoons tell me there are 57 genders?
i think there are now 58 genders. They added Demi-Boy last month.
(05-16-2020, 10:55 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Test results came back late last night. Negative, thankfully.
That is great to hear, stay careful!
(05-20-2020, 11:20 AM)Jamies_fried_chicken Wrote: [ -> ] (05-16-2020, 10:55 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Test results came back late last night. Negative, thankfully.
That is great to hear, stay careful!
How are your people doing?
(05-20-2020, 11:33 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2020, 11:20 AM)Jamies_fried_chicken Wrote: [ -> ]That is great to hear, stay careful!
How are your people doing?
4 more relatives have died. Both of my parents were infected but have overcome it. I really want them to come down here and stay with me, but wifey is a extreme risk with a compromised immune system due to her fighting Breast cancer.
Thank you for asking.
(05-20-2020, 11:47 AM)Jamies_fried_chicken Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2020, 11:33 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]How are your people doing?
4 more relatives have died. Both of my parents were infected but have overcome it. I really want them to come down here and stay with me, but wifey is a extreme risk with a compromised immune system due to her fighting Breast cancer.
Thank you for asking.
I'm glad you parents are ok, though it's bittersweet losing others at the same time. Hopefully your wife will beat the cancer too!
(05-20-2020, 10:09 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Just so I am clear, the Dumbocrats latest kick is "believe science", yet these same buffoons tell me there are 57 genders?
Why do you care? Lol
I couldn’t care less how someone views themselves but you do apparently.
(05-20-2020, 12:57 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2020, 10:09 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Just so I am clear, the Dumbocrats latest kick is "believe science", yet these same buffoons tell me there are 57 genders?
Why do you care? Lol
I couldn’t care less how someone views themselves but you do apparently.
"How someone views themselves" is not science.