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!

---

Senator, I'd like to invoke my 5th amendment privilege : )

Dang, you ruined my follow up, which was going to go something like this: 

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?

---

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.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

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?

---

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.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Test results came back late last night. Negative, thankfully.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

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?

---

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?

---

Test results came back late last night.  Negative, thankfully.

Good, though not unexpected mostly.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

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.

They have the choice of asking questions. In some cases, such as well-spaced diners, one can find out the answer without asking. If you aren't willing to ask how the restaurant is handling the pandemic then your choice is to either trust the restaurant or stay home. When the government uses guns to shut down restaurants then you don't have the opportunity to ask questions and then choose to dine out. And if the restaurant uses UV or some other obscure method instead of spacing they will lose a lot of customers if they don't print a big sign saying just that, because they know as well as you do that most people won't ask.

Did you walk out of the restaurant that had everyone packed together? If so, did you explain why you decided not to dine there? Or did you choose to take the risk? Before the government pulled out their guns it was your choice in either case.

Did you walk out of the theater (who goes to a theater anyway?) and request your money back? Either way the choice was yours. If the government had left things alone, that choice would have always been yours.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Test results came back late last night.  Negative, thankfully.

Glad to hear it!

---

Well Son of a ......

---

Test results came back late last night.  Negative, thankfully.

That's better than being hospitalized, for sure. Also, you don't have to feel guilty about infecting family members.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

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.

---

Don't worry, everything will be just fine.

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.

---

Test results came back late last night.  Negative, thankfully.

That is great to hear, stay careful!

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

Test results came back late last night.  Negative, thankfully.

That is great to hear, stay careful!

How are your people doing?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

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.

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

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!

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

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.

---

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.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato