No, this is absolutely business as usual. The “new” thing you’re talking about is a “new” thing during that year, until something new comes out the next, repeating to produce this: https://www.birds.cornell.edu/home/bring-birds-back/
What was that saying about missing the forest for the trees?
> "West Nile [disease] is ruled out. . . Everything has been ruled out. To date, we still do not know," says Monsma, citing tests conducted by Wildlife's clinic director, Cheryl Chooljian.
I’m no expert in this, but I’m going to guess that destroying their habitats may be to blame.
To be quite honest, most of it is sold by the media, who have mutually beneficial arrangements with the for-profit healthcare/insurance industry. If you’ve ever seen how many advertisements on American TV about prescriptions, health plans, etc, you know what I’m getting at. The debate is kept tightly constrained to make the capitalist system seem more robust and successful than it actually is. So: media propaganda, more or less.
Also want to add: my child’s birth cost $20,000 (with insurance). When I would tell other Americans about this, the response was (usually) “you know you can get on a payment plan, right?”
I also totally understand being single, childless, and driven to a career. I’m happier now. Who is the one not listening to other’s opinions? You sure you understand?
But is _is_ an unknown future prize, and countless stories prove that. Pension funds go belly up, whole industries made obsolete, an accident/injury disrupts everything, etc.
I think your premise of “telling people how to live their life” falls more on the popular notion that investment early in career, rather than family or life experience, is more important. I believe this is wrong and it’s repeated more frequently than my counterpoint!
Having children means sharing your marshmallows. It’s also a lot easier to chase a kid in your 20s than your 30s. It’s also maturing, enjoyable, and spending time with them is the best part of the day.
Not something many people say about work! Maybe when the work is truly meaningful (I wouldn’t know).
The notion that people need to work through their 20s for this unknown future prize is silly and wasteful. Spending the prime years of your life slaving to a computer is something I think a lot of people will regret.
So, no, I won’t listen to PG. My most fulfilling work is being a dad.
Is there any meaningful change to curtail the amount of power these companies have? Legislation like this seems like show and does nothing to control the fact that a handful of social media companies can make enormous editorial decisions not just on political candidacy... but basically everything else. Seems like another one of those stories that will likely go nowhere and turned into a partisan divide, but maybe I’m just bitter.
This model gives government the power of choosing who is and is not a “trusted source” and depends on a relationship where those sources report uncritically about the information they are being given. It is also prioritizing which (for-profit) business gets favorable access.
From a practicality perspective it makes sense. From a propaganda perspective it’s chilling.
Why wouldn’t the CDC publish guidance once it is ready, which the media can than report on? The mere coordination (and normalcy thereof) is exactly why people view these policies (gatekeeping) as nefarious.
There’s nothing in this article indicating the operator has a recovery plan in place involving restoring backups to get these systems online. Seems grossly negligent on their behalf, and made almost satiric by the fact that Fireye can be mentioned without reference to their own massive security lapses.
Too much focus always on the “hackers” and never the obvious security lapses solved by diverting executive pay to more bodies and training to cover them, but oh well right?
What do you stand to gain by spreading political narratives even more? It doesn’t matter what side they say they’re on. Take, for instance, the democratic governor of NY, among the biggest culprits of hiding reporting on deaths. What’s the point?
Maybe your problem is more with the media than any side which they defined.
I think you’re talking about Figure 5 which is the ratio of total to reported COVID related deaths. This would mean that CA underreported COVID related deaths compared to Florida.
Figure 7, the cumulative total death rate, is probably more relevant to the point you’re trying to make, in which case FL and CA are in the same bin.
One conclusion you might draw is that the effectiveness of lockdowns cannot be inferred from this single map.
> My impression of Glenn Greenwald is that he is either paranoid, or willing to stoke his readers' paranoia in order to attract attention.
Maybe it’s both
Glenn has good reason to be paranoid. As someone who read his work for years, I’d say that within the past couple of years his writings have become more and more delusional. He left The Intercept over a fact-checking spat in which his editors were in the right, but he claimed censorship. The issue was over Joe Biden’s son, so a big step down from privacy, surveillance, and the work he did before.
It’s important to reframe these messages, I think, to focus more on “child development” than to focus specifically on women’s roles. I read this article replacing “women” with parents for similar reasons. My 16 month old could very easily sit with me in a private office space, and even WFH can occupy himself with books and toys. Usually he’ll come to me every 15-20 minutes for some exclusive attention, then resumes his play. But alas we focus so much on “productivity “ that, according to some metrics this makes folks like me “less productive”.
Meanwhile, I have very fond memories of my dad taking me to his job as an EE at Raytheon in the early 90s, and his cubicle buddies having so much fun with me there.
This is all great to show kids and makes for a better office environment. I don’t think the societal notion or forcing parents to jump through childcare hoops benefits anyone but the people making the most money.
What was that saying about missing the forest for the trees?