I live in Washington and I don't understand how anybody can live in LA unless they have a physical job or family that is tying them there.
If you like hot weather, there are many better places to live, like Scottsdale or Naples. If you must live in California, why not Palm Springs?
If you are concerned about taxes and cost of living and you don't need California's weather, virtually any other state has a safe community for you to live in.
To each their own. I used to live in Seattle and had some reservations about LA, but my opinion changed after living there, on the west side specifically. I've since moved, but I do miss 70° and sunny everyday, all the diversity of food, and generally blissful living. Weekend trips for skiing, palm springs, malibu, even vegas were great too. There's a lot to like.
Palm Springs and Scottsdale are magnitudes hotter than LA. When I used to live in Scottsdale, every day between early May and end of September will be above 100. LA weather barely gets into the 90s. Most days it is between 75-85. Also, Palm Springs and Scottsdale do not have beaches, do not have nearly the same level of entertainment (music venues, clubs, bars, nightlife, two football teams, two basketball teams, stories baseball teams). Not to mention access to nature, wine countries, international airports etc. I lived in LA for 2 years, even with all its traffic problems, it is a 10x more interesting place to live than Scottsdale
You’d be shocked to learn how much you consider credible was discovered, discussed or announced under the influence of either alcohol or cocaine.. or both.
instead of checking "currentPosition" and "futurePosition" for a collision per frame, instead compute a sphere using those two values as bounds, and check if there are any collisions within that sphere
It's depressing how fun and productive it can be to model a domain, but then attempting to deploy that in a production enterprise environment is dependency hell.
Mandatory arbitration is mandatory in the sense that it takes the normal justice system away, if as the parent posits the normal justice system does not exist then everything becomes "Mandatory arbitration", right?
> Mandatory arbitration is mandatory in the sense that it takes the normal justice system away
No, it is mandatory in the sense that parties will be obliged by the normal justice system to submit to the specified process and will be held bound by the results by the normal justice system (with narrow exceptions.)
> if as the parent posits the normal justice system does not exist then everything becomes "Mandatory arbitration", right?
No, if the normal justice system does not exist, there is nothing holding anyone to a particular pre-specified arbitration process or enforcing the results of that process.
No, I haven't personally but I'm assuming that you have. If that is the case did you end up hiring a private detective and security force to remediate your circumstance?
I did not, but only because in my case the monetary damage was not sufficient to pursue it. I would have liked to have seen those responsible be prosecuted for it, though.
If the monetary damage was high enough vis-a-vis the ability of the public system to deliver me restitution for my losses, I'd very quickly be hiring private detectives yes.
I was in this situation, I lost roughly 2k£. I tried to go to court for 8k£ in small claims which is what the law allowed for as a compensation for the crime.
This guy got arrested by the police, he was released and then run away to Dubai where he's from.
He came back after a month and opened a company under a false name and started doing the same scam. I knew his address, I reported everything to the police and the police dropped the case without doing anything.
I'm already paying 25+k£ in taxes every year. If I didn't have to spend that and there would be no police or laws, private companies (aka burly guys with guns) would be needed to ensure citizens safety, in exchange for a fee. Different private companies would need to interact with each other to settle down cases, eventually agreeing on a set of laws to compensate people subjected to crimes.
In this hypothetical world, I would have been happy to pay for my protection agency to go and fetch this individual and bring him to a private court where my protection agency and his protection agency could debate whether the crime happened or not.
It was a blatant crime so there was no reason I would lose and that guy should have been forced to return my money (according to laws agreed on by contracts between our private protection agencies) or work in jail until I'm repaid.
How does this hypothetical world not end up with people that can afford to hire the more powerful protection agency be favored in those settlements?
Not that I'm happy with the current system, but I can't really see how a privatized one would not end up with an even bigger class divide where the laws are only enforced against people that are on the same level as you or below.
Because private court systems would have a reputation as well. You can also have 3rd party companies auditing and reviewing the system.
If a court system is notably unfair, it will lose business.
I don't see why corrupting a private judge would be easier than corrupting a public one.
The private one at least could default if they had no more business due to their unfairness.
In this hypothetical world you’d be paying way more in protection money than you are currently paying in taxes to the local mafia gang who would have long murdered all the other private protection agencies.
The local mafia gang would be just one of the private protection agencies with armed forces.
There is definitely a competition between them; but is violence or negotiation the most business effective way of dealing with it?
Warfare is expensive, you risk men lives and weapons aren't cheap.
If there is violence on the street or if protection money is too high, no-one would want to live there and there would be less people to sustain your army.
I think the incentives are aligned to solve disputes in a pacific way.
The UK used to have private prosecution. If you're interested in this topic, there's a chapter on it in the book Legal Systems Very Different From Our Own.
At least where I live, private arbitration is well appreciated: much faster, cheaper and reliable than the judicial system. So, yes, here I'd advocate most of the judicial system to be privatized.
Where I live (USA), private arbitration is definitely preferred by many corporations who require it, and despised by the people who are forced into it.
It's not an issue with private arbitration per se, it's an issue of being practically forced into it under unreasonable terms with no alternative options.
The fact that you can't do that with the public courts but you can with private arbitration makes it an issue with private arbitration.
Parties with fewer resources are at a huge disadvantage in either system, but there are degrees of disadvantage. It is misleading to examine the outcome of arbitration once the rules are "agreed" to without taking into account that the process of setting the rules strongly influences said outcome.
If private arbitration is not forced upon you, then there is no problem. Thus, it's not a private arbitration issue, it's forced and unappealable private arbitration issue, which is a different matter (not the thing itself but how this thing is applied)
IS that in any way feasible or realistic? I don't ever see this even being possible considering the police department is not only going to have more resources, it is in their vested interest to stay in power and are only going to be more aggressive. This seems like a terrible idea
Governments are incompetent by definition and hold too much power. I'd rather have a N local corporations competing against each other and not being able to extract money from everyone's profit - compared to a massive monopoly governing and profiting off millions of people.
Which itself is underpinned by a complex web of private title insurance companies and real estate lawyers who have to waste time and money attempting to convince a judge of what reality really is.
Ah yes, now I know why all of those shootings and mass murders happened in the Turkish airport-- there was no system for mapping identities to SIM cards!!
The security aspect was more of a pretext to force people purchase the heavily taxed officially imported mobile phones.
Obviously, the usefulness for prevention of such attacks would be limited, it's more about identifying the offenders. It's also useful for surveillance, as you would expect a totalitarian state would like.
The link you provided describes a simulation based on assumed vaccine effectiveness. It's also from 1 year ago. It doesn't seem to reflect any statistically backed insights into what's actually happened over the past year. Or am I missing something?
Notably, the "Growth Factor" plot looks qualitatively very similar from April 2020 until now. Before then, the data looks more noisy to me but not necessarily different on average. I believe folk started getting vaccinated in December 2020? Based on that plot, it doesn't look like the vaccine is helping much for the death rate. Maybe that data source is not legitimate, or maybe "growth factor" isn't the right metric to look at?
"Covid deaths" are also a very meaningless metric where every country or region does whatever it wants. Excess deaths would be a better metric, but also hard to remove from there all the damage done by lockdowns, stress generated on the population, and by hospitals stopping attending other diseases in some places.
The current virus has a natural growth factor that is about 3x larger than the OG. So vaccines are at least 66% effective if they are keeping it at bay. Probably more since lots of countries have very low restrictions compared to last year.
According to the following graph deaths per 100,000 people
are:
18 for unvaccinated
3 for vaccinated.
at the peak of the graph between July and October 2021.
Doesn't that tell us that vaccinations help
to significantly reduce Covid-deaths?
Thanks for the link. For fun I downloaded the referenced CDC dataset. One thing I noticed is that the fraction of deaths per case for the vaccinated population was higher than for the unvaccinated population until July, at which point it "snapped" to match for the rest of the dataset. It seems like a curious anomaly.
Where older and more venerable people being vaccinated early? They still are more likely to die if infected. Then a spread of vaccination to the general population. You would have to look at a breakdown of who was vaccinated at the time you saw the lower vaccine benefit.
I thought about that, but it seems like whatever changed must have happened nearly instantaneously. Looking at the plot, it's a rather pronounced step change.
Theoretically it could be possible that non-vaccinated infect fewer others than those who are vaccinated -- because unvaccinated more readily die after which they can not keep on infecting others. Nevertheless the goal is not to reduce infections but to reduce deaths and serious illness.
Here's an article which says that vaccination does reduce the risk of you infecting others. But this effect diminishes over time quite fast. That would seem like a good reason to get the booster.
> Nevertheless the goal is not to reduce infections but to reduce deaths and serious illness.
Whose goal? There is no shortage of people and organizations that are trying to force others to vaccinate “to prevent spread”. As your link shows the effectives of this is dubious.
My goal. I assume also your goal. And I assume people who try to "prevent spread" do so because spread of Covid-19 causes death and serious illness.
There have been 799,276 Covid-deaths in the US during the short period it's been around. Almost 800k people dead. Dead. If there was no "Covid spread" those people would not have caught Covid and thus would not have died because of it.
To reduce Covid deaths and serious Covid illness you must try to reduce its spread. If you stop it from spreading you stop it from killing people.
That paper is purely based on a model with [optimistic] assumed effectiveness and transmission parameters. It does not consider any actual infection statistics to come to its conclusion.
I'd love to see a paper explaining why some two months ago cases were already at or approaching record highs in countries with 70-90% vaccination rates, like UK, Israel, multiple EU nations...Gibraltar is particularly interesting because it has a nearly 100% vaccination rate, yet the case rate continues to climb unabated. [0]
People are treating these vaccines as though they were sacrosanct and unquestionable. Meanwhile the pandemic continues nearly unabated and no, this is not a "pandemic among the vaccinated", despite the fervor with which certain interests have attempted to paint such a picture. Public UK data suggests that vaccinated individuals may actually be more likely to be infected some months after their second doses. But no one is talking about that...
Right, and this is why I have a problem with employer enforced mandates even though I'm vaccinated. The government taking away your right to work and support yourself based on some pretty flimsy data about the public good for something that should be a personal decision. Fact is, the vaccinated really shouldn't be losing much sleep over the unvaccinated other than maybe those dirty people might be taking up an ICU bed when I need one.
Ok fine, you want to enforce this: then just man up and imprison the unvaccinated using force. Don't hide behind employers and make them do your dirty work. Taking away a person's right to work is only 2 degrees separated from making them dependent on the state. It's a fear tactic they're hoping they won't ever have to enforce--not that much different than holding a gun to someone's head.
At the end of the day you're never going to be able make someone do something against their will. People who go against the mainstream will already suffer social consequences. If you have to do something with government resources then beef up the ICU beds .
While you're at it you may as well make it illegal to work if you're a smoker, or obese, or if you've ever had a car accident because those things may lead to eating up an ICU bed for some other person that stands on a higher moral ground.
Comparing failure to vaccinate with smoking or obesity are off the mark because it is not easy to quit smoking or overcome obesity. If there was an effective, cheap, safe and instant cure for smoking addiction or obesity and people refused to take it, societies would indeed by highly critical of those people consuming hospital resources.
Nah, it's really easy to never smoke. I've been not smoking my entire life. I think his comparison is dead on the mark. If people who choose to be unvaccinated can be vilified for taking up hospital beds, then so can people who choose to pick up a smoking habit.
Sorry to hear that, but that's a small minority of people. And I hope you've talked to your doctor about it --- we're lucky with COVID to have a variety of vaccines with different makeups to choose from.
You told sushsjsuauahab that he/she is a small minority of people.
I'm sure that makes sushsjsuauahab and others who have their own (gasp) reasons not to get the vaccine feel better...
See, it's this one-size-fits-all dictum backed by sanctions that's the problem.
The vaccines help prevent sickness, but government policies hurt healthy people.
Dunno about other countries but in NZ you can apply for medical exemption from vaccine mandates. A panel of medical professionals evaluates your situation and if they agree, you get a vaccine pass that works the same as for a vaccinated person.
I don't mind taking a 0.5% risk to avoid 1% of my life spent in lockdown.
Neither does my mother or grandmother.
It is not an axiom that an increase in death rates at the population level is bad, because people are willing to put their lives at a small risk in order to preserve some semblance of meaning in them.
This is a point lost on essentially every lockdown proponent as far as I can tell. They are fundamentally unwilling to accept differing value systems and seek to enforce theirs.
The current situation in Auckland, New Zealand provides very good evidence of vaccines reducing spread, though I don't think it has been written up in a paper yet.
We've had < 10,000 confirmed COVID cases in Auckland so the vast majority of the 2M population cannot have natural immunity. Behavior restrictions have been relaxed gradually over the last two months, yet the COVID case numbers (which were increasing) have actually leveled out at an R value of around 1. Vaccination is the only thing that could plausibly have reduced that infection rate.
In my state the vaccination rate is above 70% and the hospitalization rate has decoupled from the positive rate. The spike this winter ended in October whereas last winter it didn’t end until January. We’ve been on a downward trend even with shows and restaurants open and people having parties. So I would cite that as evidence the vaccine is protecting our population.
Or perhaps people are acquiring immunity through contact since the majority of cases have been known to be mild or asymptomatic since the pandemic started? And/or the virus is mutating into less infectious substrains?
Cold/flu viruses come and go. This virus will do the same. People will see it as evidence that the vaccines worked when in reality the pandemic very likely would have ended without them, yet here we are facing mandates...
Current vaccines are non-sterilizing and therefore do not effectively stop the spread/transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus) but is very effective at preventing the disease the virus causes (COVID-19). Initially the vaccines were able to keep viral loads low enough to meaningfully stop the spread, but the Delta variant resulting in far higher viral loads and removed that advantage compared to the original virus.
Arguing that the infection rates are uncorrelated is one thing, but serious illness and death is what we really need to care about with this virus. And for those metrics, vaccination is highly-correlated to better outcomes.
That’s a common error, reused by antivaxxers. They are indeed because even what we consider relatively high infection levels are just enough to get 15-20% of the population infected per year. This is less than the part of unvaccinated people. That’s why having a very high vaccination rate is critical to kill COVID. Above this threshold you’d see the infection rate affected. Still, vaccinations are good strategies because they still reduce infections, or at least severe forms of it. Without it in many countries would have been totally saturated by Delta.
If you like hot weather, there are many better places to live, like Scottsdale or Naples. If you must live in California, why not Palm Springs?
If you are concerned about taxes and cost of living and you don't need California's weather, virtually any other state has a safe community for you to live in.