Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

After the initial getting used to it, I haven't seen too many problems with remote work at all. We kicked off our implementation of a new EMR in March 2020 with go live of May 2021, and that went amazingly well considering it was entirely remote. Our researches don't seem to have had too much of a problem with staggered lab use, and they're still publishing. The IRB, Sponsored Projects, and Tech Transfer offices are all super busy. Some offices / departments are sticking with remote work entirely. Some (like ours) is going to be hybrid unless someone tells us to do something else entirely. Obviously, most (but not all because of telemedicine) of the clinical work has to be done in person, and teaching hands on care has to be in person. But I don't think we'll ever go back to 100% on campus for everyone. Maybe some of the other institutions out there are doing things differently--I think Rice wants everyone on campus--but this seems to work for us AND I think employee recruitment/retention is going to drive a lot of the decision-making in the years to come.

I do this silly scavenger hunt every year. To do well, it's a good idea to have a fairly diverse team in terms of skill-set and locale, so the whole project is remote. I had no idea how well those skill sets would translate to an entirely remote workforce, but they're invaluable. I also teach appropriate use of social media to students and faculty. I've had grumbling from older faculty on how they don't use it so they don't have to know it. Very shortsighted. The people who bitch about not being able to have a firm culture through zoom clearly have never spent a lot of time developing relationships, interacting, being actual people online. Those of us who have been fucking around on the internet for years haven't had a problem with it.

This place, almost 20 years on this site, most definitely has a culture, shared values, and if we had to collaborate on something, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have too much of a problem doing so.

On a totally different note, I'm really sorry to read that you're having to go through chemo again. I'm feeling a little raw since I lost a friend yesterday to cancer, so I'm as sincere as I can possibly be when I say I hope you kick its ass and these six months are not too painful/onerous. I want you around for a long time.

The last two years have been a joy. Unfathomable joy of not having some retarded subhuman last in his bottom tier law school class walk into my office, ask a stupid question, pick his nose, scratch his balls, pick his nose again and do whatever he wants anyway.

My office arranged an in person steakhouse dinner just preOmicron (which I politely and immediately declined) but on the date of canceled in "an abundance of caution." I thought "well that's progressive" and then two minutes later got the "someone in this group has tested positive" email.

Remote court hearings and depositions are going to be a thing going forward even if we are in an office coughing in each others' mouths. I can't justify two weeks and 4 grand in travel expenses to do what I can do over zoom and I am a plaintiff's lawyer with no one to really report expenses to except the client. Defense lawyers are pretty much never going to attend something live again.

OTOH, I had to cancel premium airline credit cards and give up any hope of status with any airlines other than via gift or gimmick. Cards with club access were justifiable when you traveled 2x a week. They are not when you travel 2x a year.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

That was my sarcasm font. Thought it was obvious.

You can add that even when these countries didn't lock down, they just practiced reasonable mitigation.

Sorry, Alex Jones and Les were both already running with your analysis, I had to at least try to nip it in the bud.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

The last two years have been a joy. Unfathomable joy of not having some retarded subhuman last in his bottom tier law school class walk into my office, ask a stupid question, pick his nose, scratch his balls, pick his nose again and do whatever he wants anyway.

My office arranged an in person steakhouse dinner just preOmicron (which I politely and immediately declined) but on the date of canceled in "an abundance of caution." I thought "well that's progressive" and then two minutes later got the "someone in this group has tested positive" email.

Remote court hearings and depositions are going to be a thing going forward even if we are in an office coughing in each others' mouths. I can't justify two weeks and 4 grand in travel expenses to do what I can do over zoom and I am a plaintiff's lawyer with no one to really report expenses to except the client. Defense lawyers are pretty much never going to attend something live again.

OTOH, I had to cancel premium airline credit cards and give up any hope of status with any airlines other than via gift or gimmick. Cards with club access were justifiable when you traveled 2x a week. They are not when you travel 2x a year.

I personally would like a world in which day to day work is remote but international travel still ok.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The number of people in this country actually trying to assess the costs benefits of, e.g., wearing masks, is mind-numbingly small. The number of people who believe they are qualified to make that decision is immense.
.

I suspect we all agree that there is not just a necessary but an inevitable and unavoidable balancing act. We're lawyers, we're comfortable with balancing acts.

What I can't figure out is why wearing masks is some awful imposition rather than a petty annoyance. Sure, I don't like wearing masks, but you know what, I wore a tie to work for years for absolutely no good reason and that was a bigger imposition, but I never screamed "FREEEEEEDUUUUUMMMMBBB!!" I mean, simmer down children, clues are free.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I suspect we all agree that there is not just a necessary but an inevitable and unavoidable balancing act. We're lawyers, we're comfortable with balancing acts.

What I can't figure out is why wearing masks is some awful imposition rather than a petty annoyance. Sure, I don't like wearing masks, but you know what, I wore a tie to work for years for absolutely no good reason and that was a bigger imposition, but I never screamed "FREEEEEEDUUUUUMMMMBBB!!" I mean, simmer down children, clues are free.

If I'm in the office, wearing a mask, I am wearing track pants and a #RememberTheCant T shirt.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I suspect we all agree that there is not just a necessary but an inevitable and unavoidable balancing act. We're lawyers, we're comfortable with balancing acts.

What I can't figure out is why wearing masks is some awful imposition rather than a petty annoyance. Sure, I don't like wearing masks, but you know what, I wore a tie to work for years for absolutely no good reason and that was a bigger imposition, but I never screamed "FREEEEEEDUUUUUMMMMBBB!!" I mean, simmer down children, clues are free.

I like wearing masks. It cuts down on small talk and allows one to hide tells during contentious interactions. It also allows one to avoid interacting with annoying people ("I didn't know that was you in that mask...")

My critique is of the performative act of wearing masks in restaurants, or anywhere else, where large numbers of people will not be wearing masks. The way I see it, which seems the scientifically accurate assessment, is if one is vulnerable, there is no safe restaurant. People have to take off masks to eat, and drink, and if even only 1/5 of the people are doing that in a tight indoor setting, all people might as well be doing it.

A vulnerable person, or a person who aggressively seeks to avoid acquiring a variant, simply ought to avoid restaurants, bars, concerts, and anywhere else people are tightly packed or eating/drinking.

The futile performative acts of vigilance/compliance, such as requiring masks on the first floor of a courthouse, but not the floors above (yes, that's common), or forcing masking while walking but not while seated or eating, don't make sense, and are clearly designed merely to pay lip service to virus concerns, and in so doing also provide a false sense of security for some.

I guess it's understandable. The owners of establishments don't want the CDC saying, "If you're concerned or vulnerable, stay out of restaurants and concerts." But that's the truth.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I suspect we all agree that there is not just a necessary but an inevitable and unavoidable balancing act. We're lawyers, we're comfortable with balancing acts.

What I can't figure out is why wearing masks is some awful imposition rather than a petty annoyance. Sure, I don't like wearing masks, but you know what, I wore a tie to work for years for absolutely no good reason and that was a bigger imposition, but I never screamed "FREEEEEEDUUUUUMMMMBBB!!" I mean, simmer down children, clues are free.

At 8 months pregnant, kiddo is pushing up on my lungs and diaphragm, giving me some shortness of breath. It's not my favorite way of moving around, but I can certainly tolerate a mask. Those who can't really need to seek some mental health treatment for the panic attacks.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

er going to attend something live again.

OTOH, I had to cancel premium airline credit cards and give up any hope of status with any airlines other than via gift or gimmick. Cards with club access were justifiable when you traveled 2x a week. They are not when you travel 2x a year.

When I was just starting out I traveled a lot. One night a partner took me into the DC Northwest World Club. After a few free drinks I got the bright idea to buy a lifetime membership- I think it was about $2500- this was like 30 years ago. It became the Delta SkyClub- They don't even offer it anymore.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The futile performative acts of vigilance/compliance, such as requiring masks on the first floor of a courthouse, but not the floors above (yes, that's common), or forcing masking while walking but not while seated or eating, don't make sense, and are clearly designed merely to pay lip service to virus concerns, and in so doing also provide a false sense of security for some.

Yes, my office invented this rule. I had to give my former brilliant para a job rec so talked to em and mentioned "You don't have to wear a mask at your desk but have to wear one if you take a step away" and em broke into hysterical laughter "Oh they have force fields?"

The only rules I think have to be lived with are "You don't have to wear a mask when something is going into your mouth" whether it be a dental appliance or food. Not because there's some sense that it's OK -- it's not -- but because you don't have a choice about covering your mouth in that instance. Reducing viral load helps.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

At 8 months pregnant, kiddo is pushing up on my lungs and diaphragm, giving me some shortness of breath. It's not my favorite way of moving around, but I can certainly tolerate a mask. Those who can't really need to seek some mental health treatment for the panic attacks.

I just wanted to see this again.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I like wearing masks. It cuts down on small talk and allows one to hide tells during contentious interactions. It also allows one to avoid interacting with annoying people ("I didn't know that was you in that mask...")

My critique is of the performative act of wearing masks in restaurants, or anywhere else, where large numbers of people will not be wearing masks. The way I see it, which seems the scientifically accurate assessment, is if one is vulnerable, there is no safe restaurant. People have to take off masks to eat, and drink, and if even only 1/5 of the people are doing that in a tight indoor setting, all people might as well be doing it.

A vulnerable person, or a person who aggressively seeks to avoid acquiring a variant, simply ought to avoid restaurants, bars, concerts, and anywhere else people are tightly packed or eating/drinking.

The futile performative acts of vigilance/compliance, such as requiring masks on the first floor of a courthouse, but not the floors above (yes, that's common), or forcing masking while walking but not while seated or eating, don't make sense, and are clearly designed merely to pay lip service to virus concerns, and in so doing also provide a false sense of security for some.

I guess it's understandable. The owners of establishments don't want the CDC saying, "If you're concerned or vulnerable, stay out of restaurants and concerts." But that's the truth.

There is logic to the seating/eating thing, because you can set up social distancing at tables that you really can't while walking. But it's marginal as put into effect because, of course, you walk through the seating areas and they always want tables a bit closer than they should. and, of course, the wait staff are exposed to every diner if people don't mask up when they come over.

Boston is now checking vax cards for restaurants. That is a more effective policy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I suspect we all agree that there is not just a necessary but an inevitable and unavoidable balancing act. We're lawyers, we're comfortable with balancing acts.

What I can't figure out is why wearing masks is some awful imposition rather than a petty annoyance. Sure, I don't like wearing masks, but you know what, I wore a tie to work for years for absolutely no good reason and that was a bigger imposition, but I never screamed "FREEEEEEDUUUUUMMMMBBB!!" I mean, simmer down children, clues are free.

Conservatives are violently opposed to COVID vaccination requirements, but don't have a problem with other vaccination requirements. There's no principle involved. It's just oppositional behavior.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Conservatives are violently opposed to COVID vaccination requirements, but don't have a problem with other vaccination requirements. There's no principle involved. It's just oppositional behavior.

Oh really? Read about HPV vaccine requirements.

And what other vaccinations are required? My state may vary from yours, but I know of no fed govt mandates for vaccines. It's optional. At the school board level, and perhaps the state or municipal level, yes, vaccines are mandated. If you don't get your kid vaccinated, the child can't attend or play sports.

And I love your use of the term "oppositional." As if people objecting to a mandate are all petulant little children. None may actually hew to the principle that people may choose for themselves (or be better incentivized at the municipal or state or school level). The inescapable corollary to comments like yours is that you, who assume you know what's best, are in a position to tell these people what to do.

I know what's best. But I don't think I should have the right to tell people what to do. I figure they can learn the hard way for themselves, or for those who do not get the vaccine and suffer nothing as a result of contracting Covid (the overwhelming majority of people), not learn anything.

"Oppositional," sure, in some cases, but no more laughable than the know-it-all authoritarianism with which your comment is freighted. As if you're of a unique position from which to judge.

You're so tone deaf sometime you don't realize it's voice exactly like yours that are half the problem. Those of us in the middle could probably corral these dimwits and get them to take vaccines. But dipshits make comments like yours and turn it into an argument of "real Murica" versus "coastal elites." And then any chance at compromise is lost.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Oh really? Read about HPV vaccine requirements.

And what other vaccinations are required? My state may vary from yours, but I know of no fed govt mandates for vaccines. It's optional. At the school board level, and perhaps the state or municipal level, yes, vaccines are mandated. If you don't get your kid vaccinated, the child can't attend or play sports.

And I love your use of the term "oppositional." As if people objecting to a mandate are all petulant little children. None may actually hew to the principle that people may choose for themselves (or be better incentivized at the municipal or state or school level). The inescapable corollary to comments like yours is that you, who assume you know what's best, are in a position to tell these people what to do.

I know what's best. But I don't think I should have the right to tell people what to do. I figure they can learn the hard way for themselves, or for those who do not get the vaccine and suffer nothing as a result of contracting Covid (the overwhelming majority of people).

"Oppositional," sure, in some cases, but no more laughable than the know-it-all authoritarianism with which your comment is freighted. As if you're of a unique position from which to judge.

You're so tone deaf sometime you don't realize it's voice exactly like yours that are half the problem. Those of us in the middle could probably corral these dimwits and get them to take vaccines. But dipshits make comments like yours and turn it into an argument of "real Murica" versus "coastal elites."
And then any chance at compromise is lost.

Part of what I really like about Boston's vax card requirement is that it keeps people who get all upset about vaccines out.

Yeah, oppositional is the wrong word. Assaholic is the right work. Fucking assholes.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Part of what I really like about Boston's vax card requirement is that it keeps people who get all upset about vaccines out.

We have several businesses - for some reason described in the press as "restaurants" - suing the city over it's vaccine or test requirement. It definitely makes me more likely to dine in, but then again, I'm not dining, so hard to say what the net impact on business is.

One of the "restaurants" is a "sports" bar connected to a strip club that's owned by the local mogul of such establishments. I can image it is costing his other businesses.