so, i decided to get through the concerts (that i can't go to.) for the rest of the month, first. there wasn't much after the rachmaninov show this weekend. and, may actually looks a little bit boring, although it could be that the best stuff already got rebooked.
back to the vlog updates, now. let's hope i can get this done by sunrise and have a highly productive week after that.
Sunday, April 19, 2020
...and then you get mad at me for telling you the facts of the matter.
and, i say - "no". not on my watch...
we're going to talk about reality, or we're not going to talk at all. we're going to talk about the real hillary clinton, as best we know her. and, we're going to come to some unexpected and painful realizations as we do it.
if you want to run off and cry, i can wait. if you want to yell, i'll walk away, or shrug it off.
but, i'm not conceding to fantasy.
i'm going to burst your bubble, and make you see reality, whether you like it or not.
and, i say - "no". not on my watch...
we're going to talk about reality, or we're not going to talk at all. we're going to talk about the real hillary clinton, as best we know her. and, we're going to come to some unexpected and painful realizations as we do it.
if you want to run off and cry, i can wait. if you want to yell, i'll walk away, or shrug it off.
but, i'm not conceding to fantasy.
i'm going to burst your bubble, and make you see reality, whether you like it or not.
clinton was raised a republican. she's a conservative - across the board.
but, the cultural perception of hillary clinton is largely a strawman created by rush limbaugh, newt gingrich and rupert murdoch that is designed to smear her as "too liberal". even her supporters seem to be overwhelmingly voting in favour of the strawman created by the right, rather than the candidate's actual policies.
they've completely defined the debate - you probably voted for or against the strawman.
think about that.
but, the cultural perception of hillary clinton is largely a strawman created by rush limbaugh, newt gingrich and rupert murdoch that is designed to smear her as "too liberal". even her supporters seem to be overwhelmingly voting in favour of the strawman created by the right, rather than the candidate's actual policies.
they've completely defined the debate - you probably voted for or against the strawman.
think about that.
the more substantive point i'm trying to make is that when i have these arguments, my opponents rarely seem to be properly informed about the issues, and this holds across the spectrum. they get very angry at me, without realizing that their anger is largely rooted in false perceptions of what reality actually is - that their perception of clinton is a projection, and they'd have been sorely disappointed by what they'd get.
i don't have the appropriate studies to cite, and i don't think it's likely i'll get them unless somebody specifically studies the issue, directly. but, what i've hypothesized in the past is that the fake left's perception of clinton is actually indirectly defined by fox news and other right-wing media, who have created this strawman of clinton as this extreme leftist - much as they did for obama. but, people know better with obama, i think. with clinton, the smears have been going on for so long that even people that define themselves as leftists have lost their grip on the truth of it.
certainly, if you got your information from right-wing media, you'd think clinton was pro-choice, because that's one of the things they use to smear her with, and have been for many, many years. but, she's been trying to correct the point since at least the 90s - she's opposed late trimester abortions her entire political career. she's on record for this as late as mid-2016 - at townhalls, in debates. they don't want you to know that, though, so they pick up their bullhorns and they yell and scream the opposite, and that yelling and screaming has defined the skewed perception of the reality of it, both in their own audience and amongst their opponents.
yes, i would like to see that more rigorously examined, or at least for somebody to examine the point a little bit more clearly. the fact is that clinton's political position for many years has been to support a constitutional amendment to permanently end late term abortions. that's the fact. why do so many democrats think otherwise?
i don't have the appropriate studies to cite, and i don't think it's likely i'll get them unless somebody specifically studies the issue, directly. but, what i've hypothesized in the past is that the fake left's perception of clinton is actually indirectly defined by fox news and other right-wing media, who have created this strawman of clinton as this extreme leftist - much as they did for obama. but, people know better with obama, i think. with clinton, the smears have been going on for so long that even people that define themselves as leftists have lost their grip on the truth of it.
certainly, if you got your information from right-wing media, you'd think clinton was pro-choice, because that's one of the things they use to smear her with, and have been for many, many years. but, she's been trying to correct the point since at least the 90s - she's opposed late trimester abortions her entire political career. she's on record for this as late as mid-2016 - at townhalls, in debates. they don't want you to know that, though, so they pick up their bullhorns and they yell and scream the opposite, and that yelling and screaming has defined the skewed perception of the reality of it, both in their own audience and amongst their opponents.
yes, i would like to see that more rigorously examined, or at least for somebody to examine the point a little bit more clearly. the fact is that clinton's political position for many years has been to support a constitutional amendment to permanently end late term abortions. that's the fact. why do so many democrats think otherwise?
is it possible that clinton would have found herself at war with her own party, and had to concede on so many of these points that i'm concerned about, where she's just about as far right as a democrat can get and still be a democrat?
that's an empirical question. i don't know.
she could just as well have succeeded in shifting the centre even further to the right, which is what both obama and bill clinton did, and the most substantive legacy of both of them...
i'll concede that some of these things that i'm citing - like her abortion policy - seem too abstract to be of any real concern. her position on abortion is a matter of the public record, and it's just the simple truth that she's never been properly defined as seeing the issue as being about choice, as being about autonomy - she's been clear for many years that she sees the issue as a health concern. legal, safe and rare. she always underlines and asterisks the rare. and, unlike many other issues, she's never obfuscated on this point because she seems to think that unwavering support for abortion rights is unpopular and hurting the party's chances to appeal to the centre; any legislation from her, any judicial appointments from her, would have the strict focus on ensuring the rarity of the procedure. but, could she actually get the amendment in place? she'd need a republican legislature to do it as a first assumption, and it would probably destroy the party. so, i point to her actual position on the matter as a reality check, but that doesn't mean she'd have a realistic path to doing any of it. but, the same analysis holds for trump, who is hardly a pro-life republican, and it is well known has stated support for pro-choice policies in the past.
i'm keying on abortion, because it's the best argument i've seen to hold your nose and vote for her. but, a careful analysis largely even debunks this - trump is hardly jerry falwell, and clinton is well to the right of her own party on this issue, and may very well have found herself fighting against it.
that's an empirical question. i don't know.
she could just as well have succeeded in shifting the centre even further to the right, which is what both obama and bill clinton did, and the most substantive legacy of both of them...
i'll concede that some of these things that i'm citing - like her abortion policy - seem too abstract to be of any real concern. her position on abortion is a matter of the public record, and it's just the simple truth that she's never been properly defined as seeing the issue as being about choice, as being about autonomy - she's been clear for many years that she sees the issue as a health concern. legal, safe and rare. she always underlines and asterisks the rare. and, unlike many other issues, she's never obfuscated on this point because she seems to think that unwavering support for abortion rights is unpopular and hurting the party's chances to appeal to the centre; any legislation from her, any judicial appointments from her, would have the strict focus on ensuring the rarity of the procedure. but, could she actually get the amendment in place? she'd need a republican legislature to do it as a first assumption, and it would probably destroy the party. so, i point to her actual position on the matter as a reality check, but that doesn't mean she'd have a realistic path to doing any of it. but, the same analysis holds for trump, who is hardly a pro-life republican, and it is well known has stated support for pro-choice policies in the past.
i'm keying on abortion, because it's the best argument i've seen to hold your nose and vote for her. but, a careful analysis largely even debunks this - trump is hardly jerry falwell, and clinton is well to the right of her own party on this issue, and may very well have found herself fighting against it.
if you think hospitalizations in new york plateaued rather than peaked, i'd like to see your definition of a peak.
the deaths look like a plateau and rapid fall, at this point. there's ways to analyze that to determine if there was really a distorted peak or not.
the hospitalizations - like most of the other metrics - went straight up and down.
hey, we're all guessing, still. we'll need antibody testing to prove the case, one way or the other. but, there is a very strong argument right now that this thing just ripped through new york without a passing concern to our behaviour. unlike the governor, i don't get paid for this, so i'm not going to repeat myself.
three caveats.
one - reporting on sundays seems to be a little lower. so, don't be surprised if you get a very steep drop tomorrow, followed by a small increase on tuesday and a return to the general shape on wednesday.
two - we're still waiting to see if we get a boost from easter. we should be able to indirectly estimate immunity & exposure levels from the data we see next week, regardless, and see which hypothesis it's most consistent with.
three - the data has only begun to be reported daily recently, but deaths in nursing homes seem to be ticking up, as total deaths fall.
i think we're very close to this thing falling down to background levels. for now, please continue to keep the weak inside and away from danger.
one policy that harper pushed that i agreed with was a massive subsidy program for greenhouses to grow food locally, which is not just useful for food security, but also for carbon reduction, due both to reducing transportation to bring food to canada and reducing the reliance that outdoor produce has on oil-based pesticides.
it was a pleasant surprise, and evidence that you will inevitably agree with even your most strongly held opponents if you examine a large enough number of concerns.
it was a pleasant surprise, and evidence that you will inevitably agree with even your most strongly held opponents if you examine a large enough number of concerns.
this sort of wishful thinking about the democrats and where they actually stand on the spectrum and what positions they're likely to actually promote is widespread and deep-seated and goes back to at least the 1992 election, where clinton appears to have been elected on the perception that we would do exactly the opposite of what he actually did. i do remember that election, but i have no memory of carter, and my weak analysis of his presidency is that it was kind of the last gasp of the old solid south. he later distanced himself from it, but carter was initially successful by running as a racist old southern democrat - and that appears to be what people expected from him. those voters went to perot in the 90s. so, the 1992 election opened up a new era in the democratic party.
one of the worst examples i can think of is this delusional perception that al gore, the leading congressional hawk on actions against iraq throughout the 80s and 90s, would have somehow acted differently, had he been elected. this position is not based on an absence of evidence, but a negation of it; all evidence suggests he would have been more aggressive than bush was. he'd been aggressively pushing for an invasion of iraq for 20 years, and he was the architect of the situation that made it such an immediate cakewalk, namely the sanctions and the no-fly zone.
so, the idea that al gore would have spared saddam hussein is absurdly ignorant and just deeply delusional. however, it's almost ubiquitous in certain circles.
one of the worst things about trump is his environmental policy, and i'm hardly going to defend his record on the point. he's been a disaster on that file. but, would clinton have been better? the best evidence we have for the issue is her handling of the keystone xl pipeline, and it's not very inspiring.
so, i want you to be fully cognizant of where i'm coming from on this - i'm trying to look at the actual data in front of me, rather than draw partisan conclusions, or buy into specious media narratives. the general direction of this administration is pretty terrible, but it has truly come with a few positive surprises, too. but, that's inevitable; i'm sure i agreed with reagan on two or three things, too, even if i can't think of them, right now. what i'm more concerned about is comparing what we've seen from trump to what a sober analysis would have expected from clinton, and the stark conclusion is that i don't see a lot of reasons to think that i'd be happier about existing policy if she had won.
but, i still can't answer the general question, and i don't expect i'll be able to until years after trump leaves office.
let me be as clear as i can.
do i really think clinton would have been worse than trump? what i've been trying to say for years now is i don't know.
i know that when people present clear criticisms of trump to me, they're often misinformed about clinton's positions on the matter. the most substantive argument i've heard is about abortion, but most of these people are deeply misinformed about clinton's position on abortion, which is not at all aligned with the pro-choice movement. she wants a constitutional amendment to ban late trimester abortions!
so, you can throw all of this stuff about how terrible trump is at me, but my general response is "ok. i agree with you. but, your argument is rooted in the perception that clinton has a different policy, when the reality is that she actually has basically the same position."
and, there are some counter-arguments, too. i'm still opposed to nafta and still want to eventually get rid of it, but the amendments to it do have some major victories that the left has been trying to accomplish for 35 years. these are foundational victories, that most people probably thought would never happen. clinton would have followed her private position on nafta once elected, not her public one. further, while trump has committed some war crimes like all of his recent predecessors, we haven't started a new war, yet. how long do you think it would have taken clinton to bomb somebody in order to prove that she's "tough"? a week?
do you know what clinton's immigration policy was?
there's not any value in relitigating this, but i don't feel i have any clarity, here, yet.
i did endorse clinton, but it was an exceedingly weak endorsement, and i've stated repeatedly that i'm not convinced i was right to do it - which means that i have this nagging feeling that i should have endorsed jill stein under the argument that clinton was worse, and not given clinton a weak endorsement with the intent to block trump.
but, i don't think i'll be able to answer these questions for years to come, still.
all i can state with clarity is that it is probably the worst set of choices americans have ever had - with the possible exception of the one they're going to have in november.
do i really think clinton would have been worse than trump? what i've been trying to say for years now is i don't know.
i know that when people present clear criticisms of trump to me, they're often misinformed about clinton's positions on the matter. the most substantive argument i've heard is about abortion, but most of these people are deeply misinformed about clinton's position on abortion, which is not at all aligned with the pro-choice movement. she wants a constitutional amendment to ban late trimester abortions!
so, you can throw all of this stuff about how terrible trump is at me, but my general response is "ok. i agree with you. but, your argument is rooted in the perception that clinton has a different policy, when the reality is that she actually has basically the same position."
and, there are some counter-arguments, too. i'm still opposed to nafta and still want to eventually get rid of it, but the amendments to it do have some major victories that the left has been trying to accomplish for 35 years. these are foundational victories, that most people probably thought would never happen. clinton would have followed her private position on nafta once elected, not her public one. further, while trump has committed some war crimes like all of his recent predecessors, we haven't started a new war, yet. how long do you think it would have taken clinton to bomb somebody in order to prove that she's "tough"? a week?
do you know what clinton's immigration policy was?
there's not any value in relitigating this, but i don't feel i have any clarity, here, yet.
i did endorse clinton, but it was an exceedingly weak endorsement, and i've stated repeatedly that i'm not convinced i was right to do it - which means that i have this nagging feeling that i should have endorsed jill stein under the argument that clinton was worse, and not given clinton a weak endorsement with the intent to block trump.
but, i don't think i'll be able to answer these questions for years to come, still.
all i can state with clarity is that it is probably the worst set of choices americans have ever had - with the possible exception of the one they're going to have in november.
we've been focusing on boomer retirement so long that....
you do realize that gen x is actually starting to retire now, right?
most people that study this cut the boomers off before 1955, and introduce a transitional generation from 1955-1965 where people could self-identify either way. and, if you were born in 1955, you are now 65 years old.
both of my parents were born in that transitional period, but they're both clearly boomers, if tail-end boomers. i'm also a cusper (1981), and i strongly identify as the last gen xer. the cusp breaks in the other direction; my grandmother, who had two children before she turned 20 years old, is also a boomer, meaning she's of the same cultural generation as her children. my dad's parents were not boomers. and, both of my sisters are quite clearly millennials.
i have a legit gen x aunt who isn't far from retirement, but that's about it.
you do realize that gen x is actually starting to retire now, right?
most people that study this cut the boomers off before 1955, and introduce a transitional generation from 1955-1965 where people could self-identify either way. and, if you were born in 1955, you are now 65 years old.
both of my parents were born in that transitional period, but they're both clearly boomers, if tail-end boomers. i'm also a cusper (1981), and i strongly identify as the last gen xer. the cusp breaks in the other direction; my grandmother, who had two children before she turned 20 years old, is also a boomer, meaning she's of the same cultural generation as her children. my dad's parents were not boomers. and, both of my sisters are quite clearly millennials.
i have a legit gen x aunt who isn't far from retirement, but that's about it.
Saturday, April 18, 2020
"if you don't believe in intellectual property, why do you sell your music?"
the same reason you don't quit that job you hate.
if you give me a ubi, or a check for a few million dollars, i'll set up an ftp site that distributes everything i ever touched for free.
until then, i need to at least passively participate in this system, whether i like it or not.
the same reason you don't quit that job you hate.
if you give me a ubi, or a check for a few million dollars, i'll set up an ftp site that distributes everything i ever touched for free.
until then, i need to at least passively participate in this system, whether i like it or not.
so, what did i get done yester...this morning. it was this morning before i peeled myself away from this thing.
the backlog of laundry is now done.
and, i've reimaged the 90s laptop for continued use as a youtube player and moved it away from my bed and back to my couch. i had to try a few times before i got it right, in terms of system files. and, then i slept. that's less than i'd have liked.
it's time to eat another meal, but i'm going to eat it on my couch like i used to, before i turned the laptop off out of concerns about surveillance. it's a step towards normalcy.
i'm then going to take a shower and finally get to work on this vlogging update, which i expect to take another day or two.
i know, i know. i'm trying to focus, but the distractions are maximal right now...and everything is in disorder...
the backlog of laundry is now done.
and, i've reimaged the 90s laptop for continued use as a youtube player and moved it away from my bed and back to my couch. i had to try a few times before i got it right, in terms of system files. and, then i slept. that's less than i'd have liked.
it's time to eat another meal, but i'm going to eat it on my couch like i used to, before i turned the laptop off out of concerns about surveillance. it's a step towards normalcy.
i'm then going to take a shower and finally get to work on this vlogging update, which i expect to take another day or two.
i know, i know. i'm trying to focus, but the distractions are maximal right now...and everything is in disorder...
does that mean you should wear a mask?
what it means is that you should stop freaking out about getting it.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0869-5
what it means is that you should stop freaking out about getting it.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0869-5
new york hasn't crashed yet, don't get cocky. and, please understand that the crux of my argument is that the virus is extremely contagious - that this r-not is twice or three times what is estimated in the models, even as the mortality rate pushes towards 0.1%, or lower. that means that my model suggests that roughly two thirds of people in new york city are either carriers of the virus or have antibodies for it, right now. so, your grandma is in greater peril going out for a walk now than she was last week - and that holds everywhere. give it a week past the point that deaths reach background levels.
what are background levels? 30 deaths a day? 70 deaths a day? we don't know.
apparently, 61,000 people died of the flu in the united states in the 2017/2018 flu year. if you naively divide that by 365, it's 167 deaths/day - but that assumes constancy, which is wrong. the seasonal flu is seasonal. you'd want to do something like assign 75% of the deaths to the first six months of the year, which would give you a death rate more like 250/day until the end of the flu season. given that we're still in flu season, i wouldn't be surprised if the death rate for the flu is around 200-300 deaths/day right now as we speak. that's across the united states, not just in new york. but, i would encourage new york to actually do the math on this to get a set of bounds as to what they can expect normalcy to actually be, moving forwards. you're probably looking at at least 25 as a realistic goal....
so, it's probably not going to fall to zero for a city like new york. like, ever. we'll know when we get to background when we see it, but we can take some better guesses now than we could a few weeks ago, given that we now have a better understanding of how low the mortality rate is than we did previously.
what are background levels? 30 deaths a day? 70 deaths a day? we don't know.
apparently, 61,000 people died of the flu in the united states in the 2017/2018 flu year. if you naively divide that by 365, it's 167 deaths/day - but that assumes constancy, which is wrong. the seasonal flu is seasonal. you'd want to do something like assign 75% of the deaths to the first six months of the year, which would give you a death rate more like 250/day until the end of the flu season. given that we're still in flu season, i wouldn't be surprised if the death rate for the flu is around 200-300 deaths/day right now as we speak. that's across the united states, not just in new york. but, i would encourage new york to actually do the math on this to get a set of bounds as to what they can expect normalcy to actually be, moving forwards. you're probably looking at at least 25 as a realistic goal....
so, it's probably not going to fall to zero for a city like new york. like, ever. we'll know when we get to background when we see it, but we can take some better guesses now than we could a few weeks ago, given that we now have a better understanding of how low the mortality rate is than we did previously.
the who does need reform, but, fwiw, i would actually support defunding the red cross and jailing the members of samaritan's purse.
https://nypost.com/2020/04/16/white-house-steers-withheld-who-funds-to-other-organizations/
https://nypost.com/2020/04/16/white-house-steers-withheld-who-funds-to-other-organizations/
even with the virus issue...
my own argument has been that governments across the world have bought into the pseudoscience of social distancing without properly evaluating the evidence for it, and that it's almost certainly not going to actually work. so, i'm not prioritizing the economy over health, so much as i'm pointing out that this isn't going to work, and arguing that focusing on the weak while otherwise loosening restrictions would actually be more effective - i'm having a debate over which policy best prioritizes health, and in the process pulling out a policy that also has minimal effects on the economy, but not actually because of it. if i thought social distancing was the best health policy, i would support it; i don't. and, i'm being proven more and more right every day, it seems.
but, which side of the spectrum is rooting their policies in religious concepts about the sanctity of life and insistent on passing rules and laws to uphold those religious concepts, and which side sees the universe as an empty, barren place where life has no inherent meaning?
so long as government exists, it should do what it can to protect the weak, and i've been absolutely consistent on that point.
but, i don't believe that life is sacred; life has no inherent meaning, no value, no purpose. the difference is that i advocate for mutual aid, but i am far closer to the nihilist republican position than i am to the religious democratic one.
now, if you could only explain this to the moral majority voters that still think they're voting for reagan, or to the cultural left that thinks it's still voting for bill clinton....
my own argument has been that governments across the world have bought into the pseudoscience of social distancing without properly evaluating the evidence for it, and that it's almost certainly not going to actually work. so, i'm not prioritizing the economy over health, so much as i'm pointing out that this isn't going to work, and arguing that focusing on the weak while otherwise loosening restrictions would actually be more effective - i'm having a debate over which policy best prioritizes health, and in the process pulling out a policy that also has minimal effects on the economy, but not actually because of it. if i thought social distancing was the best health policy, i would support it; i don't. and, i'm being proven more and more right every day, it seems.
but, which side of the spectrum is rooting their policies in religious concepts about the sanctity of life and insistent on passing rules and laws to uphold those religious concepts, and which side sees the universe as an empty, barren place where life has no inherent meaning?
so long as government exists, it should do what it can to protect the weak, and i've been absolutely consistent on that point.
but, i don't believe that life is sacred; life has no inherent meaning, no value, no purpose. the difference is that i advocate for mutual aid, but i am far closer to the nihilist republican position than i am to the religious democratic one.
now, if you could only explain this to the moral majority voters that still think they're voting for reagan, or to the cultural left that thinks it's still voting for bill clinton....
i'm an atheist, through and through; i want religion to just stop. completely. forever...
but, this is an example of the broader realignment issues, in that it falls neatly into this narrative i'm trying to build about what the lesser evil may be, moving forward. i'm a socialist, clearly. but, when forced to choose between conservatism, as presented by the democrats, and nihilism, as presented by the republicans, my opposition to conservatism may actually be stronger. i'm just as likely to argue that republican nihilism is preferable to democratic conservatism as i was to argue that democratic liberalism was a lesser evil to republican conservatism.
likewise, if i have to choose between a democratic party that is embracing some kind of burkeanesque interfaith approach to religion, and a republican party that is moving fully into a post-modernist framework that may pay lip service to it but doesn't actually legislate around it, i'll pick post-modernism as the less horrible option, even if i think both are terrible. i'm less afraid of post-modernism than i am of comparative religious studies.
we're still a ways out from this, and things may change, in the end.
but, seeing the democrats spend money on "mindfullness" and "meditation" is bone-chilling. it makes you stop and wonder where the country is going to be in a few more decades.
but, this is an example of the broader realignment issues, in that it falls neatly into this narrative i'm trying to build about what the lesser evil may be, moving forward. i'm a socialist, clearly. but, when forced to choose between conservatism, as presented by the democrats, and nihilism, as presented by the republicans, my opposition to conservatism may actually be stronger. i'm just as likely to argue that republican nihilism is preferable to democratic conservatism as i was to argue that democratic liberalism was a lesser evil to republican conservatism.
likewise, if i have to choose between a democratic party that is embracing some kind of burkeanesque interfaith approach to religion, and a republican party that is moving fully into a post-modernist framework that may pay lip service to it but doesn't actually legislate around it, i'll pick post-modernism as the less horrible option, even if i think both are terrible. i'm less afraid of post-modernism than i am of comparative religious studies.
we're still a ways out from this, and things may change, in the end.
but, seeing the democrats spend money on "mindfullness" and "meditation" is bone-chilling. it makes you stop and wonder where the country is going to be in a few more decades.
that's another potential battleground coming up, as the spectrum flips over.
it used to be that people that called themselves liberals, or aligned on the left, were absolutely vehemently opposed to any kind of religious instruction in the classroom. getting religion out of the schools was a foundational principle of liberalism, and arguably even a populist issue.
now that these fake left groups are increasingly operating as the political representation for recent immigrant groups that actually want more religion in society in general, this is an issue that we may have to relitigate, and with strange allies in doing so. we're seeing this play out in quebec, and it's probably just the start of it.
the party that the democrats are turning into is one that seems likely to embrace the central role of non-christian religions in the classroom, meaning it's going to have to change it's position on christianity in the classroom in order to remain consistent. and, we're seeing signs that the republicans may be flipping over on that, as well, as they increasingly embrace post-modernist approaches to religion, and distance themselves from the religious right.
where do you fall on an issue like that?
are you going to follow the democrats in their slow and inevitable reintroduction of religion into the classroom, as a red meat issue for their increasingly ethnic voting base? will you decide that you disagree with them, but it's not a voting issue? or are you going to hold your ground, as you find yourself increasingly attracted to a republican party that you have no common ground with on economics?
i don't know, either. really. we'll have to see the specifics.
i know i'll continue to oppose the reintroduction of religion to schools, though.
and, i know i'll continue to argue for the abolition of the catholic school system, here in ontario.
it used to be that people that called themselves liberals, or aligned on the left, were absolutely vehemently opposed to any kind of religious instruction in the classroom. getting religion out of the schools was a foundational principle of liberalism, and arguably even a populist issue.
now that these fake left groups are increasingly operating as the political representation for recent immigrant groups that actually want more religion in society in general, this is an issue that we may have to relitigate, and with strange allies in doing so. we're seeing this play out in quebec, and it's probably just the start of it.
the party that the democrats are turning into is one that seems likely to embrace the central role of non-christian religions in the classroom, meaning it's going to have to change it's position on christianity in the classroom in order to remain consistent. and, we're seeing signs that the republicans may be flipping over on that, as well, as they increasingly embrace post-modernist approaches to religion, and distance themselves from the religious right.
where do you fall on an issue like that?
are you going to follow the democrats in their slow and inevitable reintroduction of religion into the classroom, as a red meat issue for their increasingly ethnic voting base? will you decide that you disagree with them, but it's not a voting issue? or are you going to hold your ground, as you find yourself increasingly attracted to a republican party that you have no common ground with on economics?
i don't know, either. really. we'll have to see the specifics.
i know i'll continue to oppose the reintroduction of religion to schools, though.
and, i know i'll continue to argue for the abolition of the catholic school system, here in ontario.
i don't sign petitions, and especially not online ones.
but, if you're inclined....
i don't care how you waste your time at home, but this absolute idiocy has no place in the education system.
https://www.change.org/p/minister-of-education-please-remove-the-mindfulness-program-from-canadian-public-schools
but, if you're inclined....
i don't care how you waste your time at home, but this absolute idiocy has no place in the education system.
https://www.change.org/p/minister-of-education-please-remove-the-mindfulness-program-from-canadian-public-schools
lol.
there's some more of that evidence-based policy.
*sigh*
https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2020/04/whitmer-launches-free-coronavirus-mindfulness-resources-for-michigan-residents.html
there's some more of that evidence-based policy.
*sigh*
https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2020/04/whitmer-launches-free-coronavirus-mindfulness-resources-for-michigan-residents.html
this is a better approach than walking around with guns.
and, i hope they win, too.
https://nationalpost.com/pmn/health-pmn/michigan-residents-sue-governor-whitmer-over-coronavirus-pandemic-orders
and, i hope they win, too.
https://nationalpost.com/pmn/health-pmn/michigan-residents-sue-governor-whitmer-over-coronavirus-pandemic-orders
the who is now claiming there's no evidence that antibodies cause immunity, which is like something out of the twilight zone. it's just weird.
listen: i'll admit that i've been kind of baffled by what i'm hearing from them since this started. you can sort through the side to see my reactions. so, this is just the latest in a series of bizarre announcements that i've been struggling to make sense of from day one.
based on what i've heard them say, i'm actually more worried about the influence of some kind of shady muslim group than i am about the influence of the chinese, who corrected some of their data today (as was expected; expect more), and, frankly, seem to be as baffled by the situation as everybody else. it's actually south korea rather than china that i'm most skeptical about hiding cases and/or deaths right now, after all of that propaganda in their favour.
so, i don't want to advocate defunding them, especially given that doing so would just hand the body over to actors that are hostile to this continent.
but, i might call for the director to resign. and, i might suggest some kind of investigation to figure out what the hell is going on, and why they keep making these bizarre announcements.
again: you don't need an advanced degree to be baffled by the claim that there's no evidence that antibodies help with immunity. this is just the latest in a series of flatly weird announcements coming from the who since day one on this. so, i'll ask the same question i asked when this started: what's really going on, here?
listen: i'll admit that i've been kind of baffled by what i'm hearing from them since this started. you can sort through the side to see my reactions. so, this is just the latest in a series of bizarre announcements that i've been struggling to make sense of from day one.
based on what i've heard them say, i'm actually more worried about the influence of some kind of shady muslim group than i am about the influence of the chinese, who corrected some of their data today (as was expected; expect more), and, frankly, seem to be as baffled by the situation as everybody else. it's actually south korea rather than china that i'm most skeptical about hiding cases and/or deaths right now, after all of that propaganda in their favour.
so, i don't want to advocate defunding them, especially given that doing so would just hand the body over to actors that are hostile to this continent.
but, i might call for the director to resign. and, i might suggest some kind of investigation to figure out what the hell is going on, and why they keep making these bizarre announcements.
again: you don't need an advanced degree to be baffled by the claim that there's no evidence that antibodies help with immunity. this is just the latest in a series of flatly weird announcements coming from the who since day one on this. so, i'll ask the same question i asked when this started: what's really going on, here?
further, the delayed reaction in singapore is actually exactly what you'd expect, as i've pointed out. nobody should be surprised by that.
the south koreans continue to post these almost unbelievable statistics, but there's other weird reports coming out of south korea about people being reinfected, which is making me question the data altogether. maybe there's some specific thing they're doing that i don't know about, but they're really stumping me - this is a mystery, an open question. an outlier....
the south koreans continue to post these almost unbelievable statistics, but there's other weird reports coming out of south korea about people being reinfected, which is making me question the data altogether. maybe there's some specific thing they're doing that i don't know about, but they're really stumping me - this is a mystery, an open question. an outlier....
Friday, April 17, 2020
ok.
*deep breath*.
so, it seems to have taken me some time to burn through the news after waking up around 15:00 this afternoon. i guess that's ok. there was some big news...
i'm going to get my daily fruit bowl now, get a start on the remaining laundry and look to pivot towards finally getting to an update on that vlog. i'm awake, i'm alert and i want to refocus, now.
damn.
i'm not gloating.
but, i wish the public health response - everywhere - was more rigorous in it's analysis.
who was making these choice, at the end of the day? were the decision-makers doctors? or mathematicians?
*deep breath*.
so, it seems to have taken me some time to burn through the news after waking up around 15:00 this afternoon. i guess that's ok. there was some big news...
i'm going to get my daily fruit bowl now, get a start on the remaining laundry and look to pivot towards finally getting to an update on that vlog. i'm awake, i'm alert and i want to refocus, now.
damn.
i'm not gloating.
but, i wish the public health response - everywhere - was more rigorous in it's analysis.
who was making these choice, at the end of the day? were the decision-makers doctors? or mathematicians?
The study estimated that 2.49% to 4.16% of people in Santa Clara Country had been infected with Covid-19 by April 1.
ok. so, that was two and a half weeks ago, actually.
the current number of cases in this county is 1870, according to google. (50*1870 = 93500, 80*1870=149600). the population is about 1928000. so, updated numbers would suggested 4.8-7.7% - if the growth is linear, which is no doubt wrong.
so, that study is a proof of concept because it's 17 days behind.
but, it gets the point across - even in the county with the earliest, strongest lockdowns, you're still looking at widespread transmission and substantive infection rates. i want more studies before i throw numbers out there.
don't get giddy. i've made an attempt to avoid gloating for weeks. this actually suggests it's more important than ever for us to ensure we're continuing to protect the weak; don't think otherwise. but, it's also increasing evidence that these controls are neither working nor were they reasonable.
i know. i'm a nerd. but, listen - there's no reason to think this isn't a huge curve ball. how is your governor or premier going to react to this realization that infection rates are already out of control? i don't know....
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/17/health/santa-clara-coronavirus-infections-study/index.html
ok. so, that was two and a half weeks ago, actually.
the current number of cases in this county is 1870, according to google. (50*1870 = 93500, 80*1870=149600). the population is about 1928000. so, updated numbers would suggested 4.8-7.7% - if the growth is linear, which is no doubt wrong.
so, that study is a proof of concept because it's 17 days behind.
but, it gets the point across - even in the county with the earliest, strongest lockdowns, you're still looking at widespread transmission and substantive infection rates. i want more studies before i throw numbers out there.
don't get giddy. i've made an attempt to avoid gloating for weeks. this actually suggests it's more important than ever for us to ensure we're continuing to protect the weak; don't think otherwise. but, it's also increasing evidence that these controls are neither working nor were they reasonable.
i know. i'm a nerd. but, listen - there's no reason to think this isn't a huge curve ball. how is your governor or premier going to react to this realization that infection rates are already out of control? i don't know....
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/17/health/santa-clara-coronavirus-infections-study/index.html
more consistency - 50x-80x.
and, this is basically exactly what i was waiting for, although the numbers seem a little low, to me. but, this is san francisco, where they locked people down early.
i want to see similar testing done in new york.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/antibody-research-coronavirus-widespread/story?id=70206121
and, this is basically exactly what i was waiting for, although the numbers seem a little low, to me. but, this is san francisco, where they locked people down early.
i want to see similar testing done in new york.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/antibody-research-coronavirus-widespread/story?id=70206121
the sewage data would seem to suggest there are about 50x as many cases as are being reported, give or take. yeah.
so, that would suggest that there's actually closer to 1.6 million cases in canada, and a mortality rate around .08%.
for the united states, you're looking at 35 million cases and a mortality rate around .1%.
consistency is a key component of the scientific method, kids.
consistency is a key component of the scientific method, kids.
i've been presenting the infection rate as a percentage of the population. you've heard people on tv, though, talk about this variable, r with a subscript of 0 - called r-not, which looks like R0 and is called the basic reproduction number. you'll note that i haven't done that, that i've stuck with an infection rate instead. why am i doing that?
the reason is that this basic reproduction number is something that should be uncovered empirically, not something that should be guessed at. the modeling is making that number up, and i'm actually assigning that process to quite a bit of the observed error.
i can throw out an infection rate as a rough bound in the context of a conditional (if the infection rate is .666 then....) as that is tautologically contained within itself so long as it's well-formed. i can also calculate an infection rate from an observed death count, and an otherwise derived mortality rate, which i'm far less apprehensive about pulling out of the existing data, even as i recommend some skepticism. however, i'm not going to guess the basic reproduction number by observing the number of found cases. i don't feel there's enough variables there to do that, even as i point to the contagion level appearing to be higher than appears to be the accepted guess, due to the nature of the curve.
for that reason, i've kept my models very simple and preferred to talk in english about the disease being "very contagious" and "not very deadly". if we could find that r-not empirically, though, i might be more willing to talk about things as functions of each other, and look at some more complex modelling. what i've been waiting for is antibody testing.
you'll excuse the pun, but this is a very crude way to measure that number that i hadn't thought of. it's inherently better than a guess, though. and, it's aligning with my general analysis that we might be burning out due to immunity, rather than "flattening the curve".
what does "less critical of the reign of terror" mean?
they kind of went bonkers in the end, clearly.
but, given the reality of the ancien regime, and it's interrelationship with the papacy going back to fucking charlemagne, i don't see what else they could have done. i don't exactly want to justify the barbarity of the reign of terror, so much as i want to realize it as a necessary evil. in the end, i'd rather cite voltaire than robespierre. but, these priests probably needed to die - there probably wasn't any other way to end this.
it didn't take long to collapse, though. and, i'm hardly going to defend the ending stages. but, i'm more likely going to criticize the process in terms of it undoing itself, that is by comparing the cult of reason to a religious group, than in criticizing the actions that were taken. in the end, the fundamental problem with the reign of terror was that it became the ancien regime and continued it's crimes, not how it treated it as it dismantled it. this is the same fundamental critique as ought to apply to stalinism, as a type of neo-czarism, or maoism's current perversion into reconstituted confucianism (even if i think the peasantry lacks true revolutionary potential).
i'm not writing this essay just right now.
they kind of went bonkers in the end, clearly.
but, given the reality of the ancien regime, and it's interrelationship with the papacy going back to fucking charlemagne, i don't see what else they could have done. i don't exactly want to justify the barbarity of the reign of terror, so much as i want to realize it as a necessary evil. in the end, i'd rather cite voltaire than robespierre. but, these priests probably needed to die - there probably wasn't any other way to end this.
it didn't take long to collapse, though. and, i'm hardly going to defend the ending stages. but, i'm more likely going to criticize the process in terms of it undoing itself, that is by comparing the cult of reason to a religious group, than in criticizing the actions that were taken. in the end, the fundamental problem with the reign of terror was that it became the ancien regime and continued it's crimes, not how it treated it as it dismantled it. this is the same fundamental critique as ought to apply to stalinism, as a type of neo-czarism, or maoism's current perversion into reconstituted confucianism (even if i think the peasantry lacks true revolutionary potential).
i'm not writing this essay just right now.
this is the mainstream view, i believe - and i'll allow my opponent the source, given the distance of events.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/12/edmund-burke-v-thomas-paine-nat-brown/
but, this text here came out of the exchange as well and is quite often defined as the beginning of the left-anarchist tradition, or the point where it became distinct from a general small-l liberalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Vindication_of_the_Rights_of_Men
it also has a lot to do with why i may allow myself to use the term "liberal", with a small-l - all of the influences on anarchism before 1800 would have identified as enlightenment or renaissance liberals.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/12/edmund-burke-v-thomas-paine-nat-brown/
but, this text here came out of the exchange as well and is quite often defined as the beginning of the left-anarchist tradition, or the point where it became distinct from a general small-l liberalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Vindication_of_the_Rights_of_Men
it also has a lot to do with why i may allow myself to use the term "liberal", with a small-l - all of the influences on anarchism before 1800 would have identified as enlightenment or renaissance liberals.
see, quebec is the one place where i'm going to actually blame the people, not the government. or, at least, not the provincial government. and, some people...
again: this is a right-wing government, but it is also a secular government. that is a weird mix in the existing era, where right-wing governments have generally used religion as a tool of control. the thing is that the silent revolution cut across party lines, creating a situation where almost all religiosity in quebec is immigrating into it from outside of the province. so, there isn't a nativist right to whip up. what there is is a cultural consensus on secularism, which has ideological roots in the french revolution. that's leaving the fake left to represent immigrant communities, which make up almost all religiosity in the province. as a secular leftist, that puts me in a weird position. but, quebec might be a bit of a taste of the future in places like california, as well - it may represent a taste of the reversal of the spectrum on specific issues that is on it's way towards normalcy, continent wide.
so, what do i do when faced with secular fiscal conservatives and economic keynesians that align with the religious right? i don't know...
i know that the specific issues in front of us have led to me being a lot more lenient on them than i'd like to be, because they align on the secular v religious axis rather than the fiscally conservative v. economic keynesian one.
and, i think i'm going to be badly disenfranchised for quite a while, leading me to do this kind of thing more often. i've remained broadly critical of trump; even if i think he's frequently been less bad than what could have been, or might still be, i still think he's been pretty shitty. the caq, though, seems to at least actually be legitimately on the right side on a lot of these issues of secularism, empiricism, data - anything that reduces to that shift away from catholicism that defined revolutionary france. which isn't to compare legault to robespierre, either - even if i'm actually a little less critical of the reign of terror than the culturally english burkean conservative narrative around the events usually is. anarchism actually has it's ideological roots in defending the revolution against the burkean critique.
the provincial government made the right decisions around senior facilities, and they made those decisions early. i applauded them for it; almost on cue, they were criticized for being draconian, and insensitive to the social requirements of the elderly. but, i doubt those that made those arguments then would make them now. they also specifically cracked down on religious gatherings, and deserve a lot of credit for sticking to it.
the reason they have more cases is that they've done more testing, which is also commendable. they're testing at a far higher rate than anywhere else. that's the right approach; the low numbers in other provinces are reflective of incomplete data, and governments that are taking the wrong approach.
quebeckers also have the highest level of self-compliance with distancing rules, according to a number of metrics.
so, it looks like they're doing everything right....
but, people in certain communities seem to have not listened, and it's created a lot of hardship - within their own communities.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/covid-19-quebec-april-17-1.5535556
again: this is a right-wing government, but it is also a secular government. that is a weird mix in the existing era, where right-wing governments have generally used religion as a tool of control. the thing is that the silent revolution cut across party lines, creating a situation where almost all religiosity in quebec is immigrating into it from outside of the province. so, there isn't a nativist right to whip up. what there is is a cultural consensus on secularism, which has ideological roots in the french revolution. that's leaving the fake left to represent immigrant communities, which make up almost all religiosity in the province. as a secular leftist, that puts me in a weird position. but, quebec might be a bit of a taste of the future in places like california, as well - it may represent a taste of the reversal of the spectrum on specific issues that is on it's way towards normalcy, continent wide.
so, what do i do when faced with secular fiscal conservatives and economic keynesians that align with the religious right? i don't know...
i know that the specific issues in front of us have led to me being a lot more lenient on them than i'd like to be, because they align on the secular v religious axis rather than the fiscally conservative v. economic keynesian one.
and, i think i'm going to be badly disenfranchised for quite a while, leading me to do this kind of thing more often. i've remained broadly critical of trump; even if i think he's frequently been less bad than what could have been, or might still be, i still think he's been pretty shitty. the caq, though, seems to at least actually be legitimately on the right side on a lot of these issues of secularism, empiricism, data - anything that reduces to that shift away from catholicism that defined revolutionary france. which isn't to compare legault to robespierre, either - even if i'm actually a little less critical of the reign of terror than the culturally english burkean conservative narrative around the events usually is. anarchism actually has it's ideological roots in defending the revolution against the burkean critique.
the provincial government made the right decisions around senior facilities, and they made those decisions early. i applauded them for it; almost on cue, they were criticized for being draconian, and insensitive to the social requirements of the elderly. but, i doubt those that made those arguments then would make them now. they also specifically cracked down on religious gatherings, and deserve a lot of credit for sticking to it.
the reason they have more cases is that they've done more testing, which is also commendable. they're testing at a far higher rate than anywhere else. that's the right approach; the low numbers in other provinces are reflective of incomplete data, and governments that are taking the wrong approach.
quebeckers also have the highest level of self-compliance with distancing rules, according to a number of metrics.
so, it looks like they're doing everything right....
but, people in certain communities seem to have not listened, and it's created a lot of hardship - within their own communities.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/covid-19-quebec-april-17-1.5535556
chretien's opponent in 1993 was technically kim campbell.
but, the election was a populist backlash against mulroney that permanently destroyed the historical entity called the progressive conservative party of canada. it did not recover.
what exists today is really a different political movement, stemming from a different political ideology, namely the social credit movement, which originated in the west.
but, the election was a populist backlash against mulroney that permanently destroyed the historical entity called the progressive conservative party of canada. it did not recover.
what exists today is really a different political movement, stemming from a different political ideology, namely the social credit movement, which originated in the west.
i actually don't really have an opinion on john turner, given that i have no active memory of him, and he didn't really actually do anything, so there's been no history to look up. he was a sort of caretaker leader for a while in the early 80s, before he lost to mulroney in a major landslide.
but, referring to the fta/nafta as the "sale of canada act" also seems quite prescient at this point.
i wish i knew more about these years myself, actually.
i do remember the tail end of mulroney's years as pm, if vaguely, but i was largely pre-political in those years. my first real memory of any kind of political anything in canada was the populist backlash against the gst in the 1993 election, when i was 12 years old. i don't even remember what i thought about this at the time, but i doubt it was very informed, or that i'd defend any arguments i made at the time. i remember the election, though - the widespread elation and euphoria at the defeat of mulroney, who was just widely despised by this point.
regardless, i'm reading through this right now.
“a monstrous swindle, under which the Canadian government has ceded to the United States of America a large slice of the country’s sovereignty over its economy and natural resources.” - pierre trudeau, describing the fta (the precursor to nafta)
more prescient words would be hard to find, on this date.
more prescient words would be hard to find, on this date.
historically, conservatives supported mercantilism, while liberals supported free trade. this is actually the etymological origin of the terms conservative and liberal in our political system - it refers to the nature of the trade policies supported by each party.
in canada, the conservative party officially opposed free trade until roughly 1985, when it all of a sudden embraced the results of the mcdonald commission, designed to seek renewed reciprocity with the americans, something that nafta is definitely not.
so, if you look at the situation at face value, it seems as though the conservatives switched sides. but, they haven't, actually. rather, the language has reversed. it really is right out of orwell.
it's actually the liberals that switched sides, by embracing a nafta that uses the language of free trade but is, in truth a fundamentally mercantilist agreement. chretien ran against it, but found himself stuck when he got into office, unable to actually undo it. mulroney had sold us out....
despite launching the committee that led to it, the most vocally prominent opponent of nafta in canada until the day he died was in truth almost certainly pierre elliot trudeau.
so, when i attack doug ford as a mercantilist conservative, it's being done in the context of a british-canadian political tradition. that might be confusing to you if you live in the united states, but all i can tell you is that we're a different country and that you'll need to learn the history if you want to follow the discussion.
in canada, the conservative party officially opposed free trade until roughly 1985, when it all of a sudden embraced the results of the mcdonald commission, designed to seek renewed reciprocity with the americans, something that nafta is definitely not.
so, if you look at the situation at face value, it seems as though the conservatives switched sides. but, they haven't, actually. rather, the language has reversed. it really is right out of orwell.
it's actually the liberals that switched sides, by embracing a nafta that uses the language of free trade but is, in truth a fundamentally mercantilist agreement. chretien ran against it, but found himself stuck when he got into office, unable to actually undo it. mulroney had sold us out....
despite launching the committee that led to it, the most vocally prominent opponent of nafta in canada until the day he died was in truth almost certainly pierre elliot trudeau.
so, when i attack doug ford as a mercantilist conservative, it's being done in the context of a british-canadian political tradition. that might be confusing to you if you live in the united states, but all i can tell you is that we're a different country and that you'll need to learn the history if you want to follow the discussion.
but, sitting there and blaming the americans for hoarding supplies is like saying your dog ate your homework.
i'm sick of bullshit excuses from doug ford.
we don't have the capacity. we don't have the manufacturing. we passed the legislation that resulted in this. this is our fault.
and only we can fix it, by undoing the mistakes of neo-liberalism that brought us here.
i'm sick of bullshit excuses from doug ford.
we don't have the capacity. we don't have the manufacturing. we passed the legislation that resulted in this. this is our fault.
and only we can fix it, by undoing the mistakes of neo-liberalism that brought us here.
no.
listen...
if our metrics suggest a steep decline, and it doesn't happen, then we have a contradiction. we have some biases. we have some skewed data.
and that's what statisticians do - they sit down and figure that out.
the hospitalization numbers are probably the best indicators, so the bias is probably on the other side. but, we don't actually know that.
listen...
if our metrics suggest a steep decline, and it doesn't happen, then we have a contradiction. we have some biases. we have some skewed data.
and that's what statisticians do - they sit down and figure that out.
the hospitalization numbers are probably the best indicators, so the bias is probably on the other side. but, we don't actually know that.
we should have the capacity to produce medical supplies in canada, and in ontario specifically. that we do not is a consequence of our failed trade policies going back decades; like so much of what is wrong with this country, the buck stops here at brian mulroney, and his sycophantic relationship with ronald reagan (who is, likewise, the root cause of virtually everything wrong with america).
of course they restricted exports in a crisis. any country would.
don't blame it on them.
it's our policies that failed. it's our fault. and, it's specifically the fault of the conservative movement in this country, which is responsible for embracing these mercantilist trade agreements that were labeled "free trade" as a kind of newspeak.
so, i don't want to hear these nationalist deflections. i don't want to see anybody wrap themselves in the fucking flag. i want a proper analysis on the failure of the trade policies that led to this catastrophe, and i want legislation introduced at the proper level of government to remedy it.
of course they restricted exports in a crisis. any country would.
don't blame it on them.
it's our policies that failed. it's our fault. and, it's specifically the fault of the conservative movement in this country, which is responsible for embracing these mercantilist trade agreements that were labeled "free trade" as a kind of newspeak.
so, i don't want to hear these nationalist deflections. i don't want to see anybody wrap themselves in the fucking flag. i want a proper analysis on the failure of the trade policies that led to this catastrophe, and i want legislation introduced at the proper level of government to remedy it.
"why don't you attack trump like that?"
because he's not half the fucking retard that doug ford is.
...and because trump doesn't have a capable opposition to replace him.
trump is probably less terrible than clinton would have been, and might actually legitimately be less terrible than biden; we don't have that issue in the legislature in ontario.
because he's not half the fucking retard that doug ford is.
...and because trump doesn't have a capable opposition to replace him.
trump is probably less terrible than clinton would have been, and might actually legitimately be less terrible than biden; we don't have that issue in the legislature in ontario.
it's exceedingly frustrating to have to deal with these fucking idiots. constantly. every fucking day.
we have years worth of detailed science to draw on, and these idiots like doug ford and evan solomon don't even bother reading it, they just insist on relying on this set of backwards fallacies that conservatives call "common sense".
and, the media just feeds right into it.
despite popular perceptions to the contrary, the science is absolutely clear that almost the worst thing you can do in a pandemic is introduce travel restrictions.
we have years worth of detailed science to draw on, and these idiots like doug ford and evan solomon don't even bother reading it, they just insist on relying on this set of backwards fallacies that conservatives call "common sense".
and, the media just feeds right into it.
despite popular perceptions to the contrary, the science is absolutely clear that almost the worst thing you can do in a pandemic is introduce travel restrictions.
doug ford does not represent the people of ontario.
at all.
he's a complete embarrassment to the province, to the country and to the universe.
and i am saddened and ashamed that i have to look at his ugly, worthless face every day.
rather than sit there on his fat, lazy piece of shit ass and blame the issue on the united states, why doesn't he do his fucking job and get testing rates up?
at all.
he's a complete embarrassment to the province, to the country and to the universe.
and i am saddened and ashamed that i have to look at his ugly, worthless face every day.
rather than sit there on his fat, lazy piece of shit ass and blame the issue on the united states, why doesn't he do his fucking job and get testing rates up?
i don't want doug ford in ontario. i don't even want him to exist at all.
don't listen to this idiot. the people of ontario always have and always will welcome cross-border interactions with people from the united states.
now, if we could find a way to erase the entire ford family from existence, on the other hand...
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/i-don-t-want-them-in-ontario-premier-ford-fires-back-after-trump-suggests-loosening-border-1.4899199
don't listen to this idiot. the people of ontario always have and always will welcome cross-border interactions with people from the united states.
now, if we could find a way to erase the entire ford family from existence, on the other hand...
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/i-don-t-want-them-in-ontario-premier-ford-fires-back-after-trump-suggests-loosening-border-1.4899199
so, i got a surface clean done, including the rest of the dishes and an overdue shower. i'm actually going to do some very serious cleaning when i finally get done with 01/14 and pivot back to period 3, so this is just for now.
i'll be slowly going through a basket of laundry over the next few days, as well.
but, for now, it's time to nap.
how did that sublingual tablet go yesterday afternoon? i can't claim i've noticed a large difference, really. we're going to do that on thursdays for a while and see what the outcome is...
i'll be slowly going through a basket of laundry over the next few days, as well.
but, for now, it's time to nap.
how did that sublingual tablet go yesterday afternoon? i can't claim i've noticed a large difference, really. we're going to do that on thursdays for a while and see what the outcome is...
so, i found myself in an odd situation last night.
i finally made a large plate of pasta and sat down to eat it around 9:00. i would normally eat a half a plate, and put the rest in the fridge. but, my fridge is so full of fruit and soy milk that i had nowhere to place the leftovers. what do you do?
i decided to force myself to eat all of it, and it took quite a while - time i spent by watching get smart rereuns on dailymotion. i can't remember the last time i watched this much tv, and i actually really don't like it. like so many other people, this computer is my only way to understand what's happening right now, but i don't want to develop a habit of using the device for passive entertainment - it's unhealthy, both physically and mentally.
but, after eating twice as much as normal, i found myself horribly bloated and had to sit down for even longer, meaning i watched some more old reruns.
so, i lost another day.
i need to get up and finish that cleaning, now - including doing laundry, as well as cleaning myself. is it time to wash my jacket and put it away for the year, yet? or should i wait a few more weeks?
the spring has been variable, so far. we've had some warm days and some cold ones; i'd guess it averages out to something relatively "normal", even if it feels more like a series of swings. so, it's hard to tell if i should do it now or wait, but if i'm able to stay inside into mid may like i want then the answer may be more obvious next week.
ok. up i go...
i finally made a large plate of pasta and sat down to eat it around 9:00. i would normally eat a half a plate, and put the rest in the fridge. but, my fridge is so full of fruit and soy milk that i had nowhere to place the leftovers. what do you do?
i decided to force myself to eat all of it, and it took quite a while - time i spent by watching get smart rereuns on dailymotion. i can't remember the last time i watched this much tv, and i actually really don't like it. like so many other people, this computer is my only way to understand what's happening right now, but i don't want to develop a habit of using the device for passive entertainment - it's unhealthy, both physically and mentally.
but, after eating twice as much as normal, i found myself horribly bloated and had to sit down for even longer, meaning i watched some more old reruns.
so, i lost another day.
i need to get up and finish that cleaning, now - including doing laundry, as well as cleaning myself. is it time to wash my jacket and put it away for the year, yet? or should i wait a few more weeks?
the spring has been variable, so far. we've had some warm days and some cold ones; i'd guess it averages out to something relatively "normal", even if it feels more like a series of swings. so, it's hard to tell if i should do it now or wait, but if i'm able to stay inside into mid may like i want then the answer may be more obvious next week.
ok. up i go...
i can acknowledge the point that some people may develop a physical addiction to alcohol, but i reject the premise of keeping the store open to support alcoholics - alcoholism is not a real thing, it's just a made up disorder to try to christianize people. my mother thinks she's an alcoholic, so i grew up around this stuff, and it really is very scary in how it brainwashes people - i've seen it, first hand. she thinks she has a genetic disease that prevents her from being able to control herself, which is incoherent in so many ways that i don't even know where to start. she's just a drunk...
but, that's not the point. alcoholism or not, this is food.
we fought many long and hard battles against prohibition, and i'm not about to let that battle go without a hard fight.
but, that's not the point. alcoholism or not, this is food.
we fought many long and hard battles against prohibition, and i'm not about to let that battle go without a hard fight.
everything else aside, if you ban the sale of alcohol in canada, you're going to see a rise in petty crimes like theft and vandalism.
this is a personal choice that needs to be made by individuals, not something that should be pushed down by authoritarian bodies.
personally, i almost never consume alcohol in my own house; i haven't touched that bottle of vodka since i left on the night of march 12th, and probably won't until i go to another concert, whenever that is. but, i'll be damned if i'm going to let a fucking government make that choice for me.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/stay-sober-who-s-advice-as-canadians-drink-their-way-through-the-pandemic-1.4898528
this is a personal choice that needs to be made by individuals, not something that should be pushed down by authoritarian bodies.
personally, i almost never consume alcohol in my own house; i haven't touched that bottle of vodka since i left on the night of march 12th, and probably won't until i go to another concert, whenever that is. but, i'll be damned if i'm going to let a fucking government make that choice for me.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/stay-sober-who-s-advice-as-canadians-drink-their-way-through-the-pandemic-1.4898528
the science happens to be on their side, and my allegiance is to science, not to political ideologies.
but, i don't think that going to the state capitol with guns is very useful.
rather, they should just open their businesses and carry on. if the cops try to shut them down, they should resist with non-violent tactics, and then fight the issue in court after the fact.
i would like to see a critical mass develop, but this one doesn't appear to have much revolutionary potential.
i do wish that the media would stop calling these people conservatives, though.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/04/trump-supporters-protest-coronavirus-orders
but, i don't think that going to the state capitol with guns is very useful.
rather, they should just open their businesses and carry on. if the cops try to shut them down, they should resist with non-violent tactics, and then fight the issue in court after the fact.
i would like to see a critical mass develop, but this one doesn't appear to have much revolutionary potential.
i do wish that the media would stop calling these people conservatives, though.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/04/trump-supporters-protest-coronavirus-orders
the last virus that we dealt with in this region was not the spanish influenza, or polio.
the last virus that we dealt with in this region was nafta. and, from the carnage that was created, emerged a slogan, often stated by the bourgeois elite when challenged about holding to such a destructive policy: there are winners and there are losers.
but, what that means in context is that there are those who are wealthy and own property, and those who are poor and do not - a brutal truth in an economic system that routinely discards life for a few pennies on the dollar.
now, we have a virus that is deadly for the elderly and weak, and largely harmless for everybody else (with statistically valid exceptions for what amount to the unlucky, which is a constant through existence).
do we still have winners and losers, now that this is no longer about class, and the family members of the elite are just as vulnerable as those of the poor?
it's funny how they change their tune, isn't it?
the last virus that we dealt with in this region was nafta. and, from the carnage that was created, emerged a slogan, often stated by the bourgeois elite when challenged about holding to such a destructive policy: there are winners and there are losers.
but, what that means in context is that there are those who are wealthy and own property, and those who are poor and do not - a brutal truth in an economic system that routinely discards life for a few pennies on the dollar.
now, we have a virus that is deadly for the elderly and weak, and largely harmless for everybody else (with statistically valid exceptions for what amount to the unlucky, which is a constant through existence).
do we still have winners and losers, now that this is no longer about class, and the family members of the elite are just as vulnerable as those of the poor?
it's funny how they change their tune, isn't it?
what do we do then?
what i told you in the first place - you lock the old folks up and throw away the key until christmas, and you let everybody else go about their daily lives.
it will kill some young and healthy people, but the universe isn't a safe space; viruses kill people. that's life.
in the end, we ended up locking up the old folks like we should have done from the start. it took thousands of dead geriatrics; we're slow learners, but we got the point, and we adjusted.
at this point, we're clearly going to need to do antibody testing before we're able to realize that what we did had almost no effect, and i'm not expecting a reversal of policy until it happens.
toronto and montreal are each going to have thousands of dead, as will detroit. whether vancouver goes down the same path or not will depend on how long they maintain their protective barrier around their seniors for...
what i told you in the first place - you lock the old folks up and throw away the key until christmas, and you let everybody else go about their daily lives.
it will kill some young and healthy people, but the universe isn't a safe space; viruses kill people. that's life.
in the end, we ended up locking up the old folks like we should have done from the start. it took thousands of dead geriatrics; we're slow learners, but we got the point, and we adjusted.
at this point, we're clearly going to need to do antibody testing before we're able to realize that what we did had almost no effect, and i'm not expecting a reversal of policy until it happens.
toronto and montreal are each going to have thousands of dead, as will detroit. whether vancouver goes down the same path or not will depend on how long they maintain their protective barrier around their seniors for...
what that means is that we should not expect that our earlier adoption of social distancing should lead to substantively different outcomes.
some areas like bc seem to be doing some different things right, and those different things seem to have been high impact. unlike quebec and ontario, bc acted swiftly to protect it's seniors facilities, partly because they were the first to experience an outbreak. there are other factors - bc has a lot of mountains and bodies of water that split the province into isolated regions and act as barriers to spread - but a combination of efficient policy with useful geography and what is no doubt just good luck seems to have worked to at least keep the thing away from the vulnerable. so, they reported 14 cases yesterday, which probably just means that they're keeping it away from the weak and the other 1000 new cases in bc just aren't sick enough to seek care. they need to be careful to keep their measures in place, but this should really be a model, at least in terms of how they're treating the elderly. but, isn't that what i said from the start?
if we had focused on the people that needed the attention like the planning documents suggested, and that only bonnie henry seems to have actually read, we'd be in the same situation bc is in - where there is no doubt still substantial spread, but very low mortality as a result of it.
some areas like bc seem to be doing some different things right, and those different things seem to have been high impact. unlike quebec and ontario, bc acted swiftly to protect it's seniors facilities, partly because they were the first to experience an outbreak. there are other factors - bc has a lot of mountains and bodies of water that split the province into isolated regions and act as barriers to spread - but a combination of efficient policy with useful geography and what is no doubt just good luck seems to have worked to at least keep the thing away from the vulnerable. so, they reported 14 cases yesterday, which probably just means that they're keeping it away from the weak and the other 1000 new cases in bc just aren't sick enough to seek care. they need to be careful to keep their measures in place, but this should really be a model, at least in terms of how they're treating the elderly. but, isn't that what i said from the start?
if we had focused on the people that needed the attention like the planning documents suggested, and that only bonnie henry seems to have actually read, we'd be in the same situation bc is in - where there is no doubt still substantial spread, but very low mortality as a result of it.
to recap, what's my analysis here, so far, for north america?
1) new york overestimated the death toll because it overestimated the effects that a slow adoption of social distancing would have, in combination with an overestimate of the mortality rate.
2) canada underestimated the death toll because it overestimated the effects that a rapid adoption of social distancing would have.
in both cases, the error is that the efficacy of social distancing was overestimated.
is that a proof? well, it wouldn't count as a proof in math, but it's pretty close to one in science - i've essentially falsified the theory as pseudo-science. it's crude, but you can tell me if you're convinced or not.
1) new york overestimated the death toll because it overestimated the effects that a slow adoption of social distancing would have, in combination with an overestimate of the mortality rate.
2) canada underestimated the death toll because it overestimated the effects that a rapid adoption of social distancing would have.
in both cases, the error is that the efficacy of social distancing was overestimated.
is that a proof? well, it wouldn't count as a proof in math, but it's pretty close to one in science - i've essentially falsified the theory as pseudo-science. it's crude, but you can tell me if you're convinced or not.
Thursday, April 16, 2020
so, the models in new york drastically overestimated the problem. the politicians are claiming they overestimated the transmission rate, and social distancing slowed the spread; i am skeptical of this claim, and would suggest instead that they overestimated the mortality rate.
in the end, the death toll is going to be equal to the infection rate multiplied by the mortality rate. so, if your death toll is lower than expected, you have three options to correct for:
1) you can hold your mortality rate steady and decrease your infection rate, which is what the government is pushing.
2) you can hold your infection rate steady and decrease your mortality rate, which i suggest is closer to the truth.
3) you can decrease both factors by differing amounts, which is going to inevitably be reality, but isn't an idea that is being advocated by anybody right now. so, it could be that social distancing is working a little bit and the virus is a little bit less deadly than expected. some separation will eventually be required; right now, the debate is which factor is dominant.
we've seen the opposite in canada, but i should caution that the data is national while the reality is local. why then did the models in canada underestimate the number of deaths?
we could just adjust our reasoning, and this would create some problems for people pushing this widely embraced and rapidly developing pseudo-science of social distancing, to the extent that it doesn't turn into a process of collectivist masochism (if that isn't a redundancy).
then, it would follow that one way to explain why canada underestimated the death toll is because it underestimated the transmission rate, and social distancing did not reduce the spread - or wasn't followed. you'd have to conclude, then, that new york actually managed to do more social distancing, and more effectively than canada....despite the fact that it's actually the baseline used to calculate the worst case scenario. that's not quite a contradiction, but it's certainly inconsistent, and the results are definitely incoherent. if you base your models on the assumption that new york is what happens when no social distancing happens at all, and then new york beats your prediction due to overperforming you on metrics of social distancing, all you've managed to produce is nonsense. which is what i said from the start. so, if we're going to conclude that the numbers are wrong because we underestimated the transmission rate, we should really be deducing that social distancing was less effective in reducing the spread than the modelers initially guessed it might be - not that we're not doing it right. and, this is consistent with my analysis of new york.
the second option would be to argue that they underestimated the mortality rate, which would not be consistent with data we have elsewhere in the world. this is so unlikely that i'm going to discard it offhand.
so, then we're left to conclude that the case study comparison of state data in new york (where they were late to act, and overestimated the death count) and federal data in canada (where they reacted very early and then underestimated the death count) actually produces a consistency - in both cases, the modeling seems to have overestimated the effects (or lack thereof) of social distancing. it's actually pretty much perfectly consistent.
oddly, the provincial governments also seem to have largely overestimated rather than underestimated the toll, so it's starting to look like my analysis of ontario is going to be very similar to my analysis of new york. and, this difference is reflected in the public policy, as well.
trudeau has a knack for knowing the right things to say to persuade secularists to vote for him, but he also has a long history of falling head over heels into complete pseudo-science. this was a big issue under stephen harper, who muzzled scientists and tried to reorganize (perhaps succeeded in reorganizing) the research potential of the state as a propaganda tool of the oil industry. they ran heavily on this point; they were supposed to bring back science to the canadian government, to reintroduce the centrality of evidence-based decision making.
this is what we actually got, instead:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/trudeaus-deliverology-on-the-verge-of-becoming-a-punchline/article37023338/
...as it became increasingly clear that this guy is his mother's child, and he is more into yoga and vague concepts of "spirituality" than he is into science, reason and math.
so, it shouldn't surprise anybody that this is the government that bit the hardest, or that there might be people inside of this government that are legitimately shattered by the failure of the policy.
they put everything on this - the prime minister, the government, the party and maybe even the entire society. in the short run, they're more likely to blame it on us for being stupid than they are to admit they were wrong, despite that position having absolutely no empirical support. whatever they do, you can be sure that it will be full of copious attempts to uphold their point and plead that we stay the course. but, in canada, they can't do what cuomo is doing - because the numbers are worse than predicted.
i don't know what it's going to take for them to admit they were wrong, and this isn't working.
i just hope that, in the end, we all realize that there have been people like me pointing to actual science since day one. the worst thing that can come out of this is a retreat from science, or a return to religious backwardsness.
in the end, the death toll is going to be equal to the infection rate multiplied by the mortality rate. so, if your death toll is lower than expected, you have three options to correct for:
1) you can hold your mortality rate steady and decrease your infection rate, which is what the government is pushing.
2) you can hold your infection rate steady and decrease your mortality rate, which i suggest is closer to the truth.
3) you can decrease both factors by differing amounts, which is going to inevitably be reality, but isn't an idea that is being advocated by anybody right now. so, it could be that social distancing is working a little bit and the virus is a little bit less deadly than expected. some separation will eventually be required; right now, the debate is which factor is dominant.
we've seen the opposite in canada, but i should caution that the data is national while the reality is local. why then did the models in canada underestimate the number of deaths?
we could just adjust our reasoning, and this would create some problems for people pushing this widely embraced and rapidly developing pseudo-science of social distancing, to the extent that it doesn't turn into a process of collectivist masochism (if that isn't a redundancy).
then, it would follow that one way to explain why canada underestimated the death toll is because it underestimated the transmission rate, and social distancing did not reduce the spread - or wasn't followed. you'd have to conclude, then, that new york actually managed to do more social distancing, and more effectively than canada....despite the fact that it's actually the baseline used to calculate the worst case scenario. that's not quite a contradiction, but it's certainly inconsistent, and the results are definitely incoherent. if you base your models on the assumption that new york is what happens when no social distancing happens at all, and then new york beats your prediction due to overperforming you on metrics of social distancing, all you've managed to produce is nonsense. which is what i said from the start. so, if we're going to conclude that the numbers are wrong because we underestimated the transmission rate, we should really be deducing that social distancing was less effective in reducing the spread than the modelers initially guessed it might be - not that we're not doing it right. and, this is consistent with my analysis of new york.
the second option would be to argue that they underestimated the mortality rate, which would not be consistent with data we have elsewhere in the world. this is so unlikely that i'm going to discard it offhand.
so, then we're left to conclude that the case study comparison of state data in new york (where they were late to act, and overestimated the death count) and federal data in canada (where they reacted very early and then underestimated the death count) actually produces a consistency - in both cases, the modeling seems to have overestimated the effects (or lack thereof) of social distancing. it's actually pretty much perfectly consistent.
oddly, the provincial governments also seem to have largely overestimated rather than underestimated the toll, so it's starting to look like my analysis of ontario is going to be very similar to my analysis of new york. and, this difference is reflected in the public policy, as well.
trudeau has a knack for knowing the right things to say to persuade secularists to vote for him, but he also has a long history of falling head over heels into complete pseudo-science. this was a big issue under stephen harper, who muzzled scientists and tried to reorganize (perhaps succeeded in reorganizing) the research potential of the state as a propaganda tool of the oil industry. they ran heavily on this point; they were supposed to bring back science to the canadian government, to reintroduce the centrality of evidence-based decision making.
this is what we actually got, instead:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/trudeaus-deliverology-on-the-verge-of-becoming-a-punchline/article37023338/
...as it became increasingly clear that this guy is his mother's child, and he is more into yoga and vague concepts of "spirituality" than he is into science, reason and math.
so, it shouldn't surprise anybody that this is the government that bit the hardest, or that there might be people inside of this government that are legitimately shattered by the failure of the policy.
they put everything on this - the prime minister, the government, the party and maybe even the entire society. in the short run, they're more likely to blame it on us for being stupid than they are to admit they were wrong, despite that position having absolutely no empirical support. whatever they do, you can be sure that it will be full of copious attempts to uphold their point and plead that we stay the course. but, in canada, they can't do what cuomo is doing - because the numbers are worse than predicted.
i don't know what it's going to take for them to admit they were wrong, and this isn't working.
i just hope that, in the end, we all realize that there have been people like me pointing to actual science since day one. the worst thing that can come out of this is a retreat from science, or a return to religious backwardsness.
who should biden pick as vp?
he says he wants to pick a black woman to "reward their loyalty", which to me is conceptually weird. if he picks a kamala harris or a stacey abrams, would random black women across the country feel as though they were being rewarded? why, exactly? neither candidate is particularly in tune with the issues that most affect black voters, with the exception of the issue of just being black.
regardless, running for president isn't like working in a coffee shop, and this isn't the time for black voters to decide they're going to get their 6th cup for free (especially given that the 2008 election already happened). in order to win, he needs to focus on winning mostly white states in the midwest...
elizabeth warren has demonstrated rather clearly that she's not going to pull very much of the vote. in a move in a very different direction than warren would take, biden has been doing townhalls with mark zuckerberg recently; you'll recall that the central plank in warren's platform was to destroy the internet, and zuckerberg was public enemy number one, for her. she was campaigning directly against him. so, biden doesn't appear to have her on his short list, and i would agree with people that are arguing that she would not be likely to help him win in any substantive way - she might even end up repelling voters that would otherwise lean in his direction, due to whatever hangover from hillary clinton.
likewise, i would strenuously avoid kamala harris, who demonstrated through the course of the process that she's neither a serious thinker nor a competent manager. she's like a black sarah palin. but, this is the outcome i'm more worried about. she could quite foreseeably cost him the election.
stacey abrams is also on the list, and i'm not entirely sure why, given that she's unlikely to even carry her own state. generally, you have to win a few elections before you get promoted to vp - you might want to even be a two-term governor. she may hinder biden less than kamala harris or elizabeth warren, but she won't help him where he needs to win.
so, if you're looking through black female candidates in the upper midwest, who stands out? the mayor in chicago?
he really shouldn't have boxed himself in like that. but, he may have conceded the process the moment he did it - don't be surprised if he does pick a black southerner, and then basically spends the next six months repeating the mistakes of bernie sanders, which were also the mistakes of hillary clinton, in ceding all of the actually competitive states, while trying to win states he has no chance in.
i don't have a suggestion.
but, avoid kamala harris. she's toxic.
he says he wants to pick a black woman to "reward their loyalty", which to me is conceptually weird. if he picks a kamala harris or a stacey abrams, would random black women across the country feel as though they were being rewarded? why, exactly? neither candidate is particularly in tune with the issues that most affect black voters, with the exception of the issue of just being black.
regardless, running for president isn't like working in a coffee shop, and this isn't the time for black voters to decide they're going to get their 6th cup for free (especially given that the 2008 election already happened). in order to win, he needs to focus on winning mostly white states in the midwest...
elizabeth warren has demonstrated rather clearly that she's not going to pull very much of the vote. in a move in a very different direction than warren would take, biden has been doing townhalls with mark zuckerberg recently; you'll recall that the central plank in warren's platform was to destroy the internet, and zuckerberg was public enemy number one, for her. she was campaigning directly against him. so, biden doesn't appear to have her on his short list, and i would agree with people that are arguing that she would not be likely to help him win in any substantive way - she might even end up repelling voters that would otherwise lean in his direction, due to whatever hangover from hillary clinton.
likewise, i would strenuously avoid kamala harris, who demonstrated through the course of the process that she's neither a serious thinker nor a competent manager. she's like a black sarah palin. but, this is the outcome i'm more worried about. she could quite foreseeably cost him the election.
stacey abrams is also on the list, and i'm not entirely sure why, given that she's unlikely to even carry her own state. generally, you have to win a few elections before you get promoted to vp - you might want to even be a two-term governor. she may hinder biden less than kamala harris or elizabeth warren, but she won't help him where he needs to win.
so, if you're looking through black female candidates in the upper midwest, who stands out? the mayor in chicago?
he really shouldn't have boxed himself in like that. but, he may have conceded the process the moment he did it - don't be surprised if he does pick a black southerner, and then basically spends the next six months repeating the mistakes of bernie sanders, which were also the mistakes of hillary clinton, in ceding all of the actually competitive states, while trying to win states he has no chance in.
i don't have a suggestion.
but, avoid kamala harris. she's toxic.
i haven't completely given up on teaching, i just deprioritized it. there were so many other things that were so much more important to me.
and, i actually kind of think that teachers should be older people, not young people. i can understand the argument for young teachers in elementary school, because it's not that different from babysitting, and too wide of a generational gap can be a big problem with young kids. but, certainly once you get to high school and older, i'd rather see a systemic focus on telling young teachers to wait in line, perhaps by increasing the educational requirements. there's something kind of backwards about letting people in their 30s and 40s teach at high schools.
if i ever do this, i'm going to actually find myself preferring to teach adults. i don't have a lot of patience with kids, actually; i'd rather deal with grown-ups. and, i suspect there's probably a demand for that.
but, i'm more interested in my art.
right now, i need to eat.
and, i actually kind of think that teachers should be older people, not young people. i can understand the argument for young teachers in elementary school, because it's not that different from babysitting, and too wide of a generational gap can be a big problem with young kids. but, certainly once you get to high school and older, i'd rather see a systemic focus on telling young teachers to wait in line, perhaps by increasing the educational requirements. there's something kind of backwards about letting people in their 30s and 40s teach at high schools.
if i ever do this, i'm going to actually find myself preferring to teach adults. i don't have a lot of patience with kids, actually; i'd rather deal with grown-ups. and, i suspect there's probably a demand for that.
but, i'm more interested in my art.
right now, i need to eat.
"you can't construct a peak from a plateau, that's just making thing up."
no.
it's what statisticians do - they look at messy raw data and they analyze it for errors and biases to try to reconstruct a reflection of reality from it.
the best way to explain this to a non-technical but educated audience is actually to bring in the allegory of the cave - the data is really shadows on the wall, and what we're tasked with is a way to figure out what's going on by analyzing those shadows.
if you insist otherwise - that the data is reality, and analysis is just making things up - then you are essentially the prisoner shackled to the wall, that can't see things for what they really are.
no.
it's what statisticians do - they look at messy raw data and they analyze it for errors and biases to try to reconstruct a reflection of reality from it.
the best way to explain this to a non-technical but educated audience is actually to bring in the allegory of the cave - the data is really shadows on the wall, and what we're tasked with is a way to figure out what's going on by analyzing those shadows.
if you insist otherwise - that the data is reality, and analysis is just making things up - then you are essentially the prisoner shackled to the wall, that can't see things for what they really are.
this is a useful little find for chromebook purposes and how i made those images on a computer without a hard drive.
https://jspaint.app/
https://jspaint.app/
if the numbers in new york crash over the next week (and, again - easter is a complicating factor. but, we're starting to get enough data in to understand the fluctuations as more than random.), what we're going to have in front of us is a steep incline, followed by a bumpy and short plateau, and then a steep decrease.
from a data analytical perspective, this is the most confusing outcome possible, because we're left with the problem of trying to reconstruct a peak that might or might not be there.
factors to consider include:
- delayed reporting (so, somebody dying on a monday but not being reported until the wednesday, for example)
- the effects of ventilator systems on essentially postponing death by a few days
- just flat out unreported deaths
and, i would need actual, real data in order to do actual, meaningful work in order to get a real handle on that - that's too subtle to eyeball from some bar graphs.
from a data analytical perspective, this is the most confusing outcome possible, because we're left with the problem of trying to reconstruct a peak that might or might not be there.
factors to consider include:
- delayed reporting (so, somebody dying on a monday but not being reported until the wednesday, for example)
- the effects of ventilator systems on essentially postponing death by a few days
- just flat out unreported deaths
and, i would need actual, real data in order to do actual, meaningful work in order to get a real handle on that - that's too subtle to eyeball from some bar graphs.
it will be interesting to see how the msm pivots all of their "covid-19 lab theory debunked !!!1!!!11!" articles, once rachel maddow starts broadcasting anti-chinese propaganda on a nightly basis.
do i think they created this in a lab? well, there wasn't any evidence of this, until the president started pointing fingers, thereby incriminating himself. but, the insistence on trying to write this off without investigating it, despite it being an entirely plausible hypothesis, did raise some eyebrows with me from the start. why were they so insistent on shutting that down?
if this is a bioweapon then:
1) it isn't a very useful one
2) releasing it seems to have backfired and the united states is currently experiencing incredible blowback from it.
but, when was the last time the united states did something that didn't backfire? it was back when joe friday and maxwell smart were on tv. really. before that, even. so, maybe it's blowback, but that's not really a convincing argument against it.
again: i don't currently have any reason to think this was an engineered virus.
...except the people trying very hard to stop me from wondering about it, and the apparent increasing attempt to blame it on china, instead.
Friday, February 28, 2020
i don't understand what's going on with the coronavirus at this point in time, and i haven't presented a hypothesis.
i have pointed out that the reaction seems to be unjustified, given the weakness of the virus. this is really just a variant of the flu.
or so they tell us, anyways. i can hypothesize about actors and motives, but i can't make up data. the data says this is not that scary. but, then, why are they doing this?
so, what i've drawn attention to is that contradiction - they tell us this thing has a 0.5% mortality rate, and then they treat it like it's ebola. they, here, is not the media, it's not "liberal" politicians, but it's rather the global authorities that you expect to operate outside of the alarmism, and actually adhere to the science.
so, when these agencies tell you that this disease is not very dangerous, and then act like it's a serious threat to global health, it makes you wonder what's actually happening.
are they hiding a deeper death toll in order to prevent mass panic? that would explain why they tell us one thing, and act as though another is true.
or, is there some kind of power grab going on behind the scenes?
i don't know....
i know there's a contradiction.
we'll have to see how this plays out, but it really has to be one or the other - either the death toll is far greater than is claimed, or this is going to be used as an excuse to take away people's rights.
again: i could shrug it off if it was a politician overreacting. but, these are the global health authorities, and something is not adding up.
do i think they created this in a lab? well, there wasn't any evidence of this, until the president started pointing fingers, thereby incriminating himself. but, the insistence on trying to write this off without investigating it, despite it being an entirely plausible hypothesis, did raise some eyebrows with me from the start. why were they so insistent on shutting that down?
if this is a bioweapon then:
1) it isn't a very useful one
2) releasing it seems to have backfired and the united states is currently experiencing incredible blowback from it.
but, when was the last time the united states did something that didn't backfire? it was back when joe friday and maxwell smart were on tv. really. before that, even. so, maybe it's blowback, but that's not really a convincing argument against it.
again: i don't currently have any reason to think this was an engineered virus.
...except the people trying very hard to stop me from wondering about it, and the apparent increasing attempt to blame it on china, instead.
Friday, February 28, 2020
i don't understand what's going on with the coronavirus at this point in time, and i haven't presented a hypothesis.
i have pointed out that the reaction seems to be unjustified, given the weakness of the virus. this is really just a variant of the flu.
or so they tell us, anyways. i can hypothesize about actors and motives, but i can't make up data. the data says this is not that scary. but, then, why are they doing this?
so, what i've drawn attention to is that contradiction - they tell us this thing has a 0.5% mortality rate, and then they treat it like it's ebola. they, here, is not the media, it's not "liberal" politicians, but it's rather the global authorities that you expect to operate outside of the alarmism, and actually adhere to the science.
so, when these agencies tell you that this disease is not very dangerous, and then act like it's a serious threat to global health, it makes you wonder what's actually happening.
are they hiding a deeper death toll in order to prevent mass panic? that would explain why they tell us one thing, and act as though another is true.
or, is there some kind of power grab going on behind the scenes?
i don't know....
i know there's a contradiction.
we'll have to see how this plays out, but it really has to be one or the other - either the death toll is far greater than is claimed, or this is going to be used as an excuse to take away people's rights.
again: i could shrug it off if it was a politician overreacting. but, these are the global health authorities, and something is not adding up.
15:02
the data they've given us says that chances are that you'll catch this thing and have it pass without even knowing you have it...
but, again - why is the who freaking out, then?
they don't have elections to worry about. they're not pandering to their base. they're supposed to be beyond all that shit.
we'll see what happens...
like, apparently the country with the second highest death toll is iran.
that's just kind of a curious fact.
so, did they create this thing in a lab?
they could have. if they did, they'd probably let it loose in iran first.
but, you'd think they'd be a little more efficient.
so, i'm going to classify that claim as highly doubtful. but, anybody trying to browbeat you with the idea that that's "debunked" or "wrong" should be treated as a propagandist - it's entirely plausible, in principle.
if a new virus shows up in china and starts killing chinese people, is it more likely that it was created by the chinese or by their enemies?
if the chinese were going to create viruses and let them loose, you'd expect them to let them loose here, right?
so, who is the most likely suspect, if we take the premise seriously? it would be the americans, of course.
which is making the infection rate in iran seem curious.
but, i still think this idea is dubious, because the virus is just too weak for that. it might save the chinese some money on public health care. it's hardly weapons-grade material...
but, again - why is the who freaking out, then?
they don't have elections to worry about. they're not pandering to their base. they're supposed to be beyond all that shit.
we'll see what happens...
at 15:12
that's just kind of a curious fact.
at 15:34
they could have. if they did, they'd probably let it loose in iran first.
but, you'd think they'd be a little more efficient.
so, i'm going to classify that claim as highly doubtful. but, anybody trying to browbeat you with the idea that that's "debunked" or "wrong" should be treated as a propagandist - it's entirely plausible, in principle.
at 15:36
let's kind of think this through, though.
if a new virus shows up in china and starts killing chinese people, is it more likely that it was created by the chinese or by their enemies?
if the chinese were going to create viruses and let them loose, you'd expect them to let them loose here, right?
so, who is the most likely suspect, if we take the premise seriously? it would be the americans, of course.
which is making the infection rate in iran seem curious.
but, i still think this idea is dubious, because the virus is just too weak for that. it might save the chinese some money on public health care. it's hardly weapons-grade material...
at 15:40
so, i got the groceries put away this morning, at least, which is a process of putting fruit into tupperware containers. i got halfway through the dishes, even made some pasta. i fell asleep around 9:30-ish.
so, that was a longer day, and i was able to rebound with only a few hours of sleep.
i'm going to make a bowl of fruit and eat the pasta i made yesterday, now. or, at least, about a third of it.
and, i can get to cleaning after that.
and, then, get to doing some work to close down the month.
so, that was a longer day, and i was able to rebound with only a few hours of sleep.
i'm going to make a bowl of fruit and eat the pasta i made yesterday, now. or, at least, about a third of it.
and, i can get to cleaning after that.
and, then, get to doing some work to close down the month.
again - if we end up dragging this out for the next five years, it's just an admission of guilt on behalf of the deep state, and their crony donald trump.
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/the-u-s-is-trying-to-find-out-if-the-coronavirus-came-from-a-wuhan-lab
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/the-u-s-is-trying-to-find-out-if-the-coronavirus-came-from-a-wuhan-lab
the reason i'm focusing on new york is that it is the most direct way to understand what's actually happening with the virus and consequently make projections about what is going to happen in canada, soon - that is, whether people like cuomo come out of this looking more like joe friday.......or maxwell smart.
the big drop today is finally aligning the shape of the number of deaths per day with the other stats. this is a tentative step towards the ultimate shape being peakish rather than plateauish, which is suggestive (but, not definitive proof.) of this burning out due to widespread immunity rather than a decrease in infection rates. the other numbers have also declined enough to conclude that any spikes that occur over the next two-three weeks are the result of re-exposure over easter - if that is even possible, anymore, due to such widespread immunity (which does not mean it's safe to visit your nana, yet).
but, this is day-to-day.
if the deaths in the city end up peaking at around 10,000, that is going to suggest immunity levels between 60-70%, and an ultimate mortality rate of between 0.0005% and 0.0020% in my model - which is in line with a seasonal flu, even if the curve doesn't include the very young (and, so, is shifted towards the very old).
we'll see how this continues to work out over the next few days.
the numbers next week are going to be very interesting.
the big drop today is finally aligning the shape of the number of deaths per day with the other stats. this is a tentative step towards the ultimate shape being peakish rather than plateauish, which is suggestive (but, not definitive proof.) of this burning out due to widespread immunity rather than a decrease in infection rates. the other numbers have also declined enough to conclude that any spikes that occur over the next two-three weeks are the result of re-exposure over easter - if that is even possible, anymore, due to such widespread immunity (which does not mean it's safe to visit your nana, yet).
but, this is day-to-day.
if the deaths in the city end up peaking at around 10,000, that is going to suggest immunity levels between 60-70%, and an ultimate mortality rate of between 0.0005% and 0.0020% in my model - which is in line with a seasonal flu, even if the curve doesn't include the very young (and, so, is shifted towards the very old).
we'll see how this continues to work out over the next few days.
the numbers next week are going to be very interesting.
this water v salt delivery mechanism is something that is still being studied.
i used the term "water soluble" and that might be a little misleading. you do want the chemical to eventually pass through the membrane into the cell. but, the basic difference between the hemihydrate (the generic) and the brand name is that the hemihydrate attaches the estrogen to a water molecule in the pill, and essentially releases the estrogen in the presence of water, whereas the brand name attaches the estrogen to a salt molecule, which only releases the estrogen when it gets to the liver, and sort of protects it from the gastric acid.
so, when you take a hemihydrate, it just dissolves in your stomach, because it doesn't have that ester to protect it from the acid - it just dissolves on contact with water. instead, you need to take it under your tongue, where it's released directly into your bloodstream. this produces a peak in blood concentration, followed by a fast decline.
when you take the brand name, the estrogen-ester compound actually absorbs into your blood, to be broken down by your liver - and will then actually even return to your liver for future storage and release. this leads to lower but more stable levels of blood concentration.
the ideal, of course, would be for high and stable levels of blood concentration, but that is hard with this chemical. you could conceivably take massive injections every couple of days, but again - that feels like a drug addiction. i don't want to do that...and i don't want needle marks on my arms. yuck.
i've clearly prioritized having stable amounts that are a little lower over having these spikes. and, let's understand what estrogen is and what these spikes can do - we're talking about crying fits, irrational outbursts, etc. it's pms, basically. every six hours. i have a sneaking suspicion that this is a part of the reason suicide rates are so high - the way this seems to be often prescribed is actually quite reckless.
cis-women can get around this by taking the pill, which is basically what i'm doing. but, let me ask all the cis-women out there - how long do you think you'd survive if your estrogen peaked and fell 2, 3, 4 times a day? that would be hell, right? that is actually what so many of these transgirls are doing to themselves, and it doesn't increase the efficacy, either.
so, the difference is that the generic should be taken under your tongue and produces a steep spike followed by a sharp decline, while the brand name should be taken orally and produces a more stable level over longer periods.
my estrogen blood tests have been sufficient. what my doctor told me, verbatim, was to not change what i'm doing, because the concentrations were quite high. i've boosted dosage twice in the last five years. how many more times? well, i've been more concerned about offloading the effects of the cyproterone acetate on my liver, which i'd like to do by removing my testicles. but, if this was hard before, it's even harder now - that's an elective surgery, and there's going to be a backlog when the virus is over.
but, i just spent some time taking a closer look at numbers coming from studies done over the last two years or so (that is, updated data), and while the general difference appears to continue to be upheld, clarification on the difference in reuptake is making me wonder if i shouldn't be optimizing this by mixing it up.
i currently take one 2 mg pill of estrace four times a day, that is every six hours (obviously, i'm rarely exactly on time). i should get about 50 pg/ml from each one after six hours, and it should stay above 35 pg/ml for almost two days. that means that at midnight every day, i should have about 200 pg/ml from the four pills i took over the previous day, and another 100+ from the pills i took the day before that, for average levels in the high 200s or low 300s, which is what i've been tested at - and is statistically higher than almost all cis-women, even if it cuts out the peaks in the cycle, which are much higher.
if i were to take it under my tongue, i'd jump up to 5-600 pg/ml as quickly as within five minutes, but it would crash within an hour. so, i'd end up with a kind of 45 minute estrogen high, followed by a long crash that is going to level me off by the time it's time to take another one. i'd have to do that every six hours which would actually probably be very difficult, emotionally.
so, i want to be clear that i want to avoid that.
but, a lot of my perception around the downside of the sublingual method was the steepness of the curve. the data i'd seen up to this point suggested you'd be at almost nothing after 6 hours, so you'd be constantly ramping up and down. while the ramp up is reflected in the more recent data, it also suggests a bigger base level, so that you're not falling all the way to zero. i even found some studies that suggest that sublingual application may decay at the same rate as metabolic use.
i still don't want my estrogen spiking every six hours. so, i still need the brand name drugs. and, the data does seem to continue to uphold the previous conclusion that average levels are higher with oral administration, which is what i actually want.
but, i'm considering experimenting with sporadic sublingual applications, just to see what happens. maybe, before i go to a concert, for example.
it's thursday, april 16th. let's see if i can remind myself to try it sublingually on thursdays at noon for the next month and see what happens.
it also seems to be that they've recently added prometrium to the formulary, which is good news. i started off on prometrium, but moved to medroxy because it was covered. i ultimately wasn't happy with the outcome of this, but i had to weight the cost-benefit analysis, and the reality is that the drug was expensive. if i can get the prometrium covered, i'll jump to it in a second...
the appointment is in may.
does chris selley really think the concern is inflation, rather than profit?
i'm going to spin the question around: how do we eliminate our reliance on foreign labour in food production? that's not sustainable, but in some sense it's continuity. has anybody written the report that starts with handing out free (often already occupied.) land to immigrants in the 1800s and ends with tfws, as a narrative on the country's continual reliance on foreign labour for food production?
or the slow collapse of the family farm into these massive corporate conglomerations that have the nerve to import slaves and then send them back?
i've been arguing for a very long time that this system is fundamentally incompatible with a free society - it's just a more humane type of slavery, by another name. i know - capitalism is, in general. maybe i'm the one that even told you that. but, this is ethnic. if capitalism in general is barely tolerable, it's these tfws that are across the line of acceptability, of decency and of dignity. this should simply not exist at all.
so, how do you just shut this terrible system down altogether?
i don't actually want to bring back the family farm. maybe we could have avoided losing it, but maybe it's technological determinism - maybe it was inevitable. maybe. but, right now, trying to move back to family farming would be on par with some kind of communist experiment. a communist experiment, you say? what could go wrong?
i'm in strong support of increasing automation in farming, actually. i'd like to see more indoor growing, and less carbon produced by transportation. my carbon footprint is so low you can't even trip over it, but i do have one guilty habit - it's not air travel, exactly (i'd actually rather take the bus.), but the reliance on fruit in my diet, much of which is imported from the southern united states, or mexico. i want to be able to buy strawberries, raspberries, blueberries, bananas, tomatoes, kiwis, pineapple and whatever other fruit you can think of, as well as green peppers, which are the only technical vegetable that i buy regularly, at all times of year, in this country, with a minimal travel footprint. you could probably grow all of these things in leamington.
but, i don't see any particular reason why you actually need humans to do any of this. you may claim that fruit must be picked, but i'll tell you, actually - i'm perfectly happy buying a literal bushel of strawberries out of a bin if it took three hours to transit, instead of sitting three weeks in a plastic container designed to maximize it's shelf-life. you don't have to lay the strawberries down nicely on top of each other in that plastic container. i don't even need the packaging at all; we'd all be better off without it, really. so, this is kind of a weak concern. there's ways around it, even if it means changing how we package and distribute our food, which we need to be looking at ways to do, anyways.
it's never really been cost effective to do this, previously.
is it cost effective now? if not now, when?
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/chris-selley-ottawas-plan-for-quarantining-temporary-foreign-workers-is-more-bizarre-than-comforting
i'm going to spin the question around: how do we eliminate our reliance on foreign labour in food production? that's not sustainable, but in some sense it's continuity. has anybody written the report that starts with handing out free (often already occupied.) land to immigrants in the 1800s and ends with tfws, as a narrative on the country's continual reliance on foreign labour for food production?
or the slow collapse of the family farm into these massive corporate conglomerations that have the nerve to import slaves and then send them back?
i've been arguing for a very long time that this system is fundamentally incompatible with a free society - it's just a more humane type of slavery, by another name. i know - capitalism is, in general. maybe i'm the one that even told you that. but, this is ethnic. if capitalism in general is barely tolerable, it's these tfws that are across the line of acceptability, of decency and of dignity. this should simply not exist at all.
so, how do you just shut this terrible system down altogether?
i don't actually want to bring back the family farm. maybe we could have avoided losing it, but maybe it's technological determinism - maybe it was inevitable. maybe. but, right now, trying to move back to family farming would be on par with some kind of communist experiment. a communist experiment, you say? what could go wrong?
i'm in strong support of increasing automation in farming, actually. i'd like to see more indoor growing, and less carbon produced by transportation. my carbon footprint is so low you can't even trip over it, but i do have one guilty habit - it's not air travel, exactly (i'd actually rather take the bus.), but the reliance on fruit in my diet, much of which is imported from the southern united states, or mexico. i want to be able to buy strawberries, raspberries, blueberries, bananas, tomatoes, kiwis, pineapple and whatever other fruit you can think of, as well as green peppers, which are the only technical vegetable that i buy regularly, at all times of year, in this country, with a minimal travel footprint. you could probably grow all of these things in leamington.
but, i don't see any particular reason why you actually need humans to do any of this. you may claim that fruit must be picked, but i'll tell you, actually - i'm perfectly happy buying a literal bushel of strawberries out of a bin if it took three hours to transit, instead of sitting three weeks in a plastic container designed to maximize it's shelf-life. you don't have to lay the strawberries down nicely on top of each other in that plastic container. i don't even need the packaging at all; we'd all be better off without it, really. so, this is kind of a weak concern. there's ways around it, even if it means changing how we package and distribute our food, which we need to be looking at ways to do, anyways.
it's never really been cost effective to do this, previously.
is it cost effective now? if not now, when?
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/chris-selley-ottawas-plan-for-quarantining-temporary-foreign-workers-is-more-bizarre-than-comforting
the fact is that there's no science behind the border closure at all. this is just politics - and it's bad politics, the politics of nationalism, of division and of fear.
the messaging from trudeau is that he wants to take an insular, right-wing approach to this and put up more and more borders to keep us more and more walled off (or in.), apparently under pressure from the evan solomons of the world, which he seems to think produce compelling arguments.
but, the science was always clear - this hinders, it does not help.
it doesn't look like much is going to be open in michigan for a while, so a re-opened border actually probably doesn't help me much, especially not now since i've spent the month's money on food, and pot. but, i'd support reopening the border asap, regardless - even it it's only one-way.
https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/restrictions-at-canada-u-s-border-could-soon-be-eased-trump-suggests
the messaging from trudeau is that he wants to take an insular, right-wing approach to this and put up more and more borders to keep us more and more walled off (or in.), apparently under pressure from the evan solomons of the world, which he seems to think produce compelling arguments.
but, the science was always clear - this hinders, it does not help.
it doesn't look like much is going to be open in michigan for a while, so a re-opened border actually probably doesn't help me much, especially not now since i've spent the month's money on food, and pot. but, i'd support reopening the border asap, regardless - even it it's only one-way.
https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/restrictions-at-canada-u-s-border-could-soon-be-eased-trump-suggests
the generics seem to mostly come in from india.
so, up here in canada, where many of the drug stores are run by recent indian emigrants, it makes sense to think that somebody is getting a deal, if they know somebody that knows somebody, in getting supply in at a very low rate - which can then be marked starkly up.
and, they don't care - it's just business.
so, up here in canada, where many of the drug stores are run by recent indian emigrants, it makes sense to think that somebody is getting a deal, if they know somebody that knows somebody, in getting supply in at a very low rate - which can then be marked starkly up.
and, they don't care - it's just business.
i'm not even actually arguing that this pharmacist is wrong.
what i'm arguing is that this pharmacist doesn't seem to have much interest in anything besides maximizing profit. she seems to be pushing the generics because she'll make more money that way, not due to any kind of scientific argument, one way or the other.
i doubt she even knows the difference, let alone cares about the efficacy of the treatment.
and, you have to always remember this when you're dealing with healthcare professionals - we live in a capitalist society, which means the number one priority is always profit.
what i'm arguing is that this pharmacist doesn't seem to have much interest in anything besides maximizing profit. she seems to be pushing the generics because she'll make more money that way, not due to any kind of scientific argument, one way or the other.
i doubt she even knows the difference, let alone cares about the efficacy of the treatment.
and, you have to always remember this when you're dealing with healthcare professionals - we live in a capitalist society, which means the number one priority is always profit.
don't forget to ignore pelosi while you're at it.
https://www.newsweek.com/pelosi-urges-americans-ignore-trump-listen-scientists-says-president-caused-unnecessary-deaths-1497922
https://www.newsweek.com/pelosi-urges-americans-ignore-trump-listen-scientists-says-president-caused-unnecessary-deaths-1497922
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)