!opinion@lemmy.ml
!opinion
@lemmy.mlhttps://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/07/remote-work-wfh-debate-management/670482/
Companies need a new kind of middle manager: the synchronizer.
99% invisible recently released a good documentary about the CDC.
It shows the CDC to be (at least in some parts of its remit) incompetent. It's about the data-collection work the CDC was doing (or not doing) in 2020.
It reminds me of an article the CDC wrote in 2020, and my criticism of it at the time, for a different aspect of its work. So I post all three here together.
https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/pandemic-tracking-and-the-future-of-data/
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p0714-americans-to-wear-masks.html
The hairdressers anecdote. This is a dangerous study. There is no control group, so the results are 100% meaningless. That the CDC is taking this kind of story as evidence is damaging for its credibility.
That said, there is evidence that hairdressers should wear masks. It comes from the Wells curve and all the follow up research over many decades. If you are standing over someone, within 50cm-ish, then masks are an appropriate barrier measure.
That's the thing. People like CDC experts want to believe that the world is simple - mask usage is either good or bad. But the world is full of complexity, different types of situation where different behaviours are appropriate. They reject a complicated truth over a simple fiction.
(TBH even if there was a control group, you might need more info before you consider using that anecdote as evidence for anything - for example cloth face coverings and surgical masks are not the same thing! you'd need to categorise by how much time they are wearing each one, and other factors, then do some statistics ... then you know if the result is meaningful)
It's knowing the difference between a study and an anecdote/case-study.
I try not to be too dismissive. But in this case ... this is really disappointing. The CDC should do better than this, given its importance in global policy making. I, a total layman, can instantly find serious mistakes.
...and it's not just a mistake. it's a lack of curiosity. it's not being interested in what is true or false, as long as it supports your preconception. it's not being analytical at all, just following a dogma.
The CDC is revealing itself to be grossly incompetent in its role.
...even though its point about mask-wearing hairdressers is actually correct!
Under the rule of law, how can breaking the law be justified?
Firemen are allowed break any law (destroying property, traffic laws, tresspassing, even setting off bombs) in their line of work. But firemen have no special legal powers. So how can they do that, and why can't I?
Under the rule of law, the same law applies to everyone. In some countries the police are above the law (France), in others it is a monarch (UK), in others there is different law for different ethnicities (Israel). They do not have rule of law.
Under the rule of law, there are no automatic punishments handed out by robots or algorithms, extra-judicial punishments, or punishments without a crime (UK, UK, and UK). No ASBOs, fixed-penalties, or internment. When somebody commits a crime, he is called before a judge, who applies a punishment, in accordance with a written (unlike the UK) non-secret (unlike the USA) set of laws.
So one day a fireman gets called out to an emergency, and he breaks some laws. He could get called before a judge for that. But the judge will always excuse crimes reasonably done to tackle an emergency. If the fireman does the same thing when there is no emergency, he will be sentenced.
If somebody calls me to help with a fire, I can do the same. The crucial and only difference between him and me, is that I'm unlikely to ever be called out to a fire.
So firemen (and police, organ-transplant drivers, gas pipeline repairmen, etc) must all obey the law outside of an emergency or some other great exceptional need. Even with emergencies, they can expect to get called to court occasionally to justify their actions.
And if I need to break a window or a traffic light in my rush rush to get to a doctor (or even a fire) I can do that without fear of punishment.
This also means that police and airport staff have no need for special legal powers. For example in the UK, anybody an make an arrest. But non-police rarely do so, except in exceptional situations. It's nearly always better to call the police instead, not least because you'll later have to explain your actions in court. This is the example which should be made more general.
This is the only reasonable way for the law to be organised.
https://15.ai/
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking
There are several changes that need to be made to retail law, to stop predatory practices.
Firstly there is one thing that legislators usually do wrong:
The trick is in making law is to make the rules general and mild. For example a law banning cafés from giving away plastic toys is a defective law. The toy manufacturer will just sell them to a different type of business to be given away for free. And it says nothing about other kinds of plastic wastage (or non plastic wastage). And what if there is a good reason to be giving away toys, like birthday party - it should still be possible.
A good version of this law would be a general tax (not a ban) on plastic. So it becomes expensive to give away plastic toys, but also to do other wasteful things with plastic. Only when there is a real utility to using the plastic will businesses be willing to pay the tax.
Here are the changes needed right now.
Sneaky price changes/inflation (Targeted mostly at airlines) The seller must post a sign on the item one week before to one week after the price change. Just having to inform customers should dissuade sellers from most frivolous increases. Price changes cannot be more than 10% per week. Different customers cannot be charged different prices for the same thing on the same day. This also discourages charging very high prices for new products, because it will be difficult to reduce the price later.
Sales tax is a function of the weight of packaging in each material, per weight of product. Very high tax rates for non-recyclable packaging. Most territories already have variable VAT rates for different categories of items, so there's no technical challenge here.
Tax on the production or import of bad things like plastics, coal, wild animals, non-managed wood.
Encourage repairability Targeted at dishwashers, cars. Each package has a parts list. For each part, is it replaceable, are replacements currently being made by more than one manufacturer (not patented)?
Anything sold without a guarantee suffers a higher VAT. The rate reduces in function of the lifespan of the thing. So disposable and bad quality things become expensive.
The wholesale price must also be available. Markup of >100% not allowed. Not only does it let people see which things are over-priced by the retailer, but it lets retailers see what other ones are paying the wholesaler. So it has a deflationary effect on both the retail and wholesale markets.
Things sold in units of 1, 2 or 5 only. So 1000g bags of flour are permitted. But selling a 950g bag will incur a charge. These odd quantities are nearly always scams. There's not normally a good reason to sell 190g or 480g or something.
It's important to have a mechanism for people to report non-compliance, and for the fines on businesses to be public.
As always when raising a tax, it increases the cost of living, so something else must be changed to compensate, like UBI, the dole and minimum wage, income tax, the general VAT rate. This is another thing legislators usually neglect.
Each of these has negative consequences, but all of them can be easily fixed. But this post is already long enough.
Here is my idea.
During the famine grain was being hoarded my several estates, shipfulls of grain were being exported from Ireland. This exacerbated the famine.
But look at it this way - there was a bad harvest, which by itself would have caused an increase in grain prices. But it precipitated and attack on commodity prices by a coordinated group of investors. They bought grain and withheld it from the market, pumping prices. Then they sold small amounts at inflated prices.
The actions of Westminster, where they decided year after year not to intervene, is said to be because they didn't want to provoke shocks in food prices in England. If you take them at their word, it was a genocide - they worsened (or created) a famine (and consciously killed millions) for local political reasons.
But looked at the new way, they were facilitating an investment scheme by important wealthy businesses. By withholding food from Ireland (food which was mostly produced in Ireland) they were allowing the scheme to run for longer. This is typical in modern England, that the bankers' interest is the highest priority for government. Understanding that is key to understanding why the UK behaves as it does. And the famine lasted several years, only because of Westminster's actions.
Makes sense?
...unless they also condemn the USA for invading Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.
Most European territories serve the USA's geopolitical goals. Sanctions against Russia right now are part of that. There's nothing moral about it. It's simply a service to the USA for being in its sphere of influence. There is nothing, not a single shred of integrity in that.
If you find a territory which sanctions Russia for its crime, and also the USA for its crimes, you can recognise it as a real principled act.
The best strategic move for Ukraine is to surrender.
Many Ukrainian lives are lost and cities destroyed, in the service of this ancient USA vs Russia proxy war. The USA is sending them weapons so that Russians and Ukrainians can kill each other, and eventually weaken the Russian army.
It's stupid. If Ukraine surrenders, the USA will be forced to send in its own troops to fight back Russia.
The USA will not allow Russia to gain Ukraine. It's too strategically important. Their aircraft will appear over Ukrainian skies within hours of the surrender, and will decimate Russia.
Don't be used as pawns in someone else's war.