51–60 of 76 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Keeping distance to people under a virus pandemic is pretty much self explained. "In fact, the only real purpose the guidance served was as a justification to suppress Americans’ free speech" Says everything about that article.
Self explained but not scientifically backed. Unless you can prove otherwise to the NIH legal council who testified under oath?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not every comment is a disagreement. You should read the link though. It’s two issues. Fact checkers are needed because of misinformation, “official sources” are spreading their own misinformation.
The Federalist isn't an official source, just a US ultra conservative rag putting spin on early reasonable statements about airbourne transmission. That whole selective quoting out of context thing is a good example of misinformation though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If there's any one thing that's causing a ""decline"" in the west, it's a tolerance for fraud and failure of big projects. You should google "Tofu-Dreg". Videos are especially entertaining. That money get's stolen. You just build it cheaper, get smeared by contractors, employ slaves, etc. Also, that "tolerance" of the West is surely worth a discussion, but comparing it to the ways a dictatorship enforces their laws…
In China there is tolerance for stealing as long as the job gets done. In the USA there is tolerance for the job not getting done, but not for stealing. I used to think our system was better, but it seems like China gets more done when they accept that there will be some losses to stealing.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/erzin-turkey-earthquake-b...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Federalist isn't an official source, just a US ultra conservative rag putting spin on early reasonable statements about airbourne transmission. That whole selective quoting out of context thing is a good example of misinformation though.
Sounds to me like you are attacking the source and not the content of the article. Are you saying that he lied under oath and that there was scientific reasoning behind the social distancing directive?
The 6ft (really the 2 meter) rule didn't come from nowhere and does have research backing -- a lot of it going back to the late 1800's. Here's a great overview of the research and history surrounding it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8504878/
Were it gets interesting is that this model of disease transmission doesn't fit covid (and might not fit anything really) but the take-away is the opposite -- that it's actually worse and that 6ft isn't enough. It would be easier to take the criticism leveled from the anti-social distancing crowd seriously if they were arguing for more distance and isolation, not less because that's just fixing wrong with different wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In China there is tolerance for stealing as long as the job gets done. In the USA there is tolerance for the job not getting done, but not for stealing. I used to think our system was better, but it seems like China gets more done when they accept that there will be some losses to stealing.
> the USA there is tolerance for the job not getting done, but not for stealing. Well, at that level it's playing loosely with semantics.. The money didn't get pocketed directly, but it got misused to pay a vast amount of costs and salaries with no result. As there are no results, the costs covered can be considered fictional. Which brings us back to bribery and stealing..
In China it would have been given to a friend of the bureaucrat in charge of giving out the contract, and they would know it would cost $40 million to build, but they can charge 80 and kickback 10 to the official. And more importantly, that friend would be damn sure to deliver a working website because he knows if he doesn't he will be investigated and punished for his stealing.
So while our system is less "corrupt" I guess, China gets a working website for $80 million when we get a broken one for 10x the cost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In China there is tolerance for stealing as long as the job gets done. In the USA there is tolerance for the job not getting done, but not for stealing. I used to think our system was better, but it seems like China gets more done when they accept that there will be some losses to stealing.
How does it help you if the job is "done" but causes a serious risk to lives? As I said: the stealing still happens. It's institutionalized in China. Your system IS better...or at least, for now. China is a dictatorship. Their way of handling "their" people is mad and dangerous. Even if you get things "done", you better be happy that you've been lucky to live in the US and not be afraid that your house may fall apart…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does it help you if the job is "done" but causes a serious risk to lives? As I said: the stealing still happens. It's institutionalized in China. Your system IS better...or at least, for now. China is a dictatorship. Their way of handling "their" people is mad and dangerous. Even if you get things "done", you better be happy that you've been lucky to live in the US and not be afraid that your house may fall apart…
Is poor construction that needs to be replaced soon worse than no construction at all? I guess that's debatable, but I would have to see actual statistics on Chinese construction failure rates vs the US rather than just a general assumption that China = low quality before it is even worth considering.
Replaced? I'm talking about parts of the infrastructure or housing literally falling apart and killing people. You should really follow my advice from above and google "tofu-dreg"
> but I would have to see actual statistics on Chinese construction failure rates
Just watch some of those videos where huge parts of infrastructure just collapse. Those things would have been major news for days in the whole western civilization if it'd happen in the US.
Also, how would you verify (any) statistics coming from China? A country where the whole market is based upon falsified statistics? I mean, that's nothing the regime is proud of. Why would they create true statistics about such failures?
It really does seem relatively easy to raise money in nuclear power for making a few dubious claims about factory production, reactor performance, and delivery timeline. In the industry, we call the 10 years it takes to realize that it's a lot harder than newcomers initially think, and that the people who tried in the past didn't fail merely because they were idiots who didn't think about economics: "getting run over…
Nuclear has actually been a really hard sell for the last few decades, which is why there are so few new plants coming online. Politicians are opportunistic and short term focused. So they'll back anything that makes them look good and important during the next election cycle. Nuclear projects take too long to complete for them to be interesting. There are some brownie points of course for approving one but it's not…