Jump to content

Ghjhero

Members
  • Content Count

    1,056
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Ghjhero


  1. 1 hour ago, karaddin said:

    I don't think it's fair to say their practices caused the outbreak, it's just the avenue this particular disease followed. Blaming it on them is just looking for someone to blame, when the reality is that this is an incredibly terrible and shitty thing that is always a risk from many different avenues.

    There are meat practices in the west that are only different in that they're what we're more familiar with. Factory farmed meat could easily wind up a vector for an illness outbreak and that's heavily used in the US, the UK thought making cows cannibals was a good idea and unleashed mad cow disease.

    Outbreaks will happen, what we have more control (as a society, not an individual) over is how we respond to them. And for all that it was self interested, China's eventual lock down bought the rest of the world time to prepare, the fact that we all squandered that time is on us and our leaders. They're a country of over 1.3 billion people who don't deserve to be treated, or damned, as a collective. I have no love for their government, but that's not the people. Now is the time to focus on our shared humanity.

    I think there’s definitely an element of chance and bad luck to this, but this isn’t the first time a disease has emerged from China’s wet markets. When the first SARS cases arose in 2003 they were traded back to a wet market in Guangzhou. And now of course we have the whole mess in Wuhan and the bat/pangolin origin story we all know. There’s a clear pattern at play here. Regulation of these markets isn’t all that strict, it’s not as if the FDA is walking around these and it’s pretty easy to set up shop. So while I’m sure there weren’t any bad intentions here there should be significant international pressure for China to shutdown or at the very least heavily regulate these places. Anything less is just waiting for this to happen all over again. 


  2. I’m gonna link my Spotify playlist that I’ve made for just this purpose. It has a decent amount of classical and theatrical stuff, some of which has already been mentioned here, but if I were to point out one piece in particular it would be Wo Ist Übergang which is from Netflix’s “Dark”. A very chilling piece and it really encapsulates the mood of the show which is phenomenal btw if you haven’t seen it. I can’t recommend it highly enough. 
     

    https://open.spotify.com/playlist/4QJCmHbLKa2edBOJSLVNvi?si=AQlyb7DfS1O9eSqDsGf2CA


  3. On 3/27/2020 at 9:31 PM, Tywin et al. said:

    Agreed, but it also sounds like we're not going to get anything close to a normal season, if we get one at all. 

    Oddly enough it might improve the game overall if they can play. Baseball would be so much more fun if each game really mattered. I love postseason play, but the regular season is a drag. It's 2020, most people don't want to watch 9+ innings of 162 games. There's simply too much going on these days for a lot of people to have the time for that.

    I think the idea that there’s too many games for fans to to be invested for all of them is a great argument personally. I don’t think I’ve ever met a single fan who’s watched all 162 games. It’s something I tune into a lot throughout the summer and certainly if it’s a big series against a division rival, but there’s also a sense of comfort knowing that baseball is going on in the background as the summer months go by even if I’m not watching every single game. It’s a marathon, not a sprint and I’m content with how it is. Even if the season were to be shortened I’m not sure how you can get it to a place where every game “matters”. Does that kick in at 150 games, 100, 81? With that said, if we only get 81 games in this year, sure it won’t be a normal year, but no reason for it not to be a legitimate season, just gotta make do with the circumstances. 


  4. On 3/26/2020 at 3:04 AM, Ran said:

    Emigrated to Sweden from the US 21 years ago. :)

    Yeah, a shorter season makes more sense thought I suppose they might also be thinking of park staff and employees getting more work days with the shorter games.

    Oh very nice! Good to see you’re still keeping up with the game!


  5. On 3/24/2020 at 5:35 PM, Ran said:

    Sounds like an elective surgery if I've ever heard of one. He going to China to get it done? Heh.

    @DireWolfSpirit

    Ozzie was the man. They should have just gone ahead and renamed the Golden Glove after him.

    Don’t mind me if this is too personal Ran, but I’ve picked up you live in Sweden. Are you an expat living there or did you somehow get into baseball from across the pond?

    Also, apparently Manfred is saying MLB is considering playing 7 inning games to get in the amount of games they want to??? Just an awful idea imo, just accept you can only get in 81 games or so and go with that smh


  6. 13 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

    Just to guess at my own question, is it possible the U.K. is aiming to intentionally absorb a large portion of infections in this first wave? To avoid a second wave, and to try and keep this as a one off event that doesn’t come back to haunt us next winter? Maybe they can’t put too fine a point on it, they can’t just say “yep, hopefully bloody loads of you will get infected”. Whether it’s possible to do this and keep the peak within the capability of the NHS is ... hard to say.

    From what I’ve heard I don’t think there’s any foundation for this belief in waves of the virus. By all measures the virus is surviving just fine in warmer climes so there’s no real reason to expect it to die down once summer comes and create a pause between waves. Especially in places like Australia where it already is summer. 


  7. I’ve been substitute teaching in Pennsylvania, and I wouldn’t be surprised if today happens to be my last day teaching. Ohio and Michigan have closed all schools, won’t be shocked to see PA be next. We have Monday off already as it is so that gives authorities some more time to make a decision. 


  8. 37 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

    And you know what, that is better than years of US involvement there, creating its own set of problems. An Syria would likely never have happened if Iraq had never happened.

    Yes

    15 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

    Actually, ISIS was the result of US involvement in Iraq.

    And yes again, we should never have gone into Iraq. That unequivocally created ISIS, but so was staying out of Syria once a crisis was already in sight. The common theme between Iraq, Syria and Libya is that I believe we should support dictators in the Middle East that maintain a stable country. We’ve seen the alternative, terrorists and failed states. It isn’t perfect, but it’s better than the alternative. 
     

    Our foreign policy after the Cold War has been rather aimless and quite off the rails in the ME. Iraq was certainly our original sin and it got worse from there. Prioritizing security rather than any vague notion of nation building should be our aim. 


  9. 1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

    The correct response would be simply stay out of Libyan affairs and let the people of Libya decide their fate. That means neither supporting Qaddafi or trying to remove him.

    We did that in Syria and it led to the rise of ISIS, an increase in Russian influence in the Middle East and the continuing refugee crisis we see affecting Europe which has in turn fueled the right of the far right. 


  10. 20 minutes ago, DMC said:

    Well, to be honest, that's why I liked Obama's approach at the time.  Launching a bunch of ICBMs at Tripoli etc. is a logical strategy to limit the cost of American lives, at least.  As well as probably Libyan lives as well, although that's less certain.  It's a good example of even when we have good intentions at intervening, which I do believe Obama and his administration did even if people want to laugh at me about it, we still fuck things up.  I don't know what the answer is.  "Doing nothing" when you have something like the Arab Spring at the time seems to be a pretty shitty option as well.  International relations is hard.  That's why I'm an Americanist.

    The correct response would have been to support Gaddafi and keep him in power and quell the uprising. Better to have a stable dictator than the failed state that Libya is now where you literally have slavery running rampant and there’s certainly of basic necessities. Gaddafi wasn’t great, but he’s much better than what resulted. The same logic should’ve been applied to Syria.  


  11. One thing that we haven’t heard about as much is the impact the virus is having/will have the developing world aka Africa, portions of Latin/South America and even places like India’s slums that don’t have regular access to healthcare. In this case no news is not good news, more likely that these regions don’t have the resources necessary to deal with/diagnose the virus. To worsen their plight I wouldn’t be surprised if WHO resources will be directed away from these states now that the West is having to deal with an outbreak at home. This makes the list of countries hardest hit by the Coronavirus so far fairly meaningless imo. 


  12. 11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

    I think 2016 over exaggerated his following. He's gotten about a quarter of the vote in IA and NH and I think that's about what his following is. That's nothing to scoff at, but I don't think that will be enough to get him to the convention as the nominee because I can't see him expanding on that much past absorbing liberal Warren supporters. 

    That could be true, however, it may not matter. He’s currently leading in the RCP average. Trump won the nomination with only a plurality of the vote. With a larger field that has the potential of remaining so deep into the primary season Sanders can keep gathering a plurality of delegates without having to expand his base. If the moderates coalesce around one person then it’s a different story, but it would have to be soon. 


  13. 35 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

    At the crux of Bernie’s argument is that he’ll create a revolution and bring in a lot of new voters. All evidence suggests there’s no there there, and that’s why the pragmatists fear he’ll sink a lot of down ballot tickets in a redistricting election.

    Smart, right?

    Yeah I think it’s a legitimate fear, I’m also wondering how to square it with the fact that Bernie is probably the only Dem with a true following and that anecdotally seems to be a good indicator of who wins the election. Risky business for the Dems, but I’d hold my breath and take a risk with him if I were them. 


  14. One of the ironies of Dems winning over the suburbs is that it is helping to dilute the voice of the progressives/left. This may not matter in the short run if the moderate lane continues to be split and allows Bernie to benefit, but the increased turnout doesn’t appear to correlate with a hard push to the left. 

     


  15. 19 hours ago, Werthead said:

    Revelation Space is a pretty weak book, and may be Reynolds' weakest published work. The second-published book in the series, Chasm City, is an immense improvement and is a stand-alone.

    Hmm that is interesting. My library does not have it, but maybe i'll read a few pages next time im at the bookstore if they have it and see if it catches my attention.

    16 hours ago, unJon said:

    Use of Weapons >> Player of Games

    Before They Are Hanged >> The Blade Itself

    Reynolds Series gets much better. And then it gets worse. YMMV. 

    Altered Carbon the best book of Morgan’s SF. Haven’t read his fantasy. 

    Try Ian MacDonald’s Luna series if the concept of The Godfather on the moon appeals to you. 

    I think UoW will be on my list in short order, perhaps after Christmas. I'm ambivalent of The First Law right now, might return in a while not sure. Ok a second for Reynolds, i'll have to consider him again. I'll take a look at the Luna series for sure!


  16. So as this year as gone on I have read much less sci-fi than I first intended to. Really only have read two books that qualify as sci-fi. The first was Children of Ruin, the sequel to Children of Time. Ruin was not a bad book by any means, but it was mostly a retelling of Time with a different cast of characters and not as good as Time overall either. Solid 4/5 stars.

    The second sci-fi book I read this year was Revelation Space. It had a good premise and I had been looking forward to Reynolds series for some time, but I was quite disappointed. The man desperately needed an editor, the book could've easily been a hundred or so pages less. Many words were read that dragged the plot down and did little to advance it. His prose overall did not live up to his ideas and I sadly have no desire to continue reading his other books.

    Not a sci-fi book, but I also read The Blade Itself. Good enough I suppose, but I found it to be simplistic and boring. Overall this was not a great year for sci-fi/fantasy for me. I'm a bit discouraged at the seeming lack of palatable options out there. I know not everything can be ASOIAF, Bakker or Tolkien, but it feels like the bottom drop after them is substantial. Planning to read Jemisin's Broken Earth trilogy and Morgan's Altered Carbon series at some point, so we will see if they are better at all. Wouldn't mind reading Banks again, probably Use of Weapons, but I wasn't blown away by Player of Games either. Perhaps I'll read Asimov? Not sure just yet. Other than Children of Time, the last sci-fi book I really liked was Rendezvous with Rama and then KSR's Aurora before that.

    End Rant/

×
×
  • Create New...