Nefarious Industrialist

Established Members
  • Content Count

    625
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

241 Excellent

About Nefarious Industrialist

  • Rank
    Allstar

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Add to Mailing List?
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

976 profile views
  1. hey at least it wasn't at the beginning of the game, that's a change
  2. for me a main consideration for a drop is what are the chances someone else is going to pick him up? In my auction league I got him for $2 which means he likely wasn't that highly thought of to begin with, and since he hasn't done much to excite so far I've already dropped him twice and like my chances of getting him back again if I want to
  3. Let's see... I had the #2 waiver claim and was thrilled to get both Benny Snell and Parris Campbell, pretty sure I'm set to dominate now Oh wait that was last week, now I'm screwed
  4. They were down by 2 in the 8th so a save opp wasn't likely
  5. https://www.kansascity.com/sports/mlb/kansas-city-royals/article244024547.html Wish I'd seen this before the season (or at least before I bid aggressively on Rosenthal haha) - apparently a committtee was always the plan.
  6. LeClerc was a little wild. Definitely benefited from a couple generous calls to get to two strikes on both his Ks. Still pretty good though
  7. I don't think greed has anything to do with it, for either side. Both groups are losing a ton of money in this. Both are negotiating to mitigate their losses. As anyone in their position would do.
  8. I agree that the people who immediately dismissed it as a hoax, and basically continue to do so, are making a mistake. Yet I can understand - and in some ways, share - their overall skepticism of anything coming from what they consider to be an incredibly biased mainstream media. I'm not on board with the conspiracy theorists, but I do think that human beings - all of them - are fundamentally self-interested. It's very obvious when you look at someone like say, our current president, who seems to have no idea how he comes across to most people. It's less obvious when you look at, say, a socially intelligent, highly respected immunologist who's suddenly become a household name. To some degree, I agree with your point about the virus causing harm that I'd like to attribute to the lockdowns. I shall now endeavor to compromise somewhat and blame the politician- and media-driven fear instead. Honestly, I think our chief disagreement is the old one - I'm inclined to err on the side of individual liberty, whereas you're inclined to err on the side of the public good. I swear, I really do care about the same stuff you do, I just don't believe government institutions have the ability to behave selflessly, no matter who's in charge.
  9. First of all, I blame myself. I went from denial to panic just like everyone else. And it is the people that encourage the media to do what they do, which is scare the living hell out of us every chance they get. And of course the politicians have every incentive to scare us, so that we think they're the only ones that can save us. There's no one person I'd like to blame, but I will agree with most people here (I think) that what we really needed was a strong president taking things seriously from the start. And we did not get that. We also needed our federal agencies like the CDC and the FDA to recognize that this was their big moment and step up. Instead we got the usual, feet-dragging, arrogant bureaucratic BS we always get. I specifically blame them for our painfully slow response to get testing. So there's plenty of blame to go around. Right now, it's difficult not to believe that there are a lot of people in denial about how panicked and disastrous our response has been, so they're doubling down instead of facing reality.
  10. What I was saying was that nobody knew for sure what level of response was warranted. I have zero problem admitting some measures had to be taken. I have zero problem admitting the measures have been effective in slowing the virus to some degree. From the beginning, the only thing everyone seemed to agree on was that it was too late to stop it, it was too contagious and difficult to detect to stop it, and so it was going to spread. It was going to infect a lot of people. It was going to kill plenty of people, no matter what we did. The question was, could we mitigate the damage - not by stopping it, which was never on the table. But by slowing it so that the healthcare system didn't get overwhelmed. That was it. That was the goal, and that was the rationale for the measures we took. And that's where the disagreements began. And that's where yes, lots of people immediately started to have questions about the tradeoffs we were about to make. And lots of people didn't - at least not right away. It's slowly dawning on people just how much suffering the lockdowns have caused, and continue to cause. Not just "people losing their jobs and having to collect unemployment". It's the people afraid to go the hospital for anything from important procedures to well checks where some of them are not going to find out they have a major problem until it's too late. It's increased child abuse, suicides, drug abuse, alcoholism, domestic violence, and other crimes that may be associated with the substantial economic reverses that the United States is enduring. Things that will be difficult to quantify but likely to be significant. And have been largely ignored or downplayed from the start by people desperate to justify the extreme nature of what we've done here. That's my main problem - the idea that we should have all just gotten together at the beginning and just agreed that there's this elite group of scientists who know exactly what we ALL ABSOLUTELY MUST DO WITH NO DISCUSSION, NO EXCEPTIONS AND NO COMPLAINING. Because they're the smartest and they know best. Sorry, not how it works. If you're going to destroy people's livelihoods, mental health, completely turn their lives upside down and inside out - by force - you really need to prove that these extreme, one-size-fits-all measures are absolutely necessary.
  11. I guess that's my problem, too - nobody really knows, nobody really knew - but they behaved as if they did know for sure. You still hear people shaming others for the sin of wanting to live their lives, based on what they believe are the facts that they're literally killing people by doing so. When they absolutely do not know that. And if you're going to literally prevent people from living their lives, the burden is on you to prove that they're definitely endangering others. There was so much uncertainty at the beginning, and everyone was so freaked out, the panic was somewhat understandable. There was some leeway because it seemed the danger of overwhelming the healthcare system was real. As the months have passed, that danger has looked less real. And the burden of proof is naturally shifting from "Prove you're not killing people" to "Prove I am killing people". I don't see this as a theoretical "learn for next time" thing - sure, for next time we know that any actions we're going to take, the sooner the better - there's plenty of evidence of that. But the continued measures are definitely causing untold amounts of suffering, in some places with no end in sight. And we're doing it to ourselves. The severity of the lockdowns are looking more like a much bigger tragedy than the virus itself every day.
  12. As I understand it, her contribution was mainly about how many people schoolkids come into contact with on a typical day - "Laura, with some guidance from her dad, devised a computer simulation that showed how people – family members, co-workers, students in schools, people in social situations – interact. What she discovered was that school kids come in contact with about 140 people a day, more than any other group. Based on that finding, her program showed that in a hypothetical town of 10,000 people, 5,000 would be infected during a pandemic if no measures were taken, but only 500 would be infected if the schools were closed." I agree this sort of thing is important and helpful. My problem is when people start treating these theoretical things as "earth is round" fact. And start basing incredibly important decisions that affect the lives of millions of people on them. And it looks to me like there are so many hypotheticals being thrown around from every direction, all looking very "science-y" and being treated as fact by anyone with an agenda to do so. The entire situation has become so politicized - from every side - we all get to pick and choose what we call "fact". Things being treated as true one day turn out to not be true the next.