I've been counting blessings. In fact, there is a post below solely dedicated to that. As a result I think I am emerging from my depressive, negative state of the last couple of months. I actually got revision 3 of my latest manuscript roughed out, so that was promising. I got back to the gym very briefly, until it was shut down again.
In any event, I'll let my blessings post speak for itself. There is a possibility that my imminent 60th birthday is having some negative effect on my psyche, but that's really never been the case with milestone birthdays before. Despite the size of that number, I honestly believe I can still do whatever I want in this world. Or at least, whatever pandemic protocol allows.
[Rant] Blessings
[TV] Sad State of the Toob
[Covid19, Rant] Coronatime, Month 5
[Tech, Rant] Defending Facebook
Thursday, August 06, 2020
[Rant] Blessings
Amid all my whining over the last couple of months I have tried to keep in mind how immeasurably lucky I am. One side effect of disagreeing with much of the pandemic reaction -- and much of everything in the world, for that matter -- is that people think you are complaining about your own life. Nothing could be further from the truth for me.
The ancient advice to count your blessings hasn't survived the centuries for nothing. It's a good thing to do. Often. Like, every time you open Twitter.
- I have suffered no financial difficulty yet.
- I can work almost seamlessly from home.
- The work I do hasn't taken a huge hit in demand so I am under no urgent risk of losing my job.
- In fact, I'm saving money -- lighter travel expenses, no gym membership, gas purchases down -- I even refinanced my house thanks to the drop in interest rates.
- Even my retirement savings, which I fretted for in the initial market crash, has recovered to almost where it was before.
- I've been able to stay active.
- I've gained a real appreciation for my home, as much as it tasks me.
- I live in a beautiful, upscale, semi-rural area of the sort most people only dream of.
- My home office has a window, my office office doesn't.
- I am amazed at the amount of wildlife surrounding me -- deer, bunnies, chipmunks, woodchucks, toads, snakes, and turkeys have wandered through my backyard, most knocking on the glass to my office window in curiosity.
- Nearby I have seen beautiful cranes, vultures, and even a bald eagle. I have heard foxes yapping in the night. Big, striking black and white dragonflies buzz around everywhere. My flowers are swamped with bumble bees.
- There are probably about a mile or two of maintained trails in my neighborhood that wind through wooded areas and wetlands. I have been going for frequent walks, a thing I never used to do.
- My options for outdoor recreation are equally wonderful. There are endless trails, paved and unpaved for running, roads paved and unpaved for biking, lakes for swimming. I feel like I've barely scratched the surface -- all within a short drive.
The ancient advice to count your blessings hasn't survived the centuries for nothing. It's a good thing to do. Often. Like, every time you open Twitter.
[TV] Sad State of the Toob
TV is bad again. I mean bad in the way of fifty years ago, when we referred to it as a vast wasteland. Game shows have made a comeback, and not game shows like Jeopardy; game shows like contestants fall into a vat of lard over canned laughter and commentary from a smug, insipid host. There are no high concept dramas, nobody seems to think that deeply anymore. There is no humanity in anything; nothing is personal, everything is social, or worse, political. There are no characters, only amalgams of ideologies and shallow habits. There are no timeless themes, only reflections of headlines. Comedy has pretty much ceased to exist; we're really not allowed to laugh at anything anyway.
All this occurred to me as I was watching HBOs latest drama, Perry Mason. For you young'uns, Perry Mason was a courtroom drama show back in the '60s. Mason defended a (falsely accused, of course) client of the week in what was reasonable quality, if highly formulaic, drama for the time. Actually the character goes back to a series of potboilers written by Earle Stanley Gardner in the '30s. HBO's series is supposed to be something of an origin story. We start with Mason as bum, scraping by as a private eye. In the course of the series, the father figure lawyer he works for dies and Mason is compelled to scam his way into passing the bar exam and stepping in as a replacement lawyer for a client that is being railroaded.
It's not a bad show. The production values are far beyond the old TV series, of course. It's a solid attempt at grit and character building in a period drama. It has the correct positive references to alternate sexuality and racial injustice along with the negative views of religion and authority that are required for any show to get greenlit, but they are held in control or at list skippable via fast forward. There is also a correctly formulated amount of luridness to hold attention if the plot can't. I've been watching it so I obviously must like it. But I've been watching it the way I might have watched...oh, I don't know, something from the 70s or the 80s, like Kojack or L.A. Law or something. It's on, I'm familiar with the characters, it's mildly entertaining, it doesn't require much thought or attention. Contrast this to something like Deadwood, or Sopranos, or The Wire, where I was riveted and then immediately rewatched it for any subtleties I'd missed.
I should caveat this with the observation that the universe of TV is huge and global and I am not aware of everything, so there may be gems out there. For the most part, I feel safe saying that the vast wasteland has returned. Or, more accurately, we have returned to it. I miss David Milch.
All this occurred to me as I was watching HBOs latest drama, Perry Mason. For you young'uns, Perry Mason was a courtroom drama show back in the '60s. Mason defended a (falsely accused, of course) client of the week in what was reasonable quality, if highly formulaic, drama for the time. Actually the character goes back to a series of potboilers written by Earle Stanley Gardner in the '30s. HBO's series is supposed to be something of an origin story. We start with Mason as bum, scraping by as a private eye. In the course of the series, the father figure lawyer he works for dies and Mason is compelled to scam his way into passing the bar exam and stepping in as a replacement lawyer for a client that is being railroaded.
It's not a bad show. The production values are far beyond the old TV series, of course. It's a solid attempt at grit and character building in a period drama. It has the correct positive references to alternate sexuality and racial injustice along with the negative views of religion and authority that are required for any show to get greenlit, but they are held in control or at list skippable via fast forward. There is also a correctly formulated amount of luridness to hold attention if the plot can't. I've been watching it so I obviously must like it. But I've been watching it the way I might have watched...oh, I don't know, something from the 70s or the 80s, like Kojack or L.A. Law or something. It's on, I'm familiar with the characters, it's mildly entertaining, it doesn't require much thought or attention. Contrast this to something like Deadwood, or Sopranos, or The Wire, where I was riveted and then immediately rewatched it for any subtleties I'd missed.
I should caveat this with the observation that the universe of TV is huge and global and I am not aware of everything, so there may be gems out there. For the most part, I feel safe saying that the vast wasteland has returned. Or, more accurately, we have returned to it. I miss David Milch.
[Covid19, Rant] Coronatime, Month 5
All right, I'm going to lay off the doom and gloom social commentary this month. Let's do some quick hits on some interesting news and developments, none of which have to do with masks.
When this whole thing started back in March and everyone was comparing it to the 1918 flu epidemic, I pointed out it was not 1918 anymore. Not only are standards of hygiene superior, but our biotech capabilities were undreamed of back then. This virus had every molecule in it mapped and analyzed before it even became famous. There are 199 vaccines in development, a handful of which are far along. There is even one that you can do at home now if you have some level of medical knowledge. In fact, I would expect that the only thing that prevents us from having a vaccine by year end is incompetent bureaucracy. Given our revealed inability to intelligently assess risk and return and to find the compromises with rules and regulations that are required in extreme circumstances, I wouldn't put it past our regulators and politicians to screw this up.
But there I go getting dark and snide again. I will stop. The point is that it is amazing what our capabilities are and entirely possible that when all is said and done and we look back on this from five years hence, it will be a source of pride. I found this recap of the vaccine research process encouraging.
Also under the heading of tooting my own horn, while the rest of the world was obsessed with the idea that how well you adhered to the prescribed methods -- social distancing, masks, sheltering, etc. -- was explaining all the variation in infection rates, I maintained there was something else, something we hadn't discovered yet. A couple of things have since come to light.
The thing that gave me, and many others, pause was that almost all the cause and effect theories that people had in their heads and were making policy based on, fell apart because there was always data that confounded them -- all suppositions had counterexamples that suggested there was too much margin for error. Eggheads call that heterogeneity of results. Now, humans being human, since we could determine what was going on with certainty, we just made up stories that coincide with our existing prejudices, filtered the data we acknowledged to fit our made-up stories, and got on with our standard hostilities.
There are a couple of important bits of information in this Marginal Revolution post.
First, there have been two major strains of the virus, one significantly more contagious than the other. Which strain is prevalent in a certain area has a huge effect on the rate of infection. South Korea, which was applauded for such a successful response, had almost entirely the less contagious strain. New York had almost entirely the most contagious strain. Perhaps public policy and adherence to it wasn't the crucial element after all.
Second, there is evidence that there is a genetic component to how susceptible you are to infection and the viral load you can carry. And as any genetic component will do, it broadly follows ethnic and racial lines, which makes it nearly taboo to speak of.
This Washington Post story finds other interesting things. Namely that Covid does not appear to progress through the population in a general steady manner like, say, measles. What we now call Superspreaders and Superspreader Events play a large role. They also walk right up to, but do not outright declare, that there may be a genetic component to being a superspreader.
And here is a wonderfully clear and informative article about how the immune system works. Can you work all the information in this article into your own thinking? Does it leave you still believing the other side in the culture war is the cause of all the problems? If so, I don't think objective communication is possible for you.
The point I am trying to make is that if some small percent of the people refuse to wear masks as some sort of silly protest, it may not be making a big difference; it might not be the cause of any of the variations we are seeing in infection rates. Maybe we could dial back the hostilities in this area.
In any event, there were only two ways this was ever going to end. One was to fight it off as best we can until a vaccine is found. The other was to just protect yourself as best you can and wait until it infects through enough people to burn itself out (herd immunity). It looks like we are going for the first alternative. I have high hopes that we can finish the job by the end of the year, although that may be giving our bureaucracy too much credit.
When this whole thing started back in March and everyone was comparing it to the 1918 flu epidemic, I pointed out it was not 1918 anymore. Not only are standards of hygiene superior, but our biotech capabilities were undreamed of back then. This virus had every molecule in it mapped and analyzed before it even became famous. There are 199 vaccines in development, a handful of which are far along. There is even one that you can do at home now if you have some level of medical knowledge. In fact, I would expect that the only thing that prevents us from having a vaccine by year end is incompetent bureaucracy. Given our revealed inability to intelligently assess risk and return and to find the compromises with rules and regulations that are required in extreme circumstances, I wouldn't put it past our regulators and politicians to screw this up.
But there I go getting dark and snide again. I will stop. The point is that it is amazing what our capabilities are and entirely possible that when all is said and done and we look back on this from five years hence, it will be a source of pride. I found this recap of the vaccine research process encouraging.
Also under the heading of tooting my own horn, while the rest of the world was obsessed with the idea that how well you adhered to the prescribed methods -- social distancing, masks, sheltering, etc. -- was explaining all the variation in infection rates, I maintained there was something else, something we hadn't discovered yet. A couple of things have since come to light.
The thing that gave me, and many others, pause was that almost all the cause and effect theories that people had in their heads and were making policy based on, fell apart because there was always data that confounded them -- all suppositions had counterexamples that suggested there was too much margin for error. Eggheads call that heterogeneity of results. Now, humans being human, since we could determine what was going on with certainty, we just made up stories that coincide with our existing prejudices, filtered the data we acknowledged to fit our made-up stories, and got on with our standard hostilities.
There are a couple of important bits of information in this Marginal Revolution post.
First, there have been two major strains of the virus, one significantly more contagious than the other. Which strain is prevalent in a certain area has a huge effect on the rate of infection. South Korea, which was applauded for such a successful response, had almost entirely the less contagious strain. New York had almost entirely the most contagious strain. Perhaps public policy and adherence to it wasn't the crucial element after all.
Second, there is evidence that there is a genetic component to how susceptible you are to infection and the viral load you can carry. And as any genetic component will do, it broadly follows ethnic and racial lines, which makes it nearly taboo to speak of.
This Washington Post story finds other interesting things. Namely that Covid does not appear to progress through the population in a general steady manner like, say, measles. What we now call Superspreaders and Superspreader Events play a large role. They also walk right up to, but do not outright declare, that there may be a genetic component to being a superspreader.
Scientists suspect these "super-emitters" may have much higher levels of the virus in their bodies (viral load) than others, or may release them by talking, shouting or singing in a different way from most people. Research based on the flu, which involved college students blowing into a tube, showed that a small percentage tended to emit smaller particles known as aerosols more than others. These particles tend to hang or float, and move with the flow of air -- and therefore can go much farther and last longer than larger droplets.Furthermore they note that a key to accelerator to superspreading is HVAC. To me that implies the best bang for the buck might be investment in air filtration systems. Essentially putting a mask on your air vents.
And here is a wonderfully clear and informative article about how the immune system works. Can you work all the information in this article into your own thinking? Does it leave you still believing the other side in the culture war is the cause of all the problems? If so, I don't think objective communication is possible for you.
The point I am trying to make is that if some small percent of the people refuse to wear masks as some sort of silly protest, it may not be making a big difference; it might not be the cause of any of the variations we are seeing in infection rates. Maybe we could dial back the hostilities in this area.
In any event, there were only two ways this was ever going to end. One was to fight it off as best we can until a vaccine is found. The other was to just protect yourself as best you can and wait until it infects through enough people to burn itself out (herd immunity). It looks like we are going for the first alternative. I have high hopes that we can finish the job by the end of the year, although that may be giving our bureaucracy too much credit.
[Tech, Rant] Defending Facebook
I'm going to take a brief moment to say something nice about Facebook. Stand back.
Actually two nice things. First, Zuckerberg has done an admirable job of staying neutral in the culture wars. I know there are cadres on either side of the fence that think staying neutral makes you the enemy. I'm sure they both leverage Facebook's neutrality to forward that belief.
The second thing occurred to me while reading this very insightful Scholar's Stage essay about the lost world of internet forums and why Twitter is so awful. I would argue the Facebook Groups are the new internet forums. Like the old forums access is controlled. Only people involved in the special interest get themselves into the associated group, so there is no broad-based piling-on by the wider web. Group admins can be as ruthless as they want, because they can't kick people off Facebook, only out of their group. If folks think they have been treated unfairly, they can just start their own damn group, but their access to Facebook is unchanged. (This happens usually when you get a group member who won't shut up about politics.)
I've become a real fan of Facebook Groups and belong to a number of them. I highly encourage it to keep your online life marginally sane.
While I'm thinking of it, let me add a third good thing about Facebook: the ad model. The banner ads down the right side of the webpage don't count; they are easily ignored and I don't think you get them on mobile. I mean the ones they pop into your news feed. They do an excellent job of matching them with your needs and interests. I know a lot of people freak out about how this is an invasion of privacy. I think those fears are overwrought, but that's a topic for another post. Since I get Facebook for free, like TV, I expect commercials, but at least I get commercials of the sort I am interested in. And if I don't like something, blocking it going forward is about a 10 second operation. I actually get ads in my feed I want and frequently click on, which is something I never would have predicted 10 years ago.
And now, with all the controversy about TikTok being spyware, they just released a competing product, which was a truly sharp move. Facebook is for old folks now, but they could snag the young audience if it becomes a default replacement if TikTok is banned.
Actually two nice things. First, Zuckerberg has done an admirable job of staying neutral in the culture wars. I know there are cadres on either side of the fence that think staying neutral makes you the enemy. I'm sure they both leverage Facebook's neutrality to forward that belief.
The second thing occurred to me while reading this very insightful Scholar's Stage essay about the lost world of internet forums and why Twitter is so awful. I would argue the Facebook Groups are the new internet forums. Like the old forums access is controlled. Only people involved in the special interest get themselves into the associated group, so there is no broad-based piling-on by the wider web. Group admins can be as ruthless as they want, because they can't kick people off Facebook, only out of their group. If folks think they have been treated unfairly, they can just start their own damn group, but their access to Facebook is unchanged. (This happens usually when you get a group member who won't shut up about politics.)
I've become a real fan of Facebook Groups and belong to a number of them. I highly encourage it to keep your online life marginally sane.
While I'm thinking of it, let me add a third good thing about Facebook: the ad model. The banner ads down the right side of the webpage don't count; they are easily ignored and I don't think you get them on mobile. I mean the ones they pop into your news feed. They do an excellent job of matching them with your needs and interests. I know a lot of people freak out about how this is an invasion of privacy. I think those fears are overwrought, but that's a topic for another post. Since I get Facebook for free, like TV, I expect commercials, but at least I get commercials of the sort I am interested in. And if I don't like something, blocking it going forward is about a 10 second operation. I actually get ads in my feed I want and frequently click on, which is something I never would have predicted 10 years ago.
And now, with all the controversy about TikTok being spyware, they just released a competing product, which was a truly sharp move. Facebook is for old folks now, but they could snag the young audience if it becomes a default replacement if TikTok is banned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)