Right, but you understand that you're not the one who is having the issue, right? What you and I do or don't accept from the CDC is not relevant.

If your position is that you just don't give a shit about people getting all revved up, spreading information, not trusting sciences, etc. then, hey, fair enough.

If you view that as something that needs to be avoided, then you need to try to look at what has gone wrong and try to avoid it in the future.

Yea, I have seen that as well.

It's such an obvious tactical error. Even if you think people are licking eachother after each round they fire, that's one you just let go because you know it's going to cause way more problems than it can possibly be worth.

Meanwhile. going to the outdoor range was a great low risk activity during the pandemic.

Its not about avoiding all missteps, it's about proceeding thoughtfully and carefully with the knowledge that the right kind of misstep may be almost as bad as doing nothing at all. There were clearly avoidable missteps.

There were some missteps during the pandemic.

The biggest was the CDC's communications. I remember at one point they issued guidance, then came out the next day saying it was a mistake and the opposite was true. I might be fudging the details a bit in my mind, but that only reinforces the point. Early in the pandemic they were hedging about masks to try and avoid a run on supplies for healthcare providers, then they changed course.

The lesson is that the CDC and other public agencies pushing for science to drive policy are not immune from the requirement to communicate clearly, effectively, and, whenever possible, definitively. People are just unbelievably stupid and you need to spoon feed it to them in a consistent way which tells them what to do without them having to understand anything. Everything needs to make sense on its surface. If you want to do something because you think it may help, but aren't sure, you have to shout the fact that you're not sure yet and you're only making a suggestion to try to help them in their face for 10 minutes before delivering the actual content of the message...or just don't give them the message at all.

The other thing was that there were policies being pushed by left leaning politicians, who were ostensibly coming down on the side of science, which really weren't scientific. The one I think of is that, at some point in the pandemic, they allowed restaurants in Boston to reopen for takeout - but only until 7:30PM, as if COVID only came out at night. If people truly care about using science to effectively determine policy, it's important to be judicious about what policies you put in place and try to avoid getting carried away with your own moronic ideas.

Ultimately the farmers are the ones responsible for producing a gas which is causing problems for the planet, so they should be the ones paying to mitigate it. Just because they're not a big company doesn't mean they're not contributing to the problem through the way they make their living.

It will definitely require passing on the cost to the consumer, no question about it. And that's right and proper.

There's no question that we're getting screwed by big pharma, especially due to the completely arbitrary regulations around generics that their lapdogs in congress have put in place. Step one to fixing this is the same step as fixing all of our other problems - term limits and comprehensive campaign finance reform.

That said, developing new drugs and producing them in compliance with the GxP regs is definitely expensive. Being under the FDA's thumb is not easy. Some of that could probably be dialed back, a lot of it is legitimately in our best interests.

I would guess that the biggest area where this becomes a problem is in developing drugs which affect a relatively small number of people. It's not going to be hard to recoup on the cure for baldness, but for something which only affects a small number of people it's going to be much much harder. You want big pharma to have an incentive to work on drugs for those people, but it's going to lead to crazy expensive drugs that those people may not even be able to access.

It's hard to judge this stuff because the market has been so badly distorted by corruption and the resulting regulations you can find truth in everyone's perspective and fault in everyone's perspective at all times.

I tend to be a free market guy but this is a classic case of reality vs. principle. On one hand, you can pursue removing the regulations which drive prices artificially high, but is doing so even remotely realistic in the current political climate? Probably not. On the other hand, socialized medicine is closer at hand and has material benefits to the average person but is abandoning principle really the way to resolve the crisis? Also, in a country whose every political decision is determined by corruption, is expecting the government to deliver benefits to consumers by taking over the system realistic? Again, probably not.

Forcing managers to identify a portion of the team as under performing is extremely unfair. It guarantees you're going to get rid of high performers and keep under performers in the organization. It penalizes high performing teams where the manager is doing their job and creating a solid team, and helps managers doing a poor job.

It's a service which is badly needed and for which there is still a substantial gap in the market. I know it is in use today, but it's not as widely used and standard as it seems like it should be.

It seems overwhelmingly obvious to me that it should be the easy to use, managed, automated version of PGP that never quiiiiite came to be. All of the tools and processes already exist, they just need to be brought together.

But here we are still clicking on our names in a script font based on the fact that we have access to the right email account. You don't even have a permanent account with them. There's no legitimate identity verification whatsoever. It makes no sense to me at all.

Since it's 2022, I'm sure a more robust design could be to fuck people over and steal their privacy in all kinds of creative and profitable ways too.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

Detroit in the 90s and 2000s was a real dystopian ghost town. NYC has not even started to plumb the depths of how far it is possible for an American city to fall.

The first question to ask when you read something like this is, how big is the company, how many employees do they have?

For Patreon, the answer is 400.

So, yea, it's a fair assumption that this is their entire security team. Their statement is pretty transparent too. "Engineers working on security" most likely refers to people who are developing code who are technically "working on security" but who are not, in fact, security engineers.

You can't fill those gaps with MSSPs either.

Interesting, its surprising that I hadn't heard of it through some groups I participate in.

If there is a regulatory requirement to complete this then I'm sure it will be fit for purpose in context. It's certainly very detailed and specific.

In other contexts in which ESG may need to be assessed/addressed this is...perhaps not what it needs to be yet. I appreciate the heads up, though, this may become my next nightmare.

Back before the republican party became fascist and abandoned all conservative principles, republicans would argue against regulations and talk about how consumers should be controlling issues like this via the market. Which is fair.

Now that ESG is becoming a legitimately big deal and it is interfering with the companies which pay republicans bribes to represent their interests in congress, all of a sudden they are willing to throw the market right in the garbage and implement their own regulations.

There was a thing a while ago where republicans were trying to ban businesses from providing free charging for electric cars. I can't imagine a more ludicrous and anticonservative sentiment. The democrats are hopelessly corrupt too, but the republicans positions defy even the most cursory logical examination.

All this is not to say that I think ESG is perfect. I think that the movement to push businesses to be more socially and environmentally responsible with market pressure is absolutely fantastic. It's libertarian. But it's ill defined and it is going to be difficult for companies to know what they need to comply with. There will also be a lot of cases where outsourcers will try to apply ESG principles to service providers which are not applicable to them, and it will create a lot of needless work.

Financial industry regulators definitely assess some subsets of Technology Service Providers today. The examinations are fairly comprehensive. Are Fintech companies not getting included in that oversight?

Straight up do not believe this at all. Our government's main function now is to dole out corporate welfare. They're not going to let accountability get in the way of appeasing their real constituents, this is just talk to make taxpayers feel good. A little creative accounting (if that's even needed) and suddenly the money appears from some other stream.

Highly recommend leaving MA. Born and raised there but I just couldn't take the stupidity, corruption, criminality, malevolent AG, horrendous roads, high taxes, excessive and nonsensical level of bike lanes, etc.