Too late. It's inside the borders. I'm more interested in the strategies our schools are going to employ to slow the spread and reduce risk to children, families, and teachers. Those viral beds will get us all sick (that have kids). Though, I just read a report that suggested kids are more resistant to this virus... Which seems very different than others before it. Testing for infection won't be effective because someone is infectious before symptoms manifest. And picture it, Sicily (kidding) everyone lined up--big crowd--and getting tested to see who's going to infect everyone, who then infects everyone because they're standing with others waiting to see if they're infected. I'd move on to contingency plans on how to weather this versus a mania to prevent the unpreventable (at this stage).

I saw comments the other day on Facebook from folks in Portland using the terms "male presenting" and "female presenting." I never saw those before. Clearly I understand what they're going after. They were used with "cis male, male presenting." Seems like a qualifier. Still not sure how to properly apply them... For instance is a cis male, female presenting not actually a cis male? Or must the redundancy always be present like "cis female, female presenting?" Hum. I'm honestly not offended or threatened by how others wish to be addressed. I think it's respectful for one to understand how to properly address another. Maybe because we've seen decorum in every culture (mostly tied to royalty or other power constructs). Also, I think it's important to recognize that other cultures around the world acknowledge more than two genders. This isn't a new concept, and not isolated to the USA or other specific Western countries.

We only hear one side with this... Was it a corporate initiative to understand how employees worked and what could make them more efficient (as most corporations are attempting to do now with ever tightening budgets). Also, if you're on a corporate system they have a right to track and review everything. If people are afraid, that's a bad change management process that didn't properly inform those being monitored what things mean and what measurements are... That doesn't mean the whole thing was wrong and bad. There's always two sides. That said, it "could" still be evil overlords too. We just don't "know."

How draconian. This is a pathetic attempt to slow the inevitable. Why not use the money spent to create this policy on training people in new skills instead?

Using how they defined loot boxes as gambling then: Going to the comic book store and buying those little boxes with one possible figure out of many should be considering gambling. Going to the arcade and playing that little hook/grapple game that grabs a box with a range of possible items inside should be considering gambling. Going to the grocery store, putting in 50 cents and turning the crank that drops the little egg with a range of possible things inside should be considering gambling. When they go to ComicCon and spin a wheel to win one of many potential booth prizes, it should be considered gambling. They paid to get in after all, so money was provided up front to enter. Heck, does the mystery toy in a McDonalds Happy Meal (since it's paid for, collectible, random, and not outright select-able) also count as gambling??!?!!?!?! How far do we take this? Anyone have links to the longitudinal studies evidencing children exposed to loot boxes have become gamblers? As a precaution, maybe we should extend industry standards so any non-rated M (or worse) title has parental controls to lock out micro-transactions and we let the parents... parent.