AC is right. "Worth It" depends on how deep the pockets are of the person/entity paying for the tickets. I've taken several 10+ hour flights in economy class on bucket list type trips. It was a pretty simple choice, - fly economy or don't go at all. Luckily economy accommodations on inter-continental flights is a bit better than domestic.

Part of the problem IS the vastness of the ocean and while a collision might seem like a low probability, it's actually one of the biggest risks of doing crossings because there's no one out there to help you. If your car is damaged in a collision, it's not going to sink under the pavement. Plus help can get to you.

An accident on the ocean is different. It's not just huge cargo ships out there. There's a good chance that a couple on a 30 ft sailboat never see him in the middle of the night, - he's not lit from what I can tell. They hit him, maybe no significant damage is done to their boat, but most boats are just fiberglass. If there is damage, they could be in real trouble.

That's why there are strict rules about stuff like that.

If this guy really has a death wish, there are kinds of other ways do himself in that don't put others at risk.

Coast Guard aside, anyone in the vicinity is required to help if he got into trouble. They don't have to put themselves at risk but if they are able to help safely, they legally must.

The ocean is a vast place and a shared resource. You can't count on people with special training and special equipment to be able to get to someone in trouble quickly enough in an emergency. So everyone has a responsibility to help everyone else.

For that reason, you also have the legal responsibility of making sure your vessel is equipped in a manor that minimizes the chances of somebody else having to rescue you. Further your vessel can't be a hazard to other vessels. It has to be lit in specific ways as one example.

In fact, there are all kinds of rules about how boats must be equipped, not just for safety but even for things like how waste disposal is handled. The Coast Guard can stop and inspect random boats for no reason at all. They don't need any probably cause. I don't know if the Coast Guard was strictly within their jurisdiction or not, but the guy was clearly violating multiple maritime regulations.

I run a department.

It is my responsibility to make sure things run as well as possible. When something does go wrong, it may or may not be tied directly to past action or inaction on my part. Regardless, the bigger the problem, the more responsibility I have in making sure it gets addressed.

Excessive police violence towards black citizens is not a new problem. It existed well before Trump became president. One could argue that his "law and order" approach and very pro-police attitude has helped maintain the environment that police violence thrives in, but there's no way to know if things would have been any better if Hillary had been elected instead.

But what you can definitely judge him on is his response. And basically he did nothing for weeks other than fan the flames. Only now is his administration making a feeble attempt at some reforms.

Then there's the pandemic. He's handled it as well as anyone could have? The US response to the pandemic has been among the worst. He has spent most of his time downplaying the seriousness of it. One of his most decisive actions was suddenly closing the country to Europe creating mass confusion among our own citizens that were in Europe at the time. You had tons of people scrambling to get flights home, then getting crammed into airports in NY where guess what, - a massive outbreak occurred a short time later.

There are only two large coal power plants remaining in my state. They are both aging and there were plans to shutter them Pre-COVID.

Coal was on its way out already.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/...

Yes, everyone got caught with their pants down. But the lack of virtually any kind of central coordination until recently, the lack of availability of tests, and the slowness to mobilize has lead the US to the top of the heap in the number of people who've contracted the virus. This even though we saw it coming.

Many other countries have done a much better job of keeping a lid on it than we have. In fact, due to the lack of testing, the numbers of infected people in this country are likely vastly higher than what's been reported to date.

I don't think these predictions fully account for how social your average human is. Interacting on-line is OK, but not the same. I'm mostly an introvert but I would not enjoy nor be as effective working from home all the time.

There will be more people working from home for sure. There will likely be more flexible education options that include more learning at home.

But like all crisis, once it's over some things will change, but eventually people will go back to doing what they like, and one of those things is gathering in groups.

Reported Cases

That's the problem.

My son's girlfriend was experiencing the classic COVID-19 symptoms last weekend, - one day after returning from Spring break in Mexico. She could not get tested. So she was told to self-quarantine. She's fine but she may or may not have it. If she does have it, my son is likely to be carrying it as well. So are the people who might have been close contact with them in Mexico, on the plane, or in the airport waiting to go through customs.

The US could very well have far more cases per capita than South Korea.

That's one way to look at it, but another is that one team can dominate the entire match but still lose on a fluke goal that came in the first 10 minutes. I don't know, that just seems wrong. ;)

Further a team could go up 2-nil in the 2nd half with plenty of time left. But with the rules as they are the lead will seem almost insurmountable, - so you still end up with dreariness.

To be fair, there's stuff going on before the ball is actually snapped in American football that's interesting to watch if you have an understanding of what's going on. And a lot of the "action" in soccer, basketball, and hockey is people moving at a 1/4 speed or not at all while passing the ball (puck) back and forth which might be interesting... or might not depending on context. Plus there's a good amount "action" whose sole purpose is to run time off the clock which is not terribly exciting from a spectator's standpoint.

But based on the article you provided a link to, there was quite a jump in scoring after 1925 and it stayed that way until about 1968. This occurred after the the offside rule was changed to be less restrictive. It used to be that there had to be 3 defenders between the attacker and the goal (including the goal keeper), now there just needs to be two.

Since 1968, the number of goals scored has dropped to pre 1925 levels. Prior to 1925, the number of goals scored had been dropping since they started keeping track in the 1890s. Apparently, they deemed the situation bad enough in the 20's to do something about it. It's just as bad now. Just because it has been for a long time, doesn't make it any less bad. It also has nothing to do with "not understanding soccer". I've both played and I'm a fan, but the high number of draws is not satisfying.

The saving grace for soccer is that the low scoring seen at the highest levels doesn't exist at every level. Otherwise it wouldn't enjoy near the popularity that it has.

Let me clarify. I don't think changes like this are going to cause a bunch of cars to suddenly disappear altogether, but they'll be used for fewer and fewer trips. A couple of simple examples:

For many years I used to go to an annual conference in Boston. And as part of the confirmation you'd always get some information about places to stay, maps, how to get around, etc. For the last couple of years that information packet started actively discouraging people from renting cars explaining that Boston is a very walkable place. Instead they gave information on how to get to the hotels using public transportation, shuttle services, etc.

That simple message probably meant anywhere from 50 to 200 fewer cars in that area during that week.

Example 2:

I work in a part of town that's booming. Parking has gotten harder and harder to find and more expensive. Our company used to pay for parking for our employees even though the public transportation options are pretty good. Many people could take the bus or train but they opted for the free parking because one or two days a week they need to drive for various reasons. Several years ago the company started to make the employees pay a small portion of the parking costs because the expense was getting out of control. There was a small amount of grumbling but for the most part people just paid the money and continued to drive.

Well, parking costs have continued to climb and now the company is taking a different approach. You can have a free transit pass or they will subsidize your parking up to the cost of the pass, but no more. This will be a significant additional monthly expense for people. So guess what? Some will grit their teeth and pay the money. But for others, transit suddenly make more sense. It is cheaper for them to take the bus most of the time and pay for parking one or two days a week (or park a mile away). Some people have talked about sharing a spot and carpooling.

It's surprising how quick they disappear when they're not as convenient or far more expensive than other options.

I'm assuming the plan is to recommend to people that they find another way to get around in that area. Far more people drive than actually need to.

Or like Nicollet Ave in Minneapolis. It's been that way since the late 60's. First "Transit Mall" in the states.

And here it's been working out great for 50 years.