risaacs99

This is classic libertarian thinking, and I used to subscribe to it, at least to some extent. The more you think about it, though, the more it doesn't hold up.

It's just undeniably true that individual freedoms exist only to the extent that society allows them to. To think that you can opt out of society is fantasy.

It's in everybody's best interest to make sure society works well for everyone, and that kind of thinking pushes you back to the political center.

A virus with a novel mutation favoring humans would be successful infecting humans, period. I can't imagine any respiratory virus that wouldn't spread more effectively indoors. This "factor" is not particularly compelling (to me).

What's been disappointing to me throughout this experience is the fact that a large percentage of people don't seem to understand contagion.

The idea that a young person is safe is convenient for young people, but irrelevant. We never seemed to communicate to a segment of the population that we are trying to keep them from spreading it, as well as keeping them from catching it.

> There is no "buts" regarding freedom.

This is clearly not true. You are an intelligent person and can probably think of half a dozen counters to this without trying too hard. You may wish this were the case, but it just isn't. Not under any conceivable society that we could structure.

This is a regional outage, not a single AZ.

I always find it interesting how people can think completely differently about this topic depending on how they frame it in their mind. If you think about it from the perspective of personal risk, then young people bristle at being told what to do. If you think about it from the perspective of contagion and at risk people who want to be able to participate in society, you would have a different perspective.

Hopefully we can agree that years where we lose 100,000 people from influenza are tragic, even if we've become accustomed to it. The optimistic possible outcome from this pandemic is maybe that rapid, inexpensive in-home testing for common virus infections becomes widespread. That'd allow a responsible person to test themselves before they went to a sporting event.

It'd also be wonderful if we invested more in a universal influenza vaccination. That's been right around the corner for decades now.

Not sending kids to school is about keeping the teachers, administrators, and their dependents and contacts safe. It's about grandparents who care for the children and would be at risk. I don't think it's about your mom.

I keep reading people asserting this, and I assume it's because we believe that a virus that becomes less lethal would have an evolutionary advantage.

But, wouldn't lengthening the incubation period also be a successful evolutionary strategy regardless of lethality?

It seems to me that there are many possible strategies that a mutating virus might gain an advantage and we shouldn't just assume that the only one that they would use would be to become more mild.

Luckily, sars-cov-2 seems relatively stable.

On the other hand, the second and third order consequences to providing a stronger social safety net to people might be highly beneficial.

We can apply creativity to solving the world's problems without resorting to the slippery slope fallacy of the abandonment of capitalism completely.

Not every social experiment is a one-way door that cannot be tweaked, improved or abandoned. We need to be less cynical and be willing to experiment more without so much fear.

The longer I've worked in software development, the less I'm convinced that any of this matters, at all.

What has mattered more to me is choosing the right architecture, technologies and dependencies. Understanding the fundamentals, especially at least a vague understanding of what the computer is doing with the code I am writing. Basic understanding of algorithms and techniques like state machines.

I've grown almost disdainful of things like SOLID principles, after taking them more seriously in the past.

I don't disagree. I would love the option in the US for everyone to have basic health care through medicare or a public option insurance plan (with prices starting at zero).

My point was to compare it to pre ACA. Our system improved significantly when the ACA was passed.

Now, if you're sharing the cost of a treatment with someone, they're always going to have a say in the treatment you get, unfortunately.

That's true under any system.

Yeah the negativity struck me as well. After being in Afib for a month, he was at high risk for having a stroke. I guarantee you that insurance would have been appreciated then.

Just to add to the discussion, I've been self employed and on ACA plans for several years now (with my family). I'm grateful to have the option, and it's miles ahead of what we had prior to the ACA.

Well that's just like, your opinion, man.

In all seriousness, C and C++ are with us forever. Improving and moving these languages forward, and improving their safety with static and runtime analysis (and hardware support) has to be part of the plan moving forward.