Re: Worse than that bloody virus
Just noticed an error in my earlier post - it should be "... hasn't been a socialist government..."
3653 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
There has been a socialist government in the UK for decades. IR35 is not, by any description, a socialist policy. However, no matter how you class it, the combination of IR35, leaving the EU, and Covid-19 combine to create a perfect storm. Changing any one of those would make a huge difference to the future health of Britain's economy. IR35 was the easiest to change, but our glorious representatives failed epically (again). Who do they work for? Well, not you or me, that's for certain.
They couldn't take control of their bowel motions.*
*This isn't particularly aimed at the current crop of incompetents - there isn't anyone from any party that I can see would do better. It is unlikely to change any time soon - even Tony Blair has said he's pleased his children aren't interested in going into Westminster because it is such a toxic environment, FFS!
Some types of data need to be collected by some types of business, either to fulfil a key element (such as delivery), or to comply with legal requirements (money-related activity, for example). This Californian legislation is a good start, but there are two fairly obvious compromises*: a) the use of the word "sell" is very specific, and doesn't describe what the worst offenders (Google, Facebook, etc) actually do with personal data; and, b) this puts the onus on the data subject to protect themselves, rather than protection being the default with a tick-box to opt out of protection.
It will be interesting to see how enforcement goes, and compare and contrast with the EU "enforcement scheme".
* I'll use that word to indicate where brown envelopes were most obviously directed during conversations with legislators.
This is interesting stuff. Both sides have good points to make. I'm not sure I agree wholeheartedly with Sotomayor's argument about a term gaining the ability to be trademarked by transitioning from e.g. washing machine to washingmachine.com by virtue of usage. To me, "booking.com" does have a particular individual character - I would ask if a place was booked through booking.com, or TripAdvisor, or Airbnb, for example. Note that I use the url for the first - just to say "Is it booked through booking?" makes no sense. I can't see a situation where most terms would become that sort of unique identifier, but, if it did, then there would be a transition from $term to potentially trademarkable identifier.
Don't be so sure. I'm passing ugly (not enough to scare a troll into fits, but enough to scare small children and animals if the light is right), but I've seen two people close enough to make even me look twice. One was the clergyman conducting my nephew's christening, and the other was a bloke on the alumni version of "University Challenge".
Any requirement to wear certain items to enter an establishment or mode of transport other than one related to healthcare means that they will not get my custom - certainly now, probably not in the future. It's security theatre destroying the fabric of society.
@hoola: "Is it stupidity, ignorance or being selfish?" More likely, it is people making an assessment of risk and deciding what risk profile they wish to accept. Cowering inside, afraid of a virus, was never going to last long, especially once it became clear that the worst-case scenario wasn't even close.*
The problem is going to be in the future, when a really serious pandemic strikes - people will be very slow to accept restrictions. This was a one-shot project, and it failed and keeps failing because our glorious government won't accept they got it wrong in every single way - they isolated the young, who have a very small risk, and failed to isolate the old in nursing homes, who gave a very high risk. The damage from separating children from their peers will last for years.
* As I read somewhere yesterday, an epidemiologist would far rather overestimate an infection risk by two orders of magnitude than underestimate by one order of magnitude.
@LucreLout: I think you are taking a very negative point of view here. Other commenters have made many of the points I have in mind. Your comment about not understanding why it is more difficult for younger people to work from home again shows what seems to be wilful ignorance - a lot if younger folk are sharing accommodation with other people, and have restricted room for working from home. Anecdata alert - the other day I was speaking with a tech support contact for my ISP, and she was clearly being distracted by someone else. I asked if she was back in the office, and she said no, she was at home, a flat shared with three other people and only one ethernet socket - in the living room.
Additionally, lots of young people have children and no separate work space. It is nearly impossible to work in those conditions.
"Automation bias" (the device must be right) is a real thing. I'm currently writing an expert witness report in a case where, if people actually did their jobs properly it would be obvious that the disputed report makes sense only with thought. Instead of that, the reputations (and possibly careers) of several people are wrongly on the line.
That's exactly it. There is something called "judicial knowledge" which is a (very) short things that can be accepted without definition. Back in the 1960s a judge got ridiculed by the press for asking counsel "Who are 'The Beatles'*?" after an undefined reference. The judge wasn't personally unaware of the group, but he needed the reference defining for the court reports.
* or maybe the Rolling Stones - I can't remember exactly.
@AC: what you are using here is idea every cloud has a silver lining.* However, compared to the amount of cloud the silver lining is minimal and that is probably the case here.
*Though we all know it isn't true - yesterday was horizon-to-horizon cloud, with no lining, let alone a silver one!
I think you are confusing two different things there. I speak as an ex-psychiatric nurse and depression sufferer when I say that I abhor the trivialisations you mention - depression isn't unhappiness, bipolar isn't not quite knowing what mood you're in - because they make nearly impossible to explain why depression and bipolar are so disabling. However, using mental health-related terms actually normalise having problems. I will not stop using "crazy", "nutty", "daft", "barmy", "bonkers" "looney" etc, because they no longer mean what they used to. As the pro-language buggering lot keep saying, language evolves.
There are at least two genetic elements to deaths and serious illness from Covid-19. One relates to blood group, and the other to ACE2 and chemokyne receptors. People with blood group A have a greater chance of death or serious illness than other blood groups. See https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/two-genetic-regions-linked-with-severe-covid-19-67619, for example.
I haven't had chance to refresh my memory on the distribution of blood groups amongst different ethnicities, but I do remember that group A is more prevalent amongst some non-European groups.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020