Really bleak outlooks on work from home in here. No doubt it has it's challenges but I've seen an overwhelming amount of support for it across the internet and I think it's very much deserved.

As a software developer who got the opportunity to try it for a month due to COVID, I couldn't have been happier. My life was way more balanced. I saved a lot of money that would have otherwise been wasted on travelling, gained two more hours sleep, cut my junk food intake and had a lot more time and energy on an evening to tend to my hobbies and catch up with friends. I was also way more enthuastic and productive at work.

Without actually considering whether or not it had any merits, the CEO shut it down the first chance he got. I assumed it was a feeling of being undermined since he can code from the comfort of his home as he pleases (..most of the week).

After that opportunity I really started thinking: Why do I go to work when my presence contributes absolutely nothing to getting shit done? In absence of a good reason, I'll probably be looking for a WFH opportunity the moment I wrap up some projects at my current job.

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-man-who-lives-without-90-of-his-brain-is-challenging-our-understanding-of-consciousness — Sam26

The little note at the end is the most important part of the article which betrays the notion that the person lost neurons at all (..or at least the amount proposed). In fact when the article became popular on other corners of the internet, many people were already saying the same thing. Impressive that his brain withstood that much pressure, for sure, but I'm not sure how this particular story helps your idea.

Science with respect to the COVID-19 epidemic — Wayfarer

Anyone who was following the WHO alongside, say, scientists like Yaneer Bar Yam, or statisticians like Nassim Taleb, saw a different story when it comes to COVID-19 and science. In the early days, WHO repeatedly claimed that directives for COVID-19 ought to be "evidence-based". This is why they took a very conservative stance in the beginning and claimed, for example, that travel bans were not necessary to fight the virus. But as Taleb pointed out some time ago:

"...evidence follows, does not precede, rare impactful events and waiting for the accident before putting the seat belt on, or evidence of fire before buying insurance would make the perpetrator exit the gene pool."

To this day, it boggles my mind that nobody who was in a position of power got their warning. And the story followed the same path for mask wearing.

All this to say science is good. Though, when scientists do their jobs poorly or don't realize that modelling under extreme uncertainty is not going to give us the answers we need in time, the results can be deadly.

Here's another one. Anyone spot the irony in Bill Gates' involvement in the COVID-19 response and his company releasing genetically modified mosquitoes into the environment?. We're really good at science but when we are horrible decision makers, the science starts to hurt.

I understand what your personal opinion is, but is there any scientific reason to exclude the possibility of that denial being rooted in fear, anxiety, etc. when those emotions often result in denial? — Apollodorus

If one is an atheist because theistic claims of God are false, then what matters of fact are that atheist in denial of?

When it comes to decision making under uncertainty, is the W.H.O. (..C.D.C etc) useful when it matters? Or merely after the fact if we aren't all dead due to incompetence? It seems to me that the ones who were on the money early about precautionary measures were the folk in the complexity science camp or countries that understood the dangerous of getting it wrong from experience (e.g. Taiwan).

The responses to this and other posts from Pinprick and jorndoe were disappointing. Props for trying, @180 Proof. At the very least, Frank's frequent evasions might serve as light entertainment to passersby. I won't be taking a swing, though. :victory:

How to Be an Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi

Have not read through everything posted so far but I thought I'd throw in my two cents anyways.

If "God" exists then there is at least one thing about it that separates it from everything else. If we can't establish what those things are, then it's unclear what we are even talking about (i.e. "God" is unintelligible). However, if we are clear on what properties "God" has and no evidence supports "God" having them, then the "God" we've defined clearly doesn't exist. In that way, the idea that science has no bearing on the matter seems misguided.

I also can't figure out why anyone would want to set the bar any lower.