Moby Hick writes: From the annals of poorly phrased inspirational speeches:
According to Insider, CoStar CEO Andrew Florance held an all-hands video meeting where he presented slides attempting to demonstrate how low risk it would be for the company's then-4,900 employees to return. One of the slides "posited that, statistically, if all employees were to come back to the office, only about one would be likely to die."
Based on the article, this didn't work. Maybe he should have phrased it as "for each of you, there's only a 0.02% chance of death"? And added a confidence interval to show the upper limit? And pinkie swore he wouldn't fire anyone who got really sick but didn't actually die?
Heebie's take: "Look, if only one of you is going to die, then the rest of us have a 50% chance of losing an asshole that we didn't like anyway, right?"
My friend recently has started putting fashion challenges in a group thread I'm in - "wear florals on Wednesday!" kinda thing - and I think it's fun to join in. So I've been taking full length photos of myself, and more importantly seeing full length photos of myself.
I cannot get over how bow-legged I am, and how much I'm turning into my father. I don't think it's particularly noticeable when I'm in motion, but these selfies are really jumping out at me.
Maybe a decade ago, people on this (serious) blog were trying to explain to me how in the olden days, people didn't have an identity in the way we do now. I was being stubbornly recalcitrant and using a broad meaning of "identity", but I think the point was that clothes and lifestyle were determined by such entirely practical matters that you weren't really expressing yourself the way I am, with my Wednesday florals.
There's a funny thing here as well - what would my understanding of myself have been in an era before photographs, and maybe before mirrors as well? There are other reflective surfaces, but your visage just wouldn't be as omnipresent. I might not even know I was bow-legged.
One last thought: When I see a usually-masked student outside, I have sometimes realized that I mentally filled in a totally wrong nose/mouth/chin, and it's kind of a shock if you see the person all the time. If I'd been in the olden days, maybe I would have filled in totally wrong ideas about myself, just by mushing together plausible people I'd seen around me daily. I might have thought I was knock-kneed!!
This is intended to be our system for checking in on imaginary friends, so that we know whether or not to be concerned if you go offline for a while. There is no way it could function as that sentence implies, but it's still nice to have a thread.
Episode Kobe seventeen.
I had a very light post proposed, but I suppose the mature thing to do is to discuss Putin and Ukraine.
(For some reason, my ear wanted to insert "the" before Ukraine. Is that ever a thing? Or just that Ohio State?)
Minivet writes: It's a great read, and simultaneously so frustrating that this was so obvious in 1973 and we just continued to double down on car culture, hollowing out our cities in the process, and writing in laws that hobble this generation when we trying to do better.
Nothing helps. All the solutions have been tried. They all end up making things worse. No matter if they increase the number of city expressways, beltways, elevated crossways, 16-lane highways, and toll roads, the result is always the same. The more roads there are in service, the more cars clog them, and city traffic becomes more paralyzingly congested.
On "freedom" (may also apply to the valence attached to manual transmission vs. automatic):
Here is the paradox of the automobile: it appears to confer on its owners limitless freedom, allowing them to travel when and where they choose at a speed equal to or greater than that of the train. But actually, this seeming independence has for its underside a radical dependency. Unlike the horse rider, the wagon driver, or the cyclist, the motorist was going to depend for the fuel supply, as well as for the smallest kind of repair, on dealers and specialists in engines, lubrication, and ignition, and on the interchangeability of parts. Unlike all previous owners of a means of locomotion, the motorist's relationship to his or her vehicle was to be that of user and consumer-and not owner and master. This vehicle, in other words, would oblige the owner to consume and use a host of commercial services and industrial products that could only be provided by some third party. The apparent independence of the automobile owner was only concealing the actual radical dependency.(I feel like these days bikes depend on industrial infrastructure and supply chains too, but to a difference of degree that amounts to a difference in kind. You can go for a year using a bike and spending barely anything to maintain it.)
Heebie's take: That is a really good article. It's one of those articles that will actually improve my ability to talk about cars and transportation in the future.
At this point, the amount of effort it would take to nudge the needle towards a less car-centric world is incredibly depressing.
Chris Y writes: Seems to be a big storm brewing...
Heebie's take: I felt this:
But failing to do it within the allotted six is a wretched study in self-recrimination.
That was the result for large numbers of players when they were lured into writing "shame", "shape", "shave", "shade", "shale" or "share", but not "shake".
I didn't feel that bad. But I did cycle through a bunch of those options.