Opinion

A state government should not be able to sue the federal government just because it disagrees with a federal policy. This principle, affirmed by the Supreme Court in an 8-1 decision on Friday, should be obvious.

But in recent years, as the country has become more politically polarized, there have been a proliferation of suits filed by states to dismantle White House policies. Blue states, including California, did this during the Trump years and the trend has intensified with red states taking the Biden administration to court.

Friday’s ruling in United States vs. Texas is a perfect illustration. In 2021, the Biden administration’s Department of Homeland Security announced its priorities in arresting and deporting those who are illegally in the United States. There are more than 11 million undocumented individuals in the country, but only several hundred thousand can practically be deported each year. The Biden administration said that it would focus its arrest and deportation efforts on suspected terrorists or dangerous criminals, or people who unlawfully entered the country recently.

Texas and Louisiana sued the administration in federal court claiming that federal laws require it to arrest more people pending their deportation. But Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, writing for the majority (only Justice Samuel Alito dissented), ruled that the states lacked standing to sue. The decision was also a rebuke to the federal district court in Texas and the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, both of which ruled that the states could sue the federal government over a policy disagreement.

Subscribe to Continue Reading

It is a longstanding principle that for a federal court to hear a case, the plaintiff must show that it was directly harmed, that the defendant caused the harm and that the harm could be remedied by a court decision. The court said that neither Texas nor Louisiana met that test.

In the past, the standing issue was often used by the Supreme Court to dismiss suits seeking to change the law in a progressive direction. For example, 40 years ago, the court dismissed a case involving use of chokeholds by Los Angeles police officers for lack of standing to sue, concluding that the plaintiff could not show that he was likely to be injured in the future. And suits seeking to protect the environment have been dismissed for lack of standing.

Although I think the court is often too restrictive in its standing rulings, Friday’s decision closely follows from earlier precedents and rightly limits the ability of states to sue in federal court because they disagree with a presidential policy.

The practical effect of the court’s analysis is its recognition that the government must make choices in enforcing the law. Thus, the Department of Homeland Security must set priorities in arresting and deporting non-citizens and it is not for the federal courts to second guess those choices. As Kavanaugh wrote, “If the Court green-lighted this suit, we could anticipate complaints in future years about alleged Executive Branch under-enforcement of any similarly worded laws — whether they be drug laws, gun laws, obstruction of justice laws, or the like. We decline to start the Federal Judiciary down that uncharted path.”

This is actually the second time this month that the court restricted the ability of states to sue when they dislike federal policy. Last week, in upholding the federal Indian Child Welfare Act — a law that says priority should be given to Native American families when Native American children are placed for adoption in foster care — the court again dismissed a claim by Texas that the law was an unconstitutional racial preference. In a 7-2 opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court concluded that the state of Texas could not show that it was injured by the federal law.

Friday’s decision is a double-edged sword. It will mean that when there is a conservative Republican president, states like California will be limited in their ability to sue. But the court did not close the door to all suits by states, only that they must meet the standing test. While the law in this area certainly is not new, the court did the right thing by applying it in this case.

Erwin Chemerinsky is a contributing writer to Opinion and dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law.

A cure for the common opinion

Of all the urgent problems House Republicans could be tackling — gun violence, voting rights, climate change — they are using some of their power to fan the flames of a cultural war over gas stoves.

Last week the GOP-controlled House passed legislation that would prevent the Consumer Product Safety Commission from using federal money to regulate or ban gas stoves and block the U.S. Energy Department from making gas ranges and ovens less wasteful by setting stricter energy efficiency standards.

The Gas Stove Protection and Freedom Act and the Save Our Gas Stoves Act amount to little more than political posturing. Yet the measures show how much Republicans are trying to cling to the polluting fossil fuel technology of the past in a world that is slowly but surely going all-electric.

The legislation purports to respond to a nonexistent problem: The unfounded fear that the feds are trying to seize people’s gas stoves ( which they’re not

) or ban them ( they’re not doing that, either

). These bills would needlessly hamper regulators by preventing them from setting standards to keep Americans safe from gas leaks and indoor pollution and saving them money by increasing energy efficiency in the kitchen — as they have done with little controversy for decades for every type of home appliance you can imagine.

Subscribe to Continue Reading

These bills aren’t expected to go anywhere, because they’re unlikely to clear the Senate or be signed into law by President Biden. The White House issued a statement opposing the bills, saying they would undermine the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s “ability to make science-based decisions to protect the public” and “block common sense efforts to help Americans cut their energy bills.”

Proponents such as Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.) have cast the legislation in “don’t tread on me” terms, to protect “consumer choice” from the Biden administration’s supposed “war against gas stoves.” And it’s disappointing that Californians from both sides of the aisle were among those voting in favor.

California, like other blue states, is heavily reliant on gas for home cooking and heating, but state and local officials are adopting a growing number of policies aimed at electrifying buildings, including measures to ban gas hookups in new construction and phase out sales of gas furnaces and water heaters. Still, targeting stoves remains touchy for regulators, in part because of the success of a decades-long industry disinformation campaign that mythologized methane gas as a “clean” and “natural” fuel.

Republicans seized on gas stoves earlier this year after Richard Trumka Jr., a member of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, suggested the agency could regulate or even ban gas stoves as a health hazard. The commission was quick to clarify that it was not seeking to ban gas stoves, only asking for public input on their health hazards. And the White House has been clear that President Biden does not support banning gas stoves.

This move is not an entirely hollow gesture because it’s part of a broader GOP-led push to restrict government’s power to protect people from pollution while propping up the fossil fuel industry. It aligns squarely with the interests of oil and gas companies that have successfully blocked efforts by states to ban new gas hookups, improve energy standards and otherwise prevent states and cities from switching to more efficient electric appliances fueled by clean, renewable energy.

It’s a transition that is going to happen whether fossil-fuel-supporting politicians like it or not. There’s been mounting evidence of the health risks of gas stoves, including a recently published study by Stanford University researchers who tested them in homes in California and Colorado and found they emit unhealthful levels of benzene, a cancer-causing pollutant, that can linger indoors for hours and reach higher concentrations than in secondhand cigarette smoke. It’s only the latest research to find dangerous levels of health-damaging air pollutants, including nitrogen dioxide, formaldehyde and carbon monoxide, inside homes with gas stoves, even when they are turned off.

Republicans are trying to turn what should be a sober, science-based discussion about kitchen appliances into another wedge issue — or as Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio put it earlier this year, “God. Guns. Gas stoves.” But such efforts show they care more about defending the fossil fuel industry than protecting people’s health and lowering utility bills. Those priorities are wildly misplaced and should be laughed out of the chamber.

A cure for the common opinion

Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

The Los Angeles Times’ editorial board determines the positions of The Times as an institution. It operates separately from the newsroom. You can read more about the board’s mission and its members at About The Times Editorial Board.

Birds have feathers. And birds fly. But the feathers are not to aid flight. And I'll prove it.

Dinosaurs evolved from reptiles. And birds evolved from dinosaurs (theropods). After all that evolution, much is still similar. Birds still have beaks and make nests and lay eggs in them. But birds and theropods have a new body shape (their legs that go straight down from their bodies), feathers, skin, and they lay hard eggs.

Compare photos of a chicken and a veliciraptor. Then compare their skeletons. There is not much difference at all. It is like comparing prehistoric and modern crocodiles.

The flying animals in dinosaur times did not even have feathers, but the flightless therapods did. And most modern flying animals do not have feathers.

Some birds have evolved feathers with special aerodynamic properties. But then bats have evolved skin, and insects have evolved wing-tissue with the similar properties.

Birds also evolved special bone structure to aid flight. Saying feathers are for flight is like saying bones are for flight.

Theropods evolved feathers, but they did that millions of years before they started flying. Many of them never evolved to fly at all, including many extinct dinosaurs and many living birds. The ability to fly is distinct from the bearing of feathers. There is no connection at all.

Somebody today coined the term "hygiene poverty" which means not having enough money for things like toothpaste or perfume. It sounds exactly like normal poverty, like we don't need a new term for that.

But it could be useful to categorise it. We already have food-poverty, bed-poverty, and housing-poverty. They are specific problems people have. People suffering one type of poverty are not necessarily suffering any of the others. So it is useful to be specific instead of lumping everyone together as if they are all face a more-or-less similar problem.

We should use, extend, and formalise this concept.

Grade inflation is a problem. I think most people are already convinced of that, so I'll skip to the solution.

It's simple. Percentiles. People no longer receive scores based directly on how many answers they got right. These scores are converted into percentiles. Percentiles are the number "what percentage of people did you score better than". So the subjects are divided equally into 100 groups.

It is a simple and old thing, but it does solve the major problems with exams which are intractable under normal systems, and are today costing examining bodies years of effort to try to deal with.

This is just a simple solution to one age old problem - stopping the party with most power (usually the seller) from using deposits as a way to gain leverage the weaker one. It removes the unfairness and flaws the the way deposits normally work.

Deposits are usually asymmetrical. They are charged by one party to give it leverage over the other, in the event that something falls through. For example if a hotel guest cancels a booking he loses the deposit, but if the hotel cancels it it pays nothing. So there is an asymmetry of power. It's unfair.

In well-regulated areas, deposits are held by a trust. For example in the UK a deposit paid by a tenant does not go to the landlord. It goes to a "deposit protection scheme". This helps resolve all sorts of disputes. An uninterested party will judge whether the tenant has forfeited his deposit.

Combining these two ideas yields the solution to the problem. The best way to deal with deposits is this: Both parties pay the same amount to a trust as a deposit. If either party breaks the agreement, he receives the other party's deposit plus his own.

There is one additional benefits, made possible by this innovation: The deposit amount should be set not by one of the parties, but by regulation. For example it could be 10% of the transaction price. When entering the scheme, both parties can state if they prefer a different amount. The final deposit amount will be the median of the three amounts (the buyer's preference, the seller's preference, and the regulated amount).

This plan is indeed radical. It punishes suppliers would can produce energy cheaply and efficiently by taking away their profits. It rewards suppliers using Russian gas by letting them sell for higher prices than everyone else.

All excess revenues above the cost of production would be taken by the state.

It incentivises renewable energy suppliers to turn off their generators, which will worsen the problem. If a wind turbine (for example) is broken or is due maintenance, it will be cheaper to turn it off than to repair it. Building new turbines will be financially suicidal.

What would make sense? Taxing profits or taxing income. This is not radical but it works well.

---

They also want to reduce consumption during peak hours using some crazy voucher scheme. Instead, they need to charge different rates to consumers at different times of the day. This is so simple and un-radical it is already common in many places.

---

They want to use the tax income to renumerate energy consumers (ie everybody). There is one simple and known way to do this, called UBI. The tax is re-distributed equally as a subsidy every resident.

In fact, the most effective solution is to raise a tax on all electricity energy and gas consumption, per kJ used. (Ideally prices are also set depending on time of day.) This further inflates the price and drives unessential consumption sharply down. This tax revenue is redistributed as a UBI. So people who use very little electricity make a good income. But every extra unit you use is very expensive.

You also need a way for consumers to measure the cost. For example website showing the price of boiling a kettle and of other common activities, in euros.

The solution is exactly the same for businesses.

---

The big advantage of the existing plan? Governments can choose the criteria for receiving grants and vouchers. So it can be selective, choosing (to some extent) who gets money. This power is the life-blood of politicians. It allows them to trade favours with businessmen. For example,

measuring the growth in energy costs as a proportion of revenues to trigger quailification for supports.

So the ROI government is planning to subsidise only the thirstiest energy consumers, the same ones they already have a strong political relationship with.

This is why the subsidies/vouchers/grants system is appealing to them. It allows them to look like they are solving the problem, while really setting up a scheme to trade influences with their political allies, and worsening the problem.

99% invisible recently released a good documentary about the CDC.

It shows the CDC to be (at least in some parts of its remit) incompetent. It's about the data-collection work the CDC was doing (or not doing) in 2020.

It reminds me of an article the CDC wrote in 2020, and my criticism of it at the time, for a different aspect of its work. So I post all three here together.

https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/pandemic-tracking-and-the-future-of-data/

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p0714-americans-to-wear-masks.html

The hairdressers anecdote. This is a dangerous study. There is no control group, so the results are 100% meaningless. That the CDC is taking this kind of story as evidence is damaging for its credibility.

That said, there is evidence that hairdressers should wear masks. It comes from the Wells curve and all the follow up research over many decades. If you are standing over someone, within 50cm-ish, then masks are an appropriate barrier measure.

That's the thing. People like CDC experts want to believe that the world is simple - mask usage is either good or bad. But the world is full of complexity, different types of situation where different behaviours are appropriate. They reject a complicated truth over a simple fiction.

(TBH even if there was a control group, you might need more info before you consider using that anecdote as evidence for anything - for example cloth face coverings and surgical masks are not the same thing! you'd need to categorise by how much time they are wearing each one, and other factors, then do some statistics ... then you know if the result is meaningful)

It's knowing the difference between a study and an anecdote/case-study.

I try not to be too dismissive. But in this case ... this is really disappointing. The CDC should do better than this, given its importance in global policy making. I, a total layman, can instantly find serious mistakes.

...and it's not just a mistake. it's a lack of curiosity. it's not being interested in what is true or false, as long as it supports your preconception. it's not being analytical at all, just following a dogma.

The CDC is revealing itself to be grossly incompetent in its role.

...even though its point about mask-wearing hairdressers is actually correct!

Under the rule of law, how can breaking the law be justified?

Firemen are allowed break any law (destroying property, traffic laws, tresspassing, even setting off bombs) in their line of work. But firemen have no special legal powers. So how can they do that, and why can't I?

Under the rule of law, the same law applies to everyone. In some countries the police are above the law (France), in others it is a monarch (UK), in others there is different law for different ethnicities (Israel). They do not have rule of law.

Under the rule of law, there are no automatic punishments handed out by robots or algorithms, extra-judicial punishments, or punishments without a crime (UK, UK, and UK). No ASBOs, fixed-penalties, or internment. When somebody commits a crime, he is called before a judge, who applies a punishment, in accordance with a written (unlike the UK) non-secret (unlike the USA) set of laws.

So one day a fireman gets called out to an emergency, and he breaks some laws. He could get called before a judge for that. But the judge will always excuse crimes reasonably done to tackle an emergency. If the fireman does the same thing when there is no emergency, he will be sentenced.

If somebody calls me to help with a fire, I can do the same. The crucial and only difference between him and me, is that I'm unlikely to ever be called out to a fire.

So firemen (and police, organ-transplant drivers, gas pipeline repairmen, etc) must all obey the law outside of an emergency or some other great exceptional need. Even with emergencies, they can expect to get called to court occasionally to justify their actions.

And if I need to break a window or a traffic light in my rush rush to get to a doctor (or even a fire) I can do that without fear of punishment.

This also means that police and airport staff have no need for special legal powers. For example in the UK, anybody an make an arrest. But non-police rarely do so, except in exceptional situations. It's nearly always better to call the police instead, not least because you'll later have to explain your actions in court. This is the example which should be made more general.

This is the only reasonable way for the law to be organised.

They're hilarious! I can't stop watching them over and over, even though I need to work on late school work.

I saw TF2 sound mods that used 15.ai; but there's not enough of them. There needs to be more!

• I made some random lines with 15.ai
• I also tried to make TF2 voicelines of characters making actual competitive calls..
• I even tried to make a Japanese Dub of TF2; but I gave up because I lost interest.

I want to make more; but I feel cringe for doing so.

I don't like seeing people being swindled in politics. Regardless if the propaganda is capitalist, communist, socialist, distributist, left-wing, right-wing, LGBT+, Ableist, etc.

I feel empathy for the persuaded crowd and want to help them; but humanity is not always logical.

It seems like few people support proper critical thinking (as in, giving every political belief a fair education). I wish more people advocated for education of proper critical thinking.

(Maybe I should make a political flag for critical thinking.)

There are several changes that need to be made to retail law, to stop predatory practices.

Firstly there is one thing that legislators usually do wrong:

The trick is in making law is to make the rules general and mild. For example a law banning cafés from giving away plastic toys is a defective law. The toy manufacturer will just sell them to a different type of business to be given away for free. And it says nothing about other kinds of plastic wastage (or non plastic wastage). And what if there is a good reason to be giving away toys, like birthday party - it should still be possible.

A good version of this law would be a general tax (not a ban) on plastic. So it becomes expensive to give away plastic toys, but also to do other wasteful things with plastic. Only when there is a real utility to using the plastic will businesses be willing to pay the tax.

---

Here are the changes needed right now.

Sneaky price changes/inflation (Targeted mostly at airlines) The seller must post a sign on the item one week before to one week after the price change. Just having to inform customers should dissuade sellers from most frivolous increases. Price changes cannot be more than 10% per week. Different customers cannot be charged different prices for the same thing on the same day. This also discourages charging very high prices for new products, because it will be difficult to reduce the price later.

Sales tax is a function of the weight of packaging in each material, per weight of product. Very high tax rates for non-recyclable packaging. Most territories already have variable VAT rates for different categories of items, so there's no technical challenge here.

Tax on the production or import of bad things like plastics, coal, wild animals, non-managed wood.

Encourage repairability Targeted at dishwashers, cars. Each package has a parts list. For each part, is it replaceable, are replacements currently being made by more than one manufacturer (not patented)?

Anything sold without a guarantee suffers a higher VAT. The rate reduces in function of the lifespan of the thing. So disposable and bad quality things become expensive.

The wholesale price must also be available. Markup of >100% not allowed. Not only does it let people see which things are over-priced by the retailer, but it lets retailers see what other ones are paying the wholesaler. So it has a deflationary effect on both the retail and wholesale markets.

Things sold in units of 1, 2 or 5 only. So 1000g bags of flour are permitted. But selling a 950g bag will incur a charge. These odd quantities are nearly always scams. There's not normally a good reason to sell 190g or 480g or something.

It's important to have a mechanism for people to report non-compliance, and for the fines on businesses to be public.

As always when raising a tax, it increases the cost of living, so something else must be changed to compensate, like UBI, the dole and minimum wage, income tax, the general VAT rate. This is another thing legislators usually neglect.

Each of these has negative consequences, but all of them can be easily fixed. But this post is already long enough.

Here is my idea.

During the famine grain was being hoarded my several estates, shipfulls of grain were being exported from Ireland. This exacerbated the famine.

But look at it this way - there was a bad harvest, which by itself would have caused an increase in grain prices. But it precipitated and attack on commodity prices by a coordinated group of investors. They bought grain and withheld it from the market, pumping prices. Then they sold small amounts at inflated prices.

The actions of Westminster, where they decided year after year not to intervene, is said to be because they didn't want to provoke shocks in food prices in England. If you take them at their word, it was a genocide - they worsened (or created) a famine (and consciously killed millions) for local political reasons.

But looked at the new way, they were facilitating an investment scheme by important wealthy businesses. By withholding food from Ireland (food which was mostly produced in Ireland) they were allowing the scheme to run for longer. This is typical in modern England, that the bankers' interest is the highest priority for government. Understanding that is key to understanding why the UK behaves as it does. And the famine lasted several years, only because of Westminster's actions.

Makes sense?

...unless they also condemn the USA for invading Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

Most European territories serve the USA's geopolitical goals. Sanctions against Russia right now are part of that. There's nothing moral about it. It's simply a service to the USA for being in its sphere of influence. There is nothing, not a single shred of integrity in that.

If you find a territory which sanctions Russia for its crime, and also the USA for its crimes, you can recognise it as a real principled act.

The best strategic move for Ukraine is to surrender.

Many Ukrainian lives are lost and cities destroyed, in the service of this ancient USA vs Russia proxy war. The USA is sending them weapons so that Russians and Ukrainians can kill each other, and eventually weaken the Russian army.

It's stupid. If Ukraine surrenders, the USA will be forced to send in its own troops to fight back Russia.

The USA will not allow Russia to gain Ukraine. It's too strategically important. Their aircraft will appear over Ukrainian skies within hours of the surrender, and will decimate Russia.

Don't be used as pawns in someone else's war.

The abortion debate is probably one of the most contentious of all. It affects people on a very personal level, so most people have very strong opinions on it.

I'm not here to debate this, more to share a way of thinking which might help people. If it doesn't help you, then ignore it. The world does not need another circular intractable abortion debate.

In fact most people (in my experience) fall into one of two extremist polarised camps.

1. Abortion should be freely available to all, up to a certain date (usually in the months). If one parent (usually the mother but not always) desires it, nobody else shall interfere.

2. Abortion should be banned except in a medical emergency, feotal non-viability, or to save the mother's life.

These are both extremist views, and they are mutually exclusive. So the abortion debate is about winning and losing. Both of these policies are disastrous for vast numbers of people. Whichever side wins, vast numbers of lives and entire families will be ruined.

But put it another way. These are the things people really care about:

1. Nobody should be forced to bring an unwanted child into the world

2. Living things (especially human) should not be killed except under dire need.

3. People should be able to have sex without consequences.

They are not exclusive.

Everybody wants the same three things. And society can have all of those things, at the same time.

Let's put the issues in the third and final arrangement:

• Three weeks. Three weeks is a long enough time to visit a doctor or pharmacist under any circumstances. There is no reason for anyone to wait longer than that between sex and thinking about (panicking about) pregnancy.

So the issue is access to contraception and to information about contraception. People know about condoms and pills and patches. Everybody knows that 100% effective contraception does not exist. But that is only true is you want it to be - if people are taught ineffective contraception methods. Most people have never heard about ovulation testing or tube ligation. But they both are effective. They need to be as accessible and publicised. Depending on condoms is a method designed to fail.

• Day 21. Before this the fetus has no organs. No heart, no brain. Although it is technically a living, metabolising, growing human, there's not such a big ethical problem killing somebody with no heart or brain.

Access to effective contraception obviates the need for abortion for the vast majority of cases/people. But you can imagine failure cases. So this is the safety net. Abortion up to 21 days.

And abortions must be as rare as possible, because they do destroy families. There is no good answer to a lot of the problems with abortion - who needs to be informed, consulted or give authorisation, how do you measure 21 days...

• 24 hours. In a medical crisis, like sepsis, a patient can be dead in 24 hours. There are many circumstances unorthadox medical treatment is necessary. There are too many to list or legislate for. The law should never allow a doctor to believe that he can allow a patient (or two) to die, just because of a political/legal issue. He doesn't have time to consult a lawyer and he shouldn't ever need to.

Part of the motivation here is to bring human medicine up to the standards of vet medicine. Vets do not normally perform abortions. They perform sterilisations. They do this because this is the ethical way. In the past, people used to drown kittens, now they spay kittens. Let's be like the kittens.

Today many artists and inventors and businessmen rely on donations. But a system where the donation is rewarded with shares would be better.

Then, if the business eventually becomes successful, they will get back dividends. It's a much more inviting concept. Having shares in something really makes people loyal, in a way that being a donor does not. It would generate much more money IMO.

Patreon (or the ethical alternative whose name I forget) could add this option without much difficulty. The new relationship would be a powerful improvement. It would lead to more and better-funded independent projects everywhere.

It's been obvious for a while that governments worldwide are not able to design effective strategies to stop covid. So I've been trying to think of initiatives that bypass government.

One example is the decision whether to leave pubs open or closed, despite different pubs having very different infectiousness. One pub might be 100x safer than another, so it's improper to paint them all with the same brush. It leads to the worst of both worlds, with high contagion and high restrictions on peoples lives, at the same time.

It's possible to categorise public spaces by their infectiousness. For example somewhere with bad ventillation, high density of people, who stay there for a long time; is more infectious than for example an outdoor space.

So privately owned public spaces (shops, pubs, cafés schools, stations, etc) can ask for an evaluation by an expert. The expert can do a calculation based on the properties of the space and its usage, using transparent criteria. The space will get a result. Not a safe/unsafe one, or a stay open / stay closed one, but something like this:

• max 5 people at a time. max 15 min stay. masks required.

This result can be posted on the door, as an advertisement that the space is taking covid seriously, and a helpful guide to concerned customers.

This is easy to understand and obey, and helps people control their risks, but it never stops people from doing business somewhere. Nowhere will get a 0 min rating, exuivalent to being temporarily shut down, because that doesn't make epidemiological sense. One pub might get a 30min rating and another a 90min rating. So the first one won't go out of business (like it would under a lockdown) but there is a strong incentive to improve its ventillation to get a longer rating.

This is the ideal situation. It solves all the weaknesses with most governments' policies in one go. It's a shame governments don't have the sense to implement it, but any non-profit could.

The sign on the door is also an advertisement for the scheme, to get more businesses to sign up. People will choose to go to the shop with the bright covid rating sign in the door, over the one with no information on how infectious it is. The abstaining shops will be conspicuous and lose business.

You've heard about 'fragility' WRT covid policy.

If we are all following the same centrally determined rules set by government, then those rules have to be perfectly thought-out. If they make policy mistakes (as they frequently do) then everybody in the territory suffers the consequences. These decrees from government are always (necessarily) rigid. It is well known that decisions should be made at the lowest possible level, so they can be flexible enough.

But I've realised there is a possible counter-argument. It's 'perverse incentives'.

Imagine people are well-informed, because a government has been providing appropriate information. Imagine there is a covid outbreak one day in December. Most people will decide (depending on their personal risk-factors) to stay away from the butchers. But if there is one 'bad actor' who goes in anyway, he will get his pick of the turkeys. The man who does bad is rewarded. For any policy to work, breaking the policy must not be rewarded.

And if one man is breaking the rules and benefiting from it, then everyone must do the same.

To be clear, this is not about people who must interact with society despite the epidemic - they have to do some business or work, or for the young people the work they need to do is socialising. Pro-lockdown people would say stop all of that irrespective of its importance. This is a weak argument, but it's not the pertinent one. This is about people who are compelled to do business against their own best interests, because they know other people will do so.

So (although I've never heard it from anywhere else) there is an argument for centrally dictated covid policy.

Do you think it's a strong argument, despite all the problems with government-set covid policy?

Ex:

Support (play):

1. tuxemon, (foss) if not then

2. temtem (closed source alternative i think)

only then should someone support

3. pokemon

if someone tells you that something should be easy for you

if someone tells you that something should be easy for you, and then when you try something, something is easy, that was good advice in the end, but

if someone tells you that something should be easy for you, and then you try something, and something is difficult for you, it doesn't seem to me that it is easy for someone to judge what is easy for you, let alone give you advice....

as someone told you something should be easy for you, then you try it, then it is hard, and then someone doesn't know what that someone is talking about.

If that someone knew what that someone was talking about, then the specific thing someone told you should be easy for you, when you try it, then it has to be easy for you, or someone misjudged...

...regarding you, when you judge something is easy for you, something is easy for you...

...when you judge something is difficult for you, something is difficult for you...

...and when something other than the above two happens to you, you have misjudged what is easy and difficult for you for the specific occasion.

People who excel at difficult things

In order for people to have a good life, they need to have fun in a way that is fun for their own selves , or else they are not having fun, and the universe can't do anything to change that for them if they don't change their way, that they notice, is not fun for them.

Regarding people who excel at difficult things, either...

The things those people excel at, are not difficult for them up to the point they excel...or...

The things those people excel at, are difficult for them up to the point they excel, ...and then ....

People who excel at things, that are difficult for them up to the point they excel, make it more difficult for anyone else to excel, as they already know that there are some for who it is easy to excel up to the point they excel, if they don't add some extra hurdles on the way for other to excel...so that...they can excel instead...

Do these people make sense in general?

No, they don't in general.

And in specific, they make things difficult for others...

Shamed for doing something difficult

Some people find things which the majority find easy to do, difficult to do, and they are shamed for this.

Some people find things which the majority find easy to do, difficult to do, and they are not shamed for this.

Whether they are shamed for doing something or not, depends on the consequences something has in reality, on whether the rest like something in reality, and in the end on whether the rest people think it is sensible for them to try to be kind to others for the specific occasion, and...

sometimes it is sensible to be kind to another, and sometimes you are not being sensible with yourself, spending time and effort with another, and regardless of how kind you want to be to another, in the end justice is blind, since the beginning of humans, and you are not being sensible with yourself, when you ignore that.

things that are easy are easy for those who understand how to do them,

and things that are hard are no different than the things that are easy for those who don't understand how to do them...

Humans who have a different definition of easy than other humans, should remember:

Something is easy for me, if it is not hard for me to do in reality.

Something is easy for some people, if it is not hard for some people to do in reality.

Something is easy for most people , if it is not hard for most people to do in reality.

And what I mean by this is

If something is easy for most people or some people, but it is not easy for one, then whether something is easy doesn't become hard for everyone because of one, does it?

Clarifications

if people in groups or societies, don't have a common way to judge which things are easy or difficult, it seems to me things get more difficult for that group or society as time passes , or do you think this is not the case?

And what is that way,

which is common in a group of people to judge which things are easy or difficult,

you may wonder?..

In short it is what I initially wrote down. If you want me to write more...

You have a group of people, or society, people do things, and for the things they do, those things can be easy or difficult for them, on average, and that is because of the following...

When people in the group or society, want to judge other people in the same group or society doing things, they do that using their own personal view, but... regardless of their personal view, the common view people in the group or society have, is the view that most people have... commonly, that is the view that makes common sense for that group of people or society.

Because within a group of people, the common view people in the group or society have, is the view that most people have, the common view people in the group or society have, better for that group or society be a sensible one,

or else things get more difficult for the group or society, as time passes...

as the human senses work to support humans to have fun in their lives and stay alive up until they die, when humans follow their senses... and they warn them when they are not really having fun...

So how people in a group or society built a common view, happens in a funny way...

people exchange views, some are really thinking while doing that, some are really just choosing the views expressed in the group or society, that they would want the universe to impose to the rest of the group, as if the humans sense don't have common elements among humans...

But regardless of peoples' personal views,

the way that that human senses work is in a funny way for the conscious being inside the human body, because otherwise,

it wouldn't be funny for the conscious being inside the human body,

and this is because this is the best the universe could do for the conscious being inside the human body, both for the easy and the difficult times, as reality in the end is something else than anything you can imagine, because it really seems to be happening on its own without you really having to imagine reality, for reality to happen.

But to cut a long story short, so that I can hope that you at least have some reason to read my reply, in the end

within a group of people or society, people build a common view on which things are difficult or easy, however...unfortunately up to now, there can be cases where the entire group or society doesn't make sense, but this isn't what people who make up the group or society want to do, this is simply what they did, is what we find in the past, so that we can learn to avoid similar mistakes in the future.

CASES,

That people view similarly over some time become…

FASHIONABLE,

But ways that people view similarly

OVER AND OVER IN TIME, become…

…common sense.

https://youtu.be/hNFYMORvM_o