Balls to you, Google

Yesterday, TOC examined the Washington Post‘s disgust with Google and Apple for not creating a centralized database so government can retain information about each American’s whereabouts at all times.

I applaud both companies for this nod to privacy, but there is a catch or two when you consider Google’s other activities.

Google appears to fear the possible widespread condemnation of any such tracking app much more than any outcry over other surveillance and thought control initiatives.

Big Tech Is Turning Hospitals Into Real-Time Surveillance Centers

That’s not creepy. Right? I mean who would object to HD video of the insertion of their Foley catheter?

Personally, I regret not having a picture of my testicles when they were the size of volleyballs from IV fluids. It’s hard to get people to believe it. Nobody has ever asked to see a picture, though.

But a video? Think of the viral monetization potential with the right caption. If U of M had been filming it, I’m sure some interns would be streaming it even now.

YouTube Auto Deletes Comments With Terms That Insult Chinese Communist Party

I wonder if YouTube keeps a log of these auto-deleted CCP criticisms in order to match them up with your Google searches for “Wuhan flu.” You know, just in case evidence is needed later in the show-trials.

Victor Davis Hanson

Brilliant. A must watch.

Victor Davis Hanson: COVID-19 and the Lessons of History | Hoover Virtual Policy Briefing

50 minutes. I watched at 1.5x. Speech is understandable, but is out of sync with video.

Hanson’s recounting of his family experience, through many deadly diseases, in a house they’ve owned for 145 years, is awesome.

His forbears had no expectations that government could solve every problem. When that changed, we started loosing America.

“[T]hey [Government during the Spanish flu, for example] didn’t have confidence that they were all knowing… they were much more humble about their own data and the ramifications.”

Compare and contrast with Gretchen Esther Whitmer.

Then read the quotes from Alexis de Tocqueville and Ayn Rand at the end of this post.

Stop it!

Harvard researchers say social distancing may be needed into 2022
Detailed models suggest the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 could resurge as late as 2024.

The worst secondary effect of the CCP virus pandemic is the press coverage. CNET should be ashamed and so should Harvard. The idea that CCP virus will come back is intuitively obvious, but the article hawks it as unexpected.

A couple of snippets that tell you the model and the article were unnecessary:

[S]ome social distancing methods, like avoiding hugs and handshakes, could persist beyond the end of the pandemic

“The authors are aware that prolonged distancing, even if intermittent, is likely to have profoundly negative economic, social and educational consequences,”

Maintaining ‘no hugs nor handshakes’ would surprise precisely no one as a natural public response.

This behavior will not be intermittent, it’s going to be a fact of life, like more hand-washing. The lack of “hugs and handshakes” will not have “profound” effects. If they’d mentioned the six feet distancing rule, they might have made a case for “irritating effects.”

Harvard bases this on a “detailed model.” OOOh! Models. Harvard. Scientists. Changes in public behavior after a world historical pandemic. Run!

The CCP virus modeling has been wildly wrong – as bad as CAGW models. They specify 2024. Because putting a number on it makes the model seem more precise and insightful, but it is a WAG generated by a spreadsheet. Why not 2028 and 2035? People wouldn’t worry so much, and wouldn’t click on it.

A 2024 resurgence would be tempered by a vaccine, likely by effective drug treatment, likely (and sadly) acceptance of cell-phone-based contact tracing apps by those who care nothing for privacy, and by handy, 5 minute, inexpensive self-testing kits available at CVS and Walmart. If the FDA gets out of the way.

I question whether they factored those changes into their model. If they did, I’d call BS on the values they used.

To help determine the way forward, the researchers say a better understanding of immunity to the virus is key, as is epidemiological surveillance of the disease, which can be done through widespread testing and contact tracing.

They had to have a model to reach that insipid conclusion? While admitting the key element of their model, immunity, is not understood?

A plea for funding, and a quest for clicks.

Tedious cant

People Are Discovering Their Spouses’ Work Personas and It’s Hilarious

I worked from home for several years at the turn of the 2000s, and later worked from home for several years with my wife, 8 feet away, for a joint client. Neither of us had revelations like those described in the link. At least that we spoke of. ;)

It does seem that “Run it up the flagpole and see who salutes,” and “Will it play in Peoria?,” are passé. And no one seems to be thinking of new paradigms outside the box in order to avoid drinking the Koolaid while eating their own dog food.

I only ever met a few people for whom this sort of cant was common. I recognize some of it, but there are fresh cliches (?). I’m happy not to see some I remember from earlier days.

For example, in the 70s there was, “I hear you,” after which I always thought, “But you’re not listening.” This was often uttered by someone who at least once said, “Let me be honest…” I never understood why they thought I was trying to stop them.

“Literally,” remains popular among those who do not know what it means. “Have ran,” seemed to have had a resurgence in the oughts. “New paradigm,” had a run… excuse me, a “ran,” in the 80s.

My current disfavorite is prefacing your opinion with your persona – “Speaking as an x (y, z).” In other words, “Hear me! I am the spokesbeing for all non-binary; women; of color.”

“I hear you,” is now untenable, since you’d have no idea which victims to invoke, and woe betide you if you guessed wrong. “I hear you as a non-binary woman,” would be racist. And confusing. Am I listening as a non-binary woman, or am I imputing that to your speech? And, since I’m a pale, heterosexual male, would even attempting to listen as a woman, much less a non-binary woman, be persona appropriation? Using “the voice” of the “oppressed” has got a lot of authors in trouble.

The implication of that introductory persona clause is that every member of the specified cadre agrees with whatever BS is to follow. It’s intended to shut anybody else up – under the threat of some appellation with the suffix -phobic. Actual group members who disagree are “self-haters.” They are not “woke,” a condition the Marxists used to call “false consciousness.” For today’s SJWs that’s too hard to spell.

You may think that last one isn’t really business related, but I’m sure it’s regularly uttered in Silicon Valley boardrooms, and internal Google chats.

Update 4:01PM
Added some thoughts and a bit of punctuation.

A friend pointed out the “reaching out” abomination. Wish I’d thought of it earlier. It means this post will need a follow up.

Where is George Carlin when you really, really need him?

The Masque of the Red Death

Gatestone Institute:
The West Needs to Wake Up to China’s Duplicity

National Review:
The Comprehensive Timeline of China’s COVID-19 Lies

Real Clear Politics:
Has the U.S.-China Cold War Now Begun?

The CCP hides their totalitarianism behind a “state capitalism” mask.

Market Leninism is more like it.