What a dumb fucking argument to label public transit some sort of "progressive" plot; subways are more than 100 years old in major cities. And it's no surprise that people making more than $75K per year are using public transit, because people who make that much cashish tend to live in major cities.

That said, of course subways and elevated trains are major carriers of COVID-19; they're places where people from all over wherever are packed together. I've already wondered what I'll do next time I visit New York or Chicago, because I sure won't feel safe on the subway or the El.

But that's not a "progressive" or a Democrat/Republican issue; it's a big-city issue.

I can't imagine what Japanese authorities are dealing with; those Japanese subway cars looked like public health nightmares before our current situation.

This part also isn't necessarily a great argument either:

"Transit is supposedly greener than driving when in fact it's an energy hog."

Irrespective of the overall energy budget the El in Chicago for example is going to be greener than automobiles for the simple reason that the region in question is powered by ~90% nuclear energy.

Green doesn't necessarily imply lower overall energy usage... it can also imply that the energy comes from so-called green sources.

This suggests to me that the article isn't really doing a careful analysis if it misunderstands what makes something "green".

Energy efficiency is only one piece of the overall puzzle.

Transit is supposedly needed to help poor people get to work when in fact the people most likely to commute by transit are those earning more than $75,000 a year.

In a place like New York City, $75,000 per year is not an extraordinarily high income hurdle. According to Business Insider, the average salary in NYC is $75,000. The cost of living in NYC is 129% of the national average, according to PayScale.

So how are the poor people of NYC getting to work? Rich people can't be the only ones riding the train...

As for the current situations, Amy, are you suggesting subsidizing Uber or Zipcar or taxis or something?

Pushing panic is a great way to advance government control. Instead of security theater with the TSA, we now have Pandemic theater.

When the way government executes their preventative measures actually does more harm than good, it is a bonus. Just another problem for the government to fix as costly and ineffectively as possible.

So how are the poor people of NYC getting to work?

Shut it down. Shut it all down. It's for the children!

The progressive angle on this is the central planners desire to shove everyone into mass transit. Go look up "road diet".

Isn't that kinda the point? You aren't supposed to be going to work. Or anywhere in general. Hence pointlessly destroying a skate park. So you won't go there.

Outdoors is the absolute safest place to be. During the Spanish flu, Drs noticed patients in outdoor tent hospitals had better survival rates, no matter the weather. Sunshine is a great disinfectant, yes, and the vit D helped, but it didn't account for nearly enough of the statistical difference. Fresh Air Factor is an interesting read, nurse Flo was right on the money.

The officials sanding parks are petty tyrants, and our best hope of turning youngsters away from socialism.

The officials sanding parks are petty tyrants, and our best hope of turning youngsters away from socialism. ~ Momof4 at April 19, 2020 8:30 AM

One wonders if it might have been cheaper in the long run to simply station a police officer or security guard at the park. Digging all that sand out is gonna cost money.

> Digging all that sand out
> is gonna cost money.

People will help. Visitors will probably do it without government assist once the park's open.

> This suggests to me that…

What do you do for a living?

People will help. Visitors will probably do it without government assist once the park's open. ~ Crid at April 19, 2020 9:14 AM

I suspect the union might object to that. The bureaucracy, too, with the liability issues. Not to mention the issue of where those visitors will dispose of the sand.

Social distancing, as it's applied, doesn't make any sense. In my state, the golf courses are open. But in Michigan, according to Her Royal Panderness Dana Nessel, who is the AG, the golf courses are closed. (This was implied in her offensive tweet that our esteemed hostess reported a couple of days ago.)

Why? I know of no sport that would allow you to practice social distancing with less effort. Everyone just take a separate golf cart, or walk, and you're all set.

On the other hand, in my state, the beaches are closed. Possibly to deter tourists from coming to our state more than any unrealistic concerns about spreading the virus. Although I note that our Governor Ron DeSantis, just had to wait until spring break to close. The thoughtless millenials, thinking only of their burning desire to par-tay with their generous student loan money, couldn't have cared less about the dangers of spreading disease to municipalities with a large elderly population.

(And Artemis, before you jump in with your useless and inaccurate "correction," I will point out to you that millenials were born until the early 2000's, Google it. So that would indeed make this current crop of spring breakers millenials. You're welcome.)

One thing that I found particularly perplexing, and annoying is that I needed to vacuum out my car, and the do-it-yourself car wash was closed down, per orders of Governor DeSantis. The car wash, as you might expect, were open bay garages with quarter-operated hoses and large enough to accommodate the average RV. And parking my car next to the vacuum would have effectively served as a marker to keep anyone from getting too close to me. Moveover, since each stand had only one vacuum per station. Any attempt to get within six feet of anyone vacuuming their car would have only been intentional. There is no way you could have accidentally ended up within six feet of anyone.

In my neighborhood of a chicago suburb, roofers and lawn care services are starting to show up--don't know if permitted or just hoping no one notices. Such outdoor labor should certainly be allowed. Road repair should be allowed, even encouraged since few are on the road.

> Not to mention the issue of
> where those visitors will
> dispose of the sand.

Fifty feet west (whence it came) will be fine. Kids catching Frisbees in flipflops will spread it out by the weekend.

Remember: it's totally cool to shoplift $949.99 worth of goods, but a capital offense to go skate boarding in public.

Fifty feet west (whence it came) will be fine. Kids catching Frisbees in flipflops will spread it out by the weekend.

True. But I think you have to file an environmental impact statement.

How are all the essential workers supposed to get to work if you shut down the subway? Hospital workers, grocery workers, electrical grid and internet workers, police, firemen, etc? And although, yes, undoubtably the cramped quarters of the subway made for a lot of transmission in the early days of the pandemic, with most people home now the cars are mostly empty so you can keep your distance from fellow riders. Because of the huge population of New York, the number of current essential subway riders can be too big to transport any other way (you would be much closer to your Uber driver than you would be to a fellow subway rider.) but small enough to be safer than pre-pandemic conditions.

How are all the essential workers supposed to get to work if you shut down the subway? Hospital workers, grocery workers, electrical grid and internet workers, police, firemen, etc? And although, yes, undoubtably the cramped quarters of the subway made for a lot of transmission in the early days of the pandemic, with most people home now the cars are mostly empty so you can keep your distance from fellow riders. Because of the huge population of New York, the number of current essential subway riders can be too big to transport any other way (you would be much closer to your Uber driver than you would be to a fellow subway rider.) but small enough to be safer than pre-pandemic conditions.

Clinky at April 19, 2020 12:15 PM

My understanding is they didn’t just not shut it down. They reduced the number of trains and cars which packed people closer together.

Patrick Says:

"And Artemis, before you jump in with your useless and inaccurate "correction," I will point out to you that millenials were born until the early 2000's, Google it. So that would indeed make this current crop of spring breakers millenials. You're welcome."

Yawn... sure... let's google it:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/

"Pew Research Center decided a year ago to use 1996 as the last birth year for Millennials for our future work. Anyone born between 1981 and 1996 (ages 23 to 38 in 2019) is considered a Millennial, and anyone born from 1997 onward is part of a new generation."

You are wrong on this point... you have always been wrong on this point... and you will always be wrong on this point.

Folks born after 2000 are in generation z.

I am sorry if this upsets you, but you need to start bitching and moaning about some generation other than millennials at this point.

The millennials are all old now and aren't attending spring break.

Patrick,

Here is another reference from McKinsey:

https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/consumer-packaged-goods/our-insights/true-gen-generation-z-and-its-implications-for-companies

"Members of Gen Z—loosely, people born from 1995 to 2010—are true digital natives: from earliest youth, they have been exposed to the internet, to social networks, and to mobile systems."

No serious person considers present day 18 year olds to be "millennials".

All you are buying into is a crude classification scheme that says anyone is either a boomer or a millennial.

Gen x and Gen z are erased from existence given this scheme.

Gen xers are used to being forgotten, ignored, and erased from existence... that is kind of a sticking point for quite a while amongst that cohort.

I've now read some of this guy's other work, and no matter what the issue, he has but one "solution" — shut down public transit and build more roads.

Unfortunately, it's not so one-size-fits-all in a country as disparate as America. What works best in South Dakota is unlikely to work in Chicago.

As Conan points out above, his argument that it's all Richie Riches riding the subway, the El or the BART is risible on its face:

Transit is supposedly needed to help poor people get to work when in fact the people most likely to commute by transit are those earning more than $75,000 a year.

That $75K won't get you very far in New York City or San Francisco. Someone who lives in the Mission and rides the MUNI to a job South of Market is very likely earning six figures. Meanwhile, the busboy at the restaurant where he eats lunch is more likely to be riding the BART every day from some far-flung suburb.

Not everything is a progressive/conservative issue.

Isab: "My understanding is they didn’t just not shut it down. They reduced the number of trains and cars which packed people closer together."

Bingo! That is exactly what they did. With reduced revenue due to reduced ridership they cut service.

Wrong, as always, Artemis:"Millennials, also known as Generation Y (or simply Gen Y), are the demographic cohort following Generation X and preceding Generation Z. Researchers and popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years, with 1981 to 1996 a widely accepted defining range for the generation."

And I don't blame you for yawning. You're an extraordinarily tiresome individual. Actually being you must be exhausting.

And according to the . So, yes, they are still in college. Hell, some are still in high school. And yes, generations do overlap.

That's game, set and match to me, Artemis.

Whoops. I messed that up. It was supposed to be "According to the Strauss-Howe Generational Theory."

Patrick,

Your reference is Wikipedia???... lol

So let's get this straight, people who research this subject for a living placed a cut off at 1996 because to do otherwise isn't meaningful:

"In order to keep the Millennial generation analytically meaningful, and to begin looking at what might be unique about the next cohort, Pew Research Center decided a year ago to use 1996 as the last birth year for Millennials for our future work. Anyone born between 1981 and 1996 (ages 23 to 38 in 2019) is considered a Millennial, and anyone born from 1997 onward is part of a new generation."

People who write books and publish papers on this subject also agree that the circa 1995 or 1996 is the proper cut off.

Yet you have an unreferenced Wikipedia quote that can be edited by anyone.

Hell, I could go in there and change it if I were really motivated to do so.

In any case, since Wikipedia is your reference of choice, how do you reconcile the discrepancy:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Z

"Generation Z (or Gen Z for short) is the demographic cohort succeeding Millennials and preceding Generation Alpha. Researchers and popular media use the mid-to-late 1990s as starting birth years and the early 2010s as ending birth years."

I'll also point out the dictionary doesn't even agree with you:

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Generation%20Y

"the generation of people born in the period roughly from 1980 to the mid-1990s"

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Generation%20Z

"the generation of people born in the late 1990s and early 2000s"

I'm comfortable being in the company of the pew research center, Mckinsey researchers, book authors, experts who publish papers on the subject, and the dictionary.

You can sit there with your open source unreferenced quote from Wikipedia if you like.

Patrick,

Just out of curiosity since it is tangentially related... how many planets do you suppose there are in the solar system?

Something tells me you are going to say 9 because when you were growing up that is what you were taught and you cannot accept the reclassification that occurred later in life by professional astronomers when it became clear that Pluto wasn't really in the same category as the other planets.

The same thing happened here. A decade or so ago the end date of what classified a millennial was open ended.

Since then experts and researchers have zeroed in on what actually is useful for looking at the generations from a meaningful analytical perspective.

Their conclusion was that beyond ~1996 it was logical to place a cut off because someone born in 2004 didn't really have anything in common from a generational perspective as someone born in 1980.

You need to update your mental classification... just like everyone needed to accept that Pluto was no longer properly classified as a planet.

No, my source, dumbass, is the Strauss-Howe Generational Theory, which says the cutoff for Millennials is 2004.

Pew Research Center specializes in a lot of things, but they are not an authority. Game over, you lost. You don't get to decide that recognized authorities don't count because you don't like their conclusions.

Your question about the planets is even more idiotic. You're foaming and snarling that the answer can only be eight or nine. And if it's nine, it's because I'm somehow stuck with what I learned growing up.

The answer far too complicated for someone of your caliber.

But first, let's define planet. As you point out, Pluto was considered a planet, then it was decided that the only objects that should be considered planets are those objects of sufficient mass to have attained hydrostatic equilibrium (meaning, its own gravity forced them into an almost round, ellipsoid shape) and cleared their orbits of other large objects.

If you accept this definition, there are eight planets. But I have a problem with this. And Artemis the hopelessly braindead is now squealing with delight that I'm stubbornly adhering to what I was taught growing up. It might prove to be an interesting discussion for those more intelligent than Artemis -- which would be everyone on this blog.

My opposition to this definition is based on the conclusions of planetary scientist Philip Metzger.

First, there is the obvious flaw that even an object as massive as the earth itself would not have cleared Pluto's orbit, due to the sheer size of the Kuiper Belt.

So, an object that is roughly 93 million miles away (or 1 Astronomical Unit) from the sun is a planet, but the same object 29 to 49 Astronomical Units from the sun is ... not? An object the same size as the planet earth would become a dwarf planet if located in the Kuiper Belt.

Makes sense.

Then there is the problem of whether Pluto is a dwarf-planet or a binary dwarf-planet system.

Pluto is actually locked in synchronous orbit with Charon. While the much smaller (but still spherical) Charon is often considered a satellite of Pluto there is some things to consider. Pluto and Charon are tidally locked, meaning they keep the same face to each other. More importantly, neither Pluto nor Charon occupy the barycentre. Pluto revolves around a point outside itself. So, is Charon truly a satellite of Pluto, or is it the smaller half of a dwarf planet system?

The earth and moon don't have this situation. Earth occupies its own barycentre, and it does not keep the same face to the moon.

So, if you consider Pluto a planet, you might also have to consider whether Charon is a satellite of Pluto's or are the two of them binary planets?

But if you accept the idea that clearing the orbit of its own debris is not a legitimate classification, you cannot assume there are only nine planets (or ten, depending on where you fall on Charon's status).

Because these aren't the only objects that do not orbit planets and are pulled spherical by their own gravity.

There is also Ceres, Haumea, Makemake and Eris. These are confirmed spherical bodies that orbit the sun rather than planets.

So, let's assume that Pluto and Charon are a binary planet system, each its own planet. That means we're now up to fourteen planets.

But we're still not done. There is still others that are not confirmed dwarf planets, but likely, such as Orcus, Salacia, Quaoar, Gonggong and Sedna.

So, since I'm siding with Metzger that the IAU's definition is not a valid one (and that Charon should be considered a binary planet), I'm going with fourteen planets, with the possible additions of five or more.

Ignore Artemis. He/she/it can rant and rave that you must answer or eight or nine and there are no other possibilities. I wonder what planet Artemis is from.

I was so pissed when they demoted Pluto. Pluto is my favorite planet. NINE!!!!!

Patrick Says:

"No, my source, dumbass, is the Strauss-Howe Generational Theory, which says the cutoff for Millennials is 2004."

That isn't what he said Patrick. You would understand this if you even went one step beyond reading the opening paragraph of a Wikipedia article.

If you had actually read anything Howe had to say regarding his 2004 number you would understand the following things:

1 - This was his stated "best guess" back in 2014
2 - He was very clear that this guess was tentative and subject to revision as further analysis was performed by experts in the field.

Well guess what happened over the last 6 years?

Additional analysis was conducted and the agreed upon dates do not include anything after the year 2000.

You don't get to desperately cling to one persons "best guess" from 6 years ago that they explicitly described as a temporary place holder until better analysis came long... and then disregard the better analysis that later came along to supplant that tentative guess.

Your "source" is outdated and as a result your opinion on the subject is outdated.

I am sorry you cannot emotionally deal with change.

Patrick,

You can object to Pluto being classified as something other than a planet all you like... but no amount of arguing will ever get you to 9 planets.

By the time you are done you will potentially have hundreds of planets.

The entire point of any classification scheme is to illuminate and help to build understanding.

The reason that Ceres was demoted from being a planet in 1850 is because the asteroid belt was discovered and it was found to have more in common with those objects than the other planets.

Similarly the reason Pluto was demoted from being a planet is because it was found to have much more in common with other Kuiper belt objects than the 8 planets.

It is really that simple.

We learn more and we refine out classifications.

If you want to have 100 planets to account for every sun orbiting object with a mass above a certain level be my guest.

The overwhelming number of professional astronomers aren't going to conform to what you would like to be true.

Incidentally... what is likely to happen with planetary classification is what occurred with stellar classification.

As more and more data was collected trends began to emerge that clustered different stellar spectra into different groups.

At that point an entire library was classifications was created using color temperature (OBAFGKMRNS) and everything was plotted into main sequence, dwarf, giant, and supergiant groups.

This only happened after thousands of stellar spectra were taken and analyzed.

Something similar is likely to happen when it comes to planetary definitions as we collect more data on exoplanets.

We may have groups like terrestrial planets, gas giants, ice giants, hot Jupiter's, core remnants, etc...

What I am driving at here is that classification schemes in science evolve and change.

That is what happened with generational definitions.

You are stuck in the past if you think someone born in 2004 is a "millennial".

The term has almost no explanatory meaning if you group together someone who is 40 with someone who is 16.

Hell, I can even find some old time definitions of millennial that dip back into the 70's.

Before long we'll all be millennials and then won't that be something?

Artemis, I'm sorry that certain discussions are so far above your head that you feel the need to adopt a condescending attitude to hide your embarrassment.

Patrick,

I hate to break it to you... but Neil Howe's tentative best guess from 2014 doesn't make for a compelling argument when all of the following organizations have since settled on a definition that cuts off the millennial generation at 1995 or 1996:

Reuters
Pew Research Center
Time magazine
BBC
The Washington Post
The Los Angeles Times
Business Insider
The New York Times
The Wall Street Journal
The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics
The Federal Reserve Board
The American Psychological Association
Ernst and Young
PBS
CBS
Gallup
etc...

This list doesn't even include books or research published by researchers.

But now to worry... you've got Neil's tentative best guess from 2014.

What do you think you are going to do when Neil publishes something and ends up changing his mind?

It that is all you are counting on you are on really thin ice here.

Artemis, I hate to break it to you, but you're simply not worth it.

Being told that I'm on thin ice with you is like a six-year-old imparting life philosophies. You're that clueless, and you're clueless to the fact that you are clueless.

Bye.

This will be my last response to you. About anything. I could continue this discussion and deflate your supposed sources -- to say nothing of your ignorance about the planetary bodies -- but I've never dealt with anyone, whether on social media or real life, who made me feel that you're so incredibly not worth it.

For the first time, I can actually see why so many would just as soon you fell off the face of the earth. Or least this blog.

Patrick,

Let's take stock shall we?

This is how you decided to just toss me into your conversation out of nowhere:

"And Artemis, before you jump in with your useless and inaccurate "correction," I will point out to you that millenials were born until the early 2000's, Google it."

Great... so when we actually do the research we find that every credible organization uses a definition that disagrees with your position.

Despite this being the case your position is that the "correction" is "useless" and "inaccurate".

In other words, you determined by fiat that there is no discussion to be had on this subject despite pretty much everyone on the planet who researches and comments on this subject disagreeing with your classification.

You determined it by fiat and when you tried to defend your position it essentially boiled down to the equivalent of a divine command theory argument with Neil Howe substituting for god.

Apparently his word is law and every other researcher and organization on the planet can go take a hike.

Even if he continued to hold true to his tentative best guess from 2014 (which there is no reason to believe he has) that would place him in the minority opinion... which would still make my criticism valid and reasonable.

Don't hold your breath hoping that he is going to stick with an article he wrote 6 years ago, there is a very good possibility he will align with everyone else and then what do you have?

You might as well be arguing in favor of the luminiferous ether and citing papers from 1895.

At some point the consensus opinion moves on.

That is true whether or not I fall off the earth... which unfortunately I no longer have confidence you actually believe is impossible because you might be a flat earther... you can find antiquated theories to "support" that as well.