As a NYC resident and white man, I found the subway broadly safe from _violent_ crime. My female and/or asian friends had significantly worse experiences: some were grabbed, others followed, some verbally harassed. It's not a dystopian nightmare — at the end of the day everyone just has somewhere to be — but regular ridership (particularly in Brooklyn and Queens) increments the bad experience counter regularly.
> All of us are better with access to frequent informal communication, shared meals, and walking.
Back when I was healthy, I would have agreed with this. Nowadays, chronic illness forestalls shared meals or casual walks. Informal communication doesn't need to be over the top of a cubicle wall. It can be as simple as switching from Slack to Signal/Whatsapp/iMessage.
As with most things, cohesive dynamics are achieved by working with the tools and limitations that _exist_ rather than assuming everyone can relate in the same way. If I worked on a team where all the above were socially expected, I'd feel excluded and probably leave.
It's perfectly fine to acknowledge that _you_ require those walks and meals to lead effectively. And I'm sure that your non-handicapped team members appreciate it as well.
The rest of us, however, still have a lot to contribute and shouldn't be implicitly (yes) punished for not fitting into that mold. We're good engineers and good colleagues.
It also doesn't need to be all-or-nothing. I'm a "full-time" WFH team-lead. But when I'm onboarding a new engineer, I travel to wherever they are and we share an office for a couple weeks while I bring them up-to-speed. After that point, they can WFH or come into the office to suit their preference.
While this is less convenient for me (a fact which is reflected in my compensation), it flattens the onboarding curve without requiring a complete RTO for everyone.
I just moved to Brooklyn and have seen this property. Stories like this are precisely what gives this city texture and excitement. Just about every visible feature has a long and compelling history.
That makes sense to me. The population has increased since 1980 but flu deaths remain constant, which means a lower mortality rate. Presumably there is some correlation between increased flu vaccination rate and decreased mortality rate.
The overall better care didn't improved as well though? Are flu cases treated the same way today as 40 years ago? The number of flu shots increased by a factor of x16 over a 40 year period. With these numbers I would've expected a serious dent on the flu deaths graph regardless of population.
> The number of flu shots increased by a factor of x16 over a 40 year period. With these numbers I would've expected a serious dent on the flu deaths graph regardless of population.
It went from negligible to about 2/3 the population, but the population increased by about 50%. If the vaccine was 50% effective in preventing flu deaths, and there were no other changes (or if better care was exactly offset by increased vulnerability due to aging population) you would expect no change in total deaths.
Your intuition just looking at the multiplier on vaccinated population just seems to be a bad intuition.
Failing to engage with ideas you find distasteful just creates a vacuum of good information; which is the environment where conspiracy theories thrive. I've followed Graham Hancock for twenty years and have yet to see anyone properly dismantle his positions. I don't believe everything he says: but dogmatically dismissing him only fuels his narrative that mainstream archaeologists are trying to suppress him in order to save their jobs (and grants).
Given the highly falsifiable nature of his claims it should easy enough to disprove them. That nobody chooses to do so is quite curious. I can watch a hundred spirited debates and proofs on both sides of flat-earth, fake moon landing, essential oils curing cancer, and evolution vs young-earth creationism. What is so special about archaeology that it needn't mount a similar, vigorous defense?
I first heard about network styles listening to Vince Gilligan and Peter Gould on the _Better Call Saul Insider_ podcast. Many studios have them.
A unified style streamlines production at the cost of artistry. A typical television episode has just a few days to film. So the more creative a crew becomes in their framing, lighting, audio recording etc. the less time they have to move through the shot list. It takes a talented (and expensive) crew to make this magic happen within 5-10 days.
It's to the credit of Sony and AMC that they gave Marshall Adams et. al. the flexibility to make a masterpiece out of _Better Call Saul_. But it was expensive and risky. Not every script justifies that risk and expense. Without a style guide to fall back on I think we would see fewer series overall.
