What new Gear Hub Tech?

I think nowadays most tech innovations have been in internal and integrated gear systems and drivetrains around continuous gear shifting, though most often related to gearbox and e-bikes.

eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1Ak8ZsQpl8

But then new gear hub tech comes out, and you start considering ebikes, also a pannier would be nice… maybe a cargo bike makes more sense instead…?

Any hobby entry point can cascade into upgraditis

Interesting research but very early stages. There’s a good chance that this isn’t really specific to bikes, but more generally applies to the benefits of people enjoying hobbies and a good quality of life translating into a better psychological state, which is known to affect health outcomes in a myriad of ways specially related to brain function and hormones.

Interestingly, the data also shows that mixed-walking is associated with reduced dementia as well… and I find it a bit confusing that the authors are lumping driving and public transit together in the nonactive category because public transit usually involves a good deal of walking too without people categorizing it as a walking mode of transport.

Beyond separating public transit from driving, I think major factors to control for are: 1) how often these non-commute activities happen; and 2) what’s the stress level of that transportation mode. With those three things in mind I think it would clarify why would walking be associated with worst outcomes than nonactive…

A bike (the bicycle kind, not the motorbike kind, that’s a different wallet-sinking hobby)

Looks like we have different groups of experts in our respective informational sources

Ah ok, “they” meant cannabis magazines.

experts were ignored

The experts were on the side of legalization, so they weren’t really ignored. If by experts you mean people who study public health policy and narcotrafficking.

Now that the consequences are being seen, what are we going to do about it?

What are these experts saying nowadays? What I see is a consensus that legalization was a pretty good move. There’s probably more we should do, but it’s stuff that builds on top of legalization.

Not really what serious advocates ever said. Maybe what random people on the Internet sometimes said?

This is all starting to turn the gears in my head.

Be careful with being too open minded so that weird debris come in

there is no such immunization requirement for summer camps.

Instead, Goodman says it will be up to individual camps to decide what their policies are.

That’s a misleading headline. The vaccination record is the “ticket”, not actually being vaccinated

This seems like a piss poor allocation of resources.

Yes doing extra things costs money. And if we don’t have the budget, it’s understandable to deprioritize this. But I’m not defending a particular timeline or prioritization, just that it should eventually evolve into that. Like many things in universal healthcare, a bunch of things that should be will take a long time to materialize. We barely have universal dental care… and we don’t have the resources to just give it, but we should, eventually.

It kind of works in the opposite direction in this case as he’s an anti vaxxer but would you want a nut like RFK being able to compel you to take medicine you didn’t trust?

Indeed, my worldview is not compatible with being prepared for deranged individuals rising to power like it’s happening in the US, which is one of the major reasons I consciously discarded the US as a place to live.

Okay, so now we’re back to interviews

I don’t know what you get out of being like this. It’s so tiring to talk to someone who is actively seeking the extreme interpretations of my words. So I’m just going to say it one last time and then I’ll block you - unfortunately that’s the most effective method I have to take care of myself in this kind of forum.

A pitch is the literal opposite of an interview, and the point of having supervision to fill the form is not to treat it like an interview, but to make sure this person understands the purpose of the process and fills the form in good faith. The personal touch of a community worker is super valuable, specially to someone who has concerns with the campaign. So no, not an interview. Not “back” to interviews because it was never about interviews. Sure it will cost 30 minutes of a government employee, which costs dollars from healthcare, like literally any other outreach and education work regarding immunization.

what is your meaningful friction that is meaningful but not just a checkmark but also not an interview?

It doesn’t have to be exactly like this, but a trial of this would probably help us understand which knobs to dial: an example of a little friction that countries tend to use to make voting mandatory/opt-out without major negative consequences for those who are dead set on not participating. A campaign is held for some time, e.g. a few weeks, and folks are expected to come in and participate. If you want to opt out, two options: 1) show up during the campaign to receive one last 10-15 minutes pitch from a community worker, after which if the person still desires to opt out, this community worker helps them fill a detailed form explaining why; or 2) don’t show up during the campaign, and get flagged in the system as AWOL, which requires visiting a community worker to seek that pitch/form on a later date (does not need to be a doctor/nurse, social worker or any other desk job is enough). In this system, the “worst punishment” for someone not attending the campaign is that this person will have to go somewhere, listen to some stuff, and fill a form. The kind of thing that takes a day, which is not life-altering but it is annoying enough that folks will tend to prefer doing this during the campaign period because it should be quicker. And as for the consequences of becoming AWOL, it depends on how widespread that is. I couldn’t guess because implementation is key, and good public health policies badly implemented are sometimes worse than no policies at all. But ideally, after perhaps years of work in this system, the government can add more consequences to a record pending rectification, like access to tax credits and other incentives, then moving on to more critical individual stuff like insurance, then later moving on to public services like healthcare and education.

So yes, this brings us back to te beginning. Vaccination should become mandatory. How fast we can make it happen, I have no idea. Maybe not in my lifetime. But we should take steps in the direction of making it mandatory. This will involve increasing the burden on people who choose to not vaccinate. How much and how fast we increase that burden is something that public policy researchers will discover over time, as they’ll have to pay attention evolving this in a way to not create yet another system of oppression - but the original point, is that this is the general direction we have to head towards to eradicate some diseases.

It seems like that because you’re reading to disagree instead of reading to understand.

Yes, the point is to add more friction, which defines an opt out system. But this doesn’t necessarily mean a half hour long interview either. Yes, it should be eventually made mandatory, that’s the right direction to go even if it’s not something that can be done immediately. No we don’t need a substantial departure from what we already have.

interview process where we figure out how much trauma or marginalization allows someone to exempt themselves.

That’s not really it, and I didn’t say anything of sorts. It just has to be something more than not showing up or just saying “no thanks” without any extra information. Nothing is going to be foolproof and that’s not the point either, after all any anti-vaxxer can always self identify as First Nations for a day just to escape vaccination and healthcare workers won’t have (shouldn’t have) the tools to crosscheck information. So by all means have a “I don’t trust the vaccine” as an option to opt out to make sure data is as clean and trustworthy as possible.

I’m also not talking about punishments, and I don’t really know what kinds of vibes you’ve been reading into all of this but I’m defending the most benign and widespread healthcare mechanisms ever: add a little bit more fiction to make it opt out, use that opt-out process to collect more data, use this data to move forward with campaigns to boost confidence and adoption, and continue to increase the expectations of vaccination for access to public infrastructure in which non-vaccinated people are putting others at risk.

Saying that this would aggravate healthcare worker shortages and trigger court cases is a bit dramatic

But that bureaucracy is what I mean with friction that defines what opting out means. Being invited to immunization and having ease to refuse is still opt in to me.

refusals to vaccinate are already part of someone’s record

Maybe I am just unaware but what I understood from what goes into the record is that someone saying “no thanks, vaccines are a lie” is indistinguishable from “the healthcare system wronged my community so I don’t feel safe with this”. If those cases are indeed already distinguishable and I’m just mistaken, then I’ll be gladly corrected because it means that we are already equipped to to make vaccination mandatory, because all we need is to have the due process to accommodate the concerns of the second group.

There is no “fair” real estate appreciation, and a nominal increase slightly below inflation is not screwing anyone over. Homeowners will be fine, this is the one thing that is for certain in all of this

point is subsidizing first time buyers allows for affordability without lowering prices. It in fact, increases prices of starter homes because of the subsidy, but only while the subsidy lasts.

Exactly, we mostly agree. Demand subsidy is yet another way to enable price increases. It doesn’t really make housing more affordable. So that’s why agree with you that subsidies cost money without solving the problem.

trailing 5 years home appreciation being 15% (3%/year)

Now this is good, despite all the hot feelings regarding affordability right now, it is true that in the last two years several markets have observed real estate performing below inflation, which is good. We just need this to last 20 years to go back to a healthier market. In the mean time, subsidies can help the families that cannot wait 20 years to afford housing, so I’m not against demand subsidy - I’m just against the notion that subsidies are good for affordability, they’re not.

Prices have to decrease, period. We can put some makeup on this and trick homeowners into satisfaction by having some nominal increase without accounting for inflation… but just being real (pun intended), prices have to decrease. Price net of inflation is the number that matters, and it has to go down. Real returns on housing has to be negative, sustained over decades.

How so? Encouraging people to vaccinate their kids and making the vaccine free is still an “opt in” system. What I mean with an opt out system is that it would demand effort and a processual review to not vaccinate (at some level, even if at the community level), like filing for being excused of immunization and having that file as part of the immunization record.

Makes sense. I’ll be rooting for that vision. Time for a new Vancouver Special :-)

Yes. Just like they already kind of are in a bunch of ways. At the very least they should be opt-out instead of opt-in, with immunization campaigns deployed in the spirit of increasingly making opt-out more exceptional

I guess the difference in outlook is that I don’t really see a realistic increase in purchasing power that won’t also get immediately scooped up by a similar increase in price. All the measures you mentioned also affect prices too. The reason I say “purchasing power” explicitly is to not be misleading in that I’m referring to a hypothetical salary keeping up with inflation - something that also really isn’t the case for a lot of people. Someone whose salary is stagnant will also not see the affordability increase in the scenario I’m describing.