You're ignoring power dynamics. It's impossible for a manager and their reports to have real relationships and conversations. Asking them questions they shouldn't answer honestly is just self-serving.

A manager who wants to "care" about their employees as people is just doing a disservice to those employees. They can be understanding, they can provide flexibility for employees to take care of themselves, but they can't and shouldn't try to ask employees about their personal feelings.

No one is underestimating the benefits of having a car. The problem with cars is that you receive the positive externalities like coming and going whenever you want, and all the negative externalities are given to other people.

A city that is good for driving is not going to be good for any other mode of transit. Your ability to drive directly takes from others ability to walk or ride a bike. The neighborhoods that need to get bulldozed to build the ever increasing road infrastructure are the cost of your ability to listen to a podcast without being near other people. The people who didn't get bulldozed then have to breath in the pollution from your car lowering their quality of life and life expectancy. Fast roads are terrible for walking, and motorists are killing pedestrians at an ever increasing rate.

I'm not anti-car. I own a car because it's very hard for Americans to get by without one, due to the car lobby. I'm pro-pedestrian and pro-transit.

>I'm sure there's probably some middle ground to be found here.

Low traffic neighborhoods are the middle ground. It's literally just diverting through motorists onto roads that are designed for through motorists.

Car culture is about entitlement. Anything that reduces motorists ability to drive as fast as possible absolutely everywhere they want is going to be seen as an attack in the wAr oN cArS!!!

What nonsense. OP and you either have actual useful information that contradicts what OP specifically called out as inaccurate or you don;t.

You don't which is why you fixate on something else.

Would you like to elaborate? I'm interested to see your explanation of how one of the most prominent infectious disease experts in the world is being misleading.

> Some irresponsible people did some bad stuff and covered it up, and Fauci is helping the cover.

Can you offer any explanation why someone who has spent their whole life working on infectious disease would participate in a cover up? Can you point to anything concrete that Dr. Fauci would gain by participating in a cover-up?

"Well, according to Errol Musk, the unsurprisingly eccentric — and in one major way, extremely creepy — father of Elon, the mine definitely exists. And come to think of it, he'll take that Dogecoin, thanks!

"When I read that, I wondered, 'Can I enter, because I can prove it existed," Errol told The Sun in a new interview, referring to his son's Dogecoin tweet. "Elon knows it's true. All the kids know about it."

https://futurism.com/elon-musk-dad-emerald-mine

"Censorship has always been on the wrong side of history and it still is."

which is obviously absurd because there are very obvious situations where censorship is clearly a good idea, like in banning not just the creation of child pornography but the possession.

When the feds strengthen laws against child porn in the 70s and 80s, that same free speech argument played out. Free speech advocates argued that having recorded evidence of a crime shouldn't be a crime in of itself. You can have pictures of murder victims after all, and there are plenty of recordings of illegal activity on the internet that are totally legal.

Obviously the right side won and the feds passed laws censoring child pornography because the ends, punishing child porn consumers and creators, outweighed the cost, which was a small reduction in freedom of speech.

Every society needs some limits on speech and free speech absolutism is just ideological weakness in thinking about how a society should actually work because in the real world, unlimited speech leads to a lot of people getting hurt.

The Alien and Sedition Act was passed in 1798 which made it illegal to critique the government. Eugene Debs went to prison for advocating for draft dodging in World War 1.

Part of is a lot of folks either can't or wont see the difference between "free speech" and "consequences for your actions".

As Americans, we've never had more free speech than we have today. Most of our history is filled with censorship from media to actual human beings being arrested for wearing the wrong clothes. Of course, a lot of those free speech absolutist cheer censorship laws when they are targeted at LGBTQ individuals.

Waiters generally make more than managers in restaurants in the United States at least.

>If you need a loan to expand, lender is likely to want some control over how a restaurant is run rather than leaving it up to workers

Co-ops get loans all the time. You just need a governance structure of some sort and collateral for a loan.

Of course not. Your example was just not a situation where not following orders was individually optimal. You and your friends are suffering from confirmation bias. They did something incredibly stupid and dangerous and put their lives at risk and more importantly, increased risk for the firefighters working the job. It happened to work out but that doesn't mean it was wise. They could have just as easily died or killed a firefighter who was trying to rescue them.

Why don't you reach out to a wildland firefighters outfit and see their perspective on what bullshit they have to deal with when dumbasses don't evacuate.

For the vast majority of people, the vast majority of the time, following emergency instructions is the optimal outcome. Even in this case, the folks who went around the barrier didn't know that going around was safer than going back. They gambled and it worked out.

>Being alone miles from anyone else has zero covid risk. Covid risk doesn't kick in when you leave the door of your house. In my case, I also had roommates who worked, like me and interacted with other people.

Ah yes, I'm sure you magically went from your bedroom to wilderness miles away from anyone else without stopping or interacting with anyone!

Look, I'm not saying going out in the wilderness was wrong, its just silly to think it lowered your risk at all.

Lots of wildfire stories include people who ignored evacuation orders and died. This is just silly confirmation bias. The large majority of people who survive wildfires do so because they listened to government officials and implying that people should ignore evacuation orders is frankly stupidly dangerous.

>Shelter and place orders are another funny one. I have a lot of fond memories ignoring shelter in place orders hiking and camping in the wilderness during covid. It probably reduced my risk versus Sheltering at home. Blanket orders were one size fits all, made to address the person that is going to parties and bars.

How would going out lower your risk in this case? You obviously increased your risk, if only so slightly.

Edit* I literally just got notice of a level 3 evac that doesn't cover me but is near me. I'm sure all those "non-conformists" will stay and make life miserable for firefighters.