Overheard at Work 2

[Dee_]

We've been getting more takeout because we want to support our local restaurants. It's not like they're essential to our day to day lives, but they add essential character to our town and I want them to survive.

[Chris22]

No kidding, blech.  We have been eating out once/ week because of COVID (getting takeout)

I don’t follow this logic.  What about Covid makes you eat out more often?

I’ve eaten out far less during Covid because it’s such a pain in the ass to disinfect (I reheat everything to 165).  I am aware that there’s “no evidence” for food borne Covid spread, but I also don’t know what studies have been done to prove/disprove the hypothesis.  Whenever I see that there’s “no evidence” for something I ask what evidence might be Availabe.  For example, has someone innoculated food with Covid and fed it to 100 monkeys?  No.  Has someone done intense contact tracing of an unmasked symptomatic line cook to see if any of their customers has contracted Covid?  Maybe?  I haven’t seen that study.  I’m willing to accept that it’s an unlikely avenue for transmission but also know that restaurant back of house is and has always been filthy so I don’t really trust those guys to take any precautions unless I’ve personally visited the kitchen

That sound exhausting, and frankly anti-mustachian*/anti-math. We’ve been doing this for more than a year. If there were cases of people catching Covid from takeout food we’d have heard about it by now.  You’re far more likely to get e.coli or similar than Covid from food


*anti-mustachian in the sense of expending time/effort to insure against things they have a microscopic chance of happening.

[dragoncar]

No kidding, blech.  We have been eating out once/ week because of COVID (getting takeout)

I don’t follow this logic.  What about Covid makes you eat out more often?

I’ve eaten out far less during Covid because it’s such a pain in the ass to disinfect (I reheat everything to 165).  I am aware that there’s “no evidence” for food borne Covid spread, but I also don’t know what studies have been done to prove/disprove the hypothesis.  Whenever I see that there’s “no evidence” for something I ask what evidence might be Availabe.  For example, has someone innoculated food with Covid and fed it to 100 monkeys?  No.  Has someone done intense contact tracing of an unmasked symptomatic line cook to see if any of their customers has contracted Covid?  Maybe?  I haven’t seen that study.  I’m willing to accept that it’s an unlikely avenue for transmission but also know that restaurant back of house is and has always been filthy so I don’t really trust those guys to take any precautions unless I’ve personally visited the kitchen

That sound exhausting, and frankly anti-mustachian*/anti-math. We’ve been doing this for more than a year. If there were cases of people catching Covid from takeout food we’d have heard about it by now.  You’re far more likely to get e.coli or similar than Covid from food


*anti-mustachian in the sense of expending time/effort to insure against things they have a microscopic chance of happening.

Says the guy who said he has been eating out once a week “because of Covid” but doesn’t answer why Covid makes him eat out more.

Ecoli is also a great reason to reheat your takeout food, so It’s just a win win.  It too much trouble so I cook my own food as much as possible, which is far more mustachian from both a math and philosophical point of view

I also personally think it’s super mustachian to insure against things that are low-probability but high-cost.  I have liability insurance in case I run someone over because I cannot afford that payout.  I have fire insurance in case my home burns down because the price of rebuilding will seriously impact my savings.  I microwave my food for 2 minutes and wear a mask because no amount of money will bring me back from the dead

[Chris22]

No kidding, blech.  We have been eating out once/ week because of COVID (getting takeout)

I don’t follow this logic.  What about Covid makes you eat out more often?

I’ve eaten out far less during Covid because it’s such a pain in the ass to disinfect (I reheat everything to 165).  I am aware that there’s “no evidence” for food borne Covid spread, but I also don’t know what studies have been done to prove/disprove the hypothesis.  Whenever I see that there’s “no evidence” for something I ask what evidence might be Availabe.  For example, has someone innoculated food with Covid and fed it to 100 monkeys?  No.  Has someone done intense contact tracing of an unmasked symptomatic line cook to see if any of their customers has contracted Covid?  Maybe?  I haven’t seen that study.  I’m willing to accept that it’s an unlikely avenue for transmission but also know that restaurant back of house is and has always been filthy so I don’t really trust those guys to take any precautions unless I’ve personally visited the kitchen

That sound exhausting, and frankly anti-mustachian*/anti-math. We’ve been doing this for more than a year. If there were cases of people catching Covid from takeout food we’d have heard about it by now.  You’re far more likely to get e.coli or similar than Covid from food


*anti-mustachian in the sense of expending time/effort to insure against things they have a microscopic chance of happening.

Says the guy who said he has been eating out once a week “because of Covid” but doesn’t answer why Covid makes him eat out more.

Ecoli is also a great reason to reheat your takeout food, so It’s just a win win.  It too much trouble so I cook my own food as much as possible, which is far more mustachian from both a math and philosophical point of view

I also personally think it’s super mustachian to insure against things that are low-probability but high-cost.  I have liability insurance in case I run someone over because I cannot afford that payout.  I have fire insurance in case my home burns down because the price of rebuilding will seriously impact my savings.  I microwave my food for 2 minutes and wear a mask because no amount of money will bring me back from the dead

I never said anything about eating out due to Covid, that was someone else.

Unless you are elderly or have significant other issues, the odds of dying of Covid are infinitesimal.  I had Covid back in October, it was an extremely mild cold, lasted for a day. Aside from loosing smell for a week, it was a total non issue.

[gooki]

We’ve been doing this for more than a year. If there were cases of people catching Covid from takeout food we’d have heard about it by now.

I had Covid back in October

[dragoncar]

We’ve been doing this for more than a year. If there were cases of people catching Covid from takeout food we’d have heard about it by now.

I had Covid back in October

I’d like to hear about the contact tracing that was done

[dragoncar]

My bad on the name mixup

There’s a lot we don’t know because nobody in power wants to know. 

My gut does say take out is a small risk so I’m willing to put a small effort into avoiding that risk

If we want to be anecdotal, I got sick a lot more when I was eating more takeout food

[Chris22]

We’ve been doing this for more than a year. If there were cases of people catching Covid from takeout food we’d have heard about it by now.

I had Covid back in October

I’d like to hear about the contact tracing that was done

My in laws went to a wedding, outside, and caught it from a guest. Then they came to my house and gave it to us because their fucking moron doctor told them “it’s only a sinus infection.”  Thank God they gave it to us and not the other way around because if I gave it to them I’d never hear the end of it.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Now I know why the squeaker is so grim

In other news, my manager was just promoted. We've got a new bungee boss who is deferring to our absentee team lead and absorbing his lack of clue.

I, however, have a job offer in a different division and my last day is in mid-May. It sucks to leave my crew but I cannot abide this level of dysfunctional incompetence.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

2k a month on fun money, oh goodness.  That's our whole base budget, if you don't count what we spend/save on our daughter's education.  I can only image how fast he could reach FIRE if he buckled down.   I kind of hope he's not married and doesn't have kids.  I'd think even a more normal consumer would think that's excessive.

He’s divorced, no kids thankfully.  Yeah, our base expenses are $3k in semi-hcol area for our family of 3, and our “fun money” eating out, entertainment etc is barely 1/10 of his.  Shooting for a 50% savings rate this year.  I definitely wouldn’t spend a nickel on anything non-essential if I was even remotely broke.  Even a small setback like a vehicle breakdown or minor health issues and this guy’s whole life could literally unravel into homelessness with the way he manages things.

That mentality could explain why he's divorced. People can seldom be financially irresponsible well into their twenties or thirties unless they have an enabler. But even married people eventually get tired of wiping butt.

[SwordGuy]

Now I know why the squeaker is so grim

In other news, my manager was just promoted. We've got a new bungee boss who is deferring to our absentee team lead and absorbing his lack of clue.

I, however, have a job offer in a different division and my last day is in mid-May. It sucks to leave my crew but I cannot abide this level of dysfunctional incompetence.

@TheGrimSqueaker ,
Last day as in taking the new job offer or retiring for good?

[Gronnie]

I'm jumping off a sinking ship. Manager at new company has verbally confirmed an offer is forthcoming.

Current job can't for the life of them figure out why all the best employees are leaving.

[jinga nation]

I'm jumping off a sinking ship. Manager at new company has verbally confirmed an offer is forthcoming.

Current job can't for the life of them figure out why all the best employees are leaving.

Perhaps you could offer some "consultancy services" to study the brain drain for 30 days, for a fee of course, after you're gone. :p

[zolotiyeruki]

Now I know why the squeaker is so grim

In other news, my manager was just promoted. We've got a new bungee boss who is deferring to our absentee team lead and absorbing his lack of clue.

For our collective edification, can you elaborate on what you mean by "bungee boss"?  I can imagine a few different definitions, but I'm not sure how you define it.

I'm jumping off a sinking ship. Manager at new company has verbally confirmed an offer is forthcoming.

Current job can't for the life of them figure out why all the best employees are leaving.

Potential "Epic FU Story" ahead?

[jinga nation]

When I switched employers in 2017, I made it a point to attempt to train my replacement. But that transition didn't happen well. I offered free help for the the first month after I left (new job was in building opposite to old job). No questions were asked. The following month, started getting questions. Offered two options:
1. Pay me directly per hour as a 1099
2. Hire my new employer for professional services, who'd send me in.

They wouldn't do #1 because they couldn't pass that cost to their D0D customer. They mulled #2, then gave up because "fees are too high". It took them over a year to fill my old seat. And my replacement disappears all the time due to Reserves duty.

Bumped into my old manager a year after I left, he said I was doing the job of 2 engineers. Came home, looked at what I was doing at my present employer, realized I was going above and beyond my role, parlayed that into a $25k instant-ish raise.

Then COVID struck. Many don't want to go in to the customer site. Those of us who do have become invaluable. Then add those who've left to switch to FinTech to work from home full time. So I'm doing the work of 1.5-2 humans. Have asked for a substantial raise, have been told it will happen because I carried extra burden last year, same for my team. (Employer is very generous, pays more than competitors, and doesn't have layers of money-sucking overhead management. Company owned by, run by, full of engineers and IT people.)

[jinga nation]

@zolotiyeruki
Bungee Boss: https://dilbert.com/strip/1994-09-07

[TheGrimSqueaker]

@zolotiyeruki
Bungee Boss: https://dilbert.com/strip/1994-09-07

Exactly this.

I've been at this company 22 years and am on manager number 22. Most of them have been within the past fifteen years. This is only my second voluntary transfer. To get promoted, you have to have the same manager for at least two years back to back.

[Michael in ABQ]

My boss is leaving for a new job (promotion) in a few weeks. Another person in our department of 20-30 also just left for another organization (promotion I think, maybe lateral). I am planning on leaving by the end of the year. I work with a lot of contractors and their management is all worthless and that trickles down to the folks on the ground. I feel like most of my time is spent trying to get something out of them and then documenting how they failed to do their job - meanwhile picking up the critical tasks that they failed to do. A new contract starts in several months, but this will be the third contractor in my ~3 years and they just hire the same people from the old contract so nothing really changes. It's still the same broken culture that has an attitude of "well that's how we've always done it" even if it's wrong and contrary to written guidelines and regulations. I have zero confidence the new contractor will do much better - though at least they won't get paid for empty seats

I should have probably 7-10 trained people to do the task at hand but instead I've got 2 semi-trained people, 3 brand new ones, and one new manager over all of them who is just making things worse. Plus the contractor fired the most productive person for a BS reason. I'm actively working to hire her - partially because she does good work, and partially to jab a thumb in their eye for being a-holes. Even with a fully trained and fully manned staff that would only be enough to handle the new work, not fix all the problems that decades of outsourcing have caused.


The fired contractor still passes along unsolicited information to me from the current batch of contractors including how their management is bad-mouthing me behind my back. Really looking forward to buying a business and running that full-time.

[mm1970]

No kidding, blech.  We have been eating out once/ week because of COVID (getting takeout)

I don’t follow this logic.  What about Covid makes you eat out more often?

I’ve eaten out far less during Covid because it’s such a pain in the ass to disinfect (I reheat everything to 165).  I am aware that there’s “no evidence” for food borne Covid spread, but I also don’t know what studies have been done to prove/disprove the hypothesis.  Whenever I see that there’s “no evidence” for something I ask what evidence might be Availabe.  For example, has someone innoculated food with Covid and fed it to 100 monkeys?  No.  Has someone done intense contact tracing of an unmasked symptomatic line cook to see if any of their customers has contracted Covid?  Maybe?  I haven’t seen that study.  I’m willing to accept that it’s an unlikely avenue for transmission but also know that restaurant back of house is and has always been filthy so I don’t really trust those guys to take any precautions unless I’ve personally visited the kitchen

@Dee_  called it.

There's no evidence for COVID transmission through food, and if I were doing what you were doing, I wouldn't bother getting takeout either.

Essentially, primarily, we've done it to support our local restaurants.
We've done it because the kids have gotten bored with our food.
We've done it as a "treat" (for the kids, not us really) - where typically it would be 1-2x a month.

Honestly, it was a full year of working FT at home, never leaving the COUNTY (no vacations), in a 3 room house with 4 people and a dog (both kids doing zoom school).  We needed something "different" to look forward to each week.  Also, feeding 4 people 3-4 times a day and preparing that amount of food sucks DONKEY BALLS.

Now that the kids are back in school (mostly) full time, but we are still working from home, we are actually eating out a bit less (but still more than pre-COVID) because life without zoom school is less stressful.  In addition to having more time to work at home in peace, the kids eat lunch at school, so the amount of food prep we have to do is also down.

[BlueHouse]

Just in case you're not familiar with it, the "AR" doesn't stand for "Assault Rifle."  It stands for "ArmaLite Rifle"--Armalite is the company that originally developed it.  Generally speaking, the term "assault rifle" only includes weapons capable of automatic fire or burst fire, and the AR-15 doesn't fall into that category.

I find the people who call this these semantics are generally the ones that are trying to change the subject from the most recent mass shooting by pointing out that someone else is "ignorant" of actual weapons classifications.  Generally, people will call a weapon that was created and used for assault, an assault-weapon or an assault rifle.  And it's not incorrect.  But by changing the subject from something seriously fucked up (mass murder) to something so esoteric (do we know what the initials stand for), gun advocates succeed in changing the narrative.  I also notice that Armalite has become the most well-known gun manufacturer ever since this tactic was developed.  I'm sure they're very pleased that you are advertising their mass-killing machines. 

And of course it is the individual states that regulate how someone can carry and own guns not (generally) the feds. In Calif open carry is illegal and gun ownership restricted. Other states are more lenient.

You may remember when open carry in CA became illegal -- and why.  It's because the Black Panthers did exactly what the nutcases in Michigan did when they open-carried into a state capital.  Panthers walked into Sacramento armed with long guns and it scared the bejesus out of all the white people.  If we really want to get serious about gun control, I think all we have to do is give a bunch of black people guns and let them open-carry.  White people will shit themselves. 

[Chris22]

One of the best, most outspoken, and my favorite 2A spokesman is a man named Colion Noir.  He was a prominent NRA spokesman for a while. 

https://www.mrcolionnoir.com/

Pretty sure the gun community is happy to have any law abiding spokesman they can, especially if they are young and not white, thus widening the appeal of the community.

[Chris22]

I find the people who call this these semantics are generally the ones that are trying to change the subject from the most recent mass shooting by pointing out that someone else is "ignorant" of actual weapons classifications.  Generally, people will call a weapon that was created and used for assault, an assault-weapon or an assault rifle.  And it's not incorrect.  But by changing the subject from something seriously fucked up (mass murder) to something so esoteric (do we know what the initials stand for), gun advocates succeed in changing the narrative.  I also notice that Armalite has become the most well-known gun manufacturer ever since this tactic was developed.  I'm sure they're very pleased that you are advertising their mass-killing machines. 

I find that the people who intentionally obfuscate assault rifles and then yell “semantics” are intentionally blurring the lines between what a true assault rifle is, an automatic weapon which are highly regulated and largely illegal, and a common semi-automatic like an AR-15, because they want them outlawed. And outlawing them is easier if people think “assault rifle” = automatic weapon. Politicians and gun control advocates absolutely try and confuse the two to engender support for banning all of it.

It’s disingenuous and dishonest.

[Sibley]

I find the people who call this these semantics are generally the ones that are trying to change the subject from the most recent mass shooting by pointing out that someone else is "ignorant" of actual weapons classifications.  Generally, people will call a weapon that was created and used for assault, an assault-weapon or an assault rifle.  And it's not incorrect.  But by changing the subject from something seriously fucked up (mass murder) to something so esoteric (do we know what the initials stand for), gun advocates succeed in changing the narrative.  I also notice that Armalite has become the most well-known gun manufacturer ever since this tactic was developed.  I'm sure they're very pleased that you are advertising their mass-killing machines. 

I find that the people who intentionally obfuscate assault rifles and then yell “semantics” are intentionally blurring the lines between what a true assault rifle is, an automatic weapon which are highly regulated and largely illegal, and a common semi-automatic like an AR-15, because they want them outlawed. And outlawing them is easier if people think “assault rifle” = automatic weapon. Politicians and gun control advocates absolutely try and confuse the two to engender support for banning all of it.

It’s disingenuous and dishonest.

And then there's people like me who are pissed that there's gun control debate starting in the Overheard at Work thread. Take it to Off Topic please, where it belongs.

[a1pharm]

No kidding, blech.  We have been eating out once/ week because of COVID (getting takeout)

I don’t follow this logic.  What about Covid makes you eat out more often?

I’ve eaten out far less during Covid because it’s such a pain in the ass to disinfect (I reheat everything to 165).  I am aware that there’s “no evidence” for food borne Covid spread, but I also don’t know what studies have been done to prove/disprove the hypothesis.  Whenever I see that there’s “no evidence” for something I ask what evidence might be Availabe.  For example, has someone innoculated food with Covid and fed it to 100 monkeys?  No.  Has someone done intense contact tracing of an unmasked symptomatic line cook to see if any of their customers has contracted Covid?  Maybe?  I haven’t seen that study.  I’m willing to accept that it’s an unlikely avenue for transmission but also know that restaurant back of house is and has always been filthy so I don’t really trust those guys to take any precautions unless I’ve personally visited the kitchen

That sound exhausting, and frankly anti-mustachian*/anti-math. We’ve been doing this for more than a year. If there were cases of people catching Covid from takeout food we’d have heard about it by now.  You’re far more likely to get e.coli or similar than Covid from food


*anti-mustachian in the sense of expending time/effort to insure against things they have a microscopic chance of happening.

Says the guy who said he has been eating out once a week “because of Covid” but doesn’t answer why Covid makes him eat out more.

Ecoli is also a great reason to reheat your takeout food, so It’s just a win win.  It too much trouble so I cook my own food as much as possible, which is far more mustachian from both a math and philosophical point of view

I also personally think it’s super mustachian to insure against things that are low-probability but high-cost.  I have liability insurance in case I run someone over because I cannot afford that payout.  I have fire insurance in case my home burns down because the price of rebuilding will seriously impact my savings.  I microwave my food for 2 minutes and wear a mask because no amount of money will bring me back from the dead

Dragoncar - you are my hero.  You have figured out that taking unnecessary risks with unknown consequences is dumb, and a huge percentage of our country seems incapable of doing this (but life is hard.... waaaaah... I don't want to make food for myself... waaah... you don't have any evidence, therefore I get to do whatever I feel... waaaaaaaah...).

Keep fighting the good fight.

And in case you were still interested, the risk of contracting COVID is literally 100% higher in Americans who go to restaurants.  There have been no studies showing foodborne COVID transmission does (or does not) exist.  There have been no contact tracing studies done to prove anything.  We still don't even know if you can catch COVID from a door knob.  The lack of clarity on transmission is depressing, but at least anyone who wants a vaccine and is > 16 y/o can get one now.

If you have questions about any evidence, reply to this post, and I'll chime in whenever I have a few minutes to share it.

[a1pharm]

I find the people who call this these semantics are generally the ones that are trying to change the subject from the most recent mass shooting by pointing out that someone else is "ignorant" of actual weapons classifications.  Generally, people will call a weapon that was created and used for assault, an assault-weapon or an assault rifle.  And it's not incorrect.  But by changing the subject from something seriously fucked up (mass murder) to something so esoteric (do we know what the initials stand for), gun advocates succeed in changing the narrative.  I also notice that Armalite has become the most well-known gun manufacturer ever since this tactic was developed.  I'm sure they're very pleased that you are advertising their mass-killing machines. 

I find that the people who intentionally obfuscate assault rifles and then yell “semantics” are intentionally blurring the lines between what a true assault rifle is, an automatic weapon which are highly regulated and largely illegal, and a common semi-automatic like an AR-15, because they want them outlawed. And outlawing them is easier if people think “assault rifle” = automatic weapon. Politicians and gun control advocates absolutely try and confuse the two to engender support for banning all of it.

It’s disingenuous and dishonest.

I think you missed the point.  Some people abhor the killing of other people, and you get upset when they don't invest more time in researching something irrelevant (like the difference between an assault rifle vs. Armalite vs. automatic weapon vs. who gives a shit).  Guns shoot bullets that sometimes kill people and this irritates everyone.  Half of people are irritated that guns are being fired at other people, and the other half are irritated the first half aren't calling the gun the "right" noun.  You decide which half is being more unreasonable.

[Peaksandvalleys]

I find the people who call this these semantics are generally the ones that are trying to change the subject from the most recent mass shooting by pointing out that someone else is "ignorant" of actual weapons classifications.  Generally, people will call a weapon that was created and used for assault, an assault-weapon or an assault rifle.  And it's not incorrect.  But by changing the subject from something seriously fucked up (mass murder) to something so esoteric (do we know what the initials stand for), gun advocates succeed in changing the narrative.  I also notice that Armalite has become the most well-known gun manufacturer ever since this tactic was developed.  I'm sure they're very pleased that you are advertising their mass-killing machines. 

I find that the people who intentionally obfuscate assault rifles and then yell “semantics” are intentionally blurring the lines between what a true assault rifle is, an automatic weapon which are highly regulated and largely illegal, and a common semi-automatic like an AR-15, because they want them outlawed. And outlawing them is easier if people think “assault rifle” = automatic weapon. Politicians and gun control advocates absolutely try and confuse the two to engender support for banning all of it.

It’s disingenuous and dishonest.

I think you missed the point.  Some people abhor the killing of other people, and you get upset when they don't invest more time in researching something irrelevant (like the difference between an assault rifle vs. Armalite vs. automatic weapon vs. who gives a shit).  Guns shoot bullets that sometimes kill people and this irritates everyone.  Half of people are irritated that guns are being fired at other people, and the other half are irritated the first half aren't calling the gun the "right" noun.  You decide which half is being more unreasonable.

Actually everyone is upset that guns are being fired at other people. It plays into your narrative to call one side heartless though so I understand why you say one side is irritated only about semantics, unfortunately it is incorrect.  The question of what should be done about the issue is where opinions differ. Semantics are also important when you are proposing solutions and outlawing something that was previously legal. You have to draw the line somewhere and you need to be VERY specific about where you draw it. Personally, I believe we would be better off with gun education and inner city community investment than gun control but that's because these bans have been attempted before and have not impacted gun deaths. Looks good for optics though to get re-elected...

[Sugaree]

I find the people who call this these semantics are generally the ones that are trying to change the subject from the most recent mass shooting by pointing out that someone else is "ignorant" of actual weapons classifications.  Generally, people will call a weapon that was created and used for assault, an assault-weapon or an assault rifle.  And it's not incorrect.  But by changing the subject from something seriously fucked up (mass murder) to something so esoteric (do we know what the initials stand for), gun advocates succeed in changing the narrative.  I also notice that Armalite has become the most well-known gun manufacturer ever since this tactic was developed.  I'm sure they're very pleased that you are advertising their mass-killing machines. 

I find that the people who intentionally obfuscate assault rifles and then yell “semantics” are intentionally blurring the lines between what a true assault rifle is, an automatic weapon which are highly regulated and largely illegal, and a common semi-automatic like an AR-15, because they want them outlawed. And outlawing them is easier if people think “assault rifle” = automatic weapon. Politicians and gun control advocates absolutely try and confuse the two to engender support for banning all of it.

It’s disingenuous and dishonest.

I think you missed the point.  Some people abhor the killing of other people, and you get upset when they don't invest more time in researching something irrelevant (like the difference between an assault rifle vs. Armalite vs. automatic weapon vs. who gives a shit).  Guns shoot bullets that sometimes kill people and this irritates everyone.  Half of people are irritated that guns are being fired at other people, and the other half are irritated the first half aren't calling the gun the "right" noun.  You decide which half is being more unreasonable.

Actually everyone is upset that guns are being fired at other people. It plays into your narrative to call one side heartless though so I understand why you say one side is irritated only about semantics, unfortunately it is incorrect.  The question of what should be done about the issue is where opinions differ. Semantics are also important when you are proposing solutions and outlawing something that was previously legal. You have to draw the line somewhere and you need to be VERY specific about where you draw it. Personally, I believe we would be better off with gun education and inner city community investment than gun control but that's because these bans have been attempted before and have not impacted gun deaths. Looks good for optics though to get re-elected...

I'd settle for a mandatory loss of your CCL for failing to secure your weapon in public.  In a neighborhood near me, in a single night, six different guns were stolen out of unlocked vehicles.  Of course, all of the owners claim to be responsible gun owners...

[RetiredAt63]

I'd settle for a mandatory loss of your CCL for failing to secure your weapon in public.  In a neighborhood near me, in a single night, six different guns were stolen out of unlocked vehicles.  Of course, all of the owners claim to be responsible gun owners...

I have a devious mind, to me that would be the perfect way to sell a gun illegally.  You give me money, I will leave my car unlocked and you can "steal" it.

And to second Sibley, this is no longer overheard at work, and we have had gun control debates ad nauseum over on Off Topic.

I'm retired, so no good "overheard at work" tidbits any more, sorry not sorry, nyah nyah.  ;-)

[JAYSLOL]

I’ll see if I can get this back on track a bit.  Follow up on the new guy that was complaining about being broke while spending all of his $2k/m side income as “fun money”.  He told me yesterday that he is avoiding doing taxes as long as he can because he doesn’t want to see the number that he’s going to owe from getting taxable income assistance last year.  Right before he ate out for lunch again. 

[BlueHouse]

I'd settle for a mandatory loss of your CCL for failing to secure your weapon in public.  In a neighborhood near me, in a single night, six different guns were stolen out of unlocked vehicles.  Of course, all of the owners claim to be responsible gun owners...

I have a devious mind, to me that would be the perfect way to sell a gun illegally.  You give me money, I will leave my car unlocked and you can "steal" it.

And to second Sibley, this is no longer overheard at work, and we have had gun control debates ad nauseum over on Off Topic.

I'm retired, so no good "overheard at work" tidbits any more, sorry not sorry, nyah nyah.  ;-)

1.  That is actually a good idea!
2.  Sorry Sibley, and sorry to the rest of you.   I saw an older post and responded.  I won't engage here.  And I'm not really interested in having the debate elsewhere either. 
3.  I recently retired too!  So many people from work are STILL calling me to talk things over/gossip.  It's as if they having nothing better to do!!! (sometimes I answer, sometimes I don't

[Sibley]

I suspect my coworker is going to make an unwise vehicle choice. She drives 60 miles per day, and is currently driving her fiancé's vehicle because her 2000 truck is very unreliable. She knows that she should prioritize gas mileage. She WANTS a Jeep Wrangler, or if not that, a truck. She's also 23, so my guess is the want is going to outweigh the should.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Now I know why the squeaker is so grim

In other news, my manager was just promoted. We've got a new bungee boss who is deferring to our absentee team lead and absorbing his lack of clue.

I, however, have a job offer in a different division and my last day is in mid-May. It sucks to leave my crew but I cannot abide this level of dysfunctional incompetence.

@TheGrimSqueaker ,
Last day as in taking the new job offer or retiring for good?

Just a transfer. I came late to Mustachianism and want to kill my mortgage before retiring, and I'd like to check a few things off my bucket list first, so I'm not retiring yet.

[StashingAway]

I suspect my coworker is going to make an unwise vehicle choice. She drives 60 miles per day, and is currently driving her fiancé's vehicle because her 2000 truck is very unreliable. She knows that she should prioritize gas mileage. She WANTS a Jeep Wrangler, or if not that, a truck. She's also 23, so my guess is the want is going to outweigh the should.

Well that's an easy one. Get the plug in hybrid Wrangler.

[Sugaree]

I suspect my coworker is going to make an unwise vehicle choice. She drives 60 miles per day, and is currently driving her fiancé's vehicle because her 2000 truck is very unreliable. She knows that she should prioritize gas mileage. She WANTS a Jeep Wrangler, or if not that, a truck. She's also 23, so my guess is the want is going to outweigh the should.

Hell, I'm almost 40 and drive a Jeep 60 miles a day.  Hence the reason I'm trying to find a vanpool to join.

[Sibley]

I suspect my coworker is going to make an unwise vehicle choice. She drives 60 miles per day, and is currently driving her fiancé's vehicle because her 2000 truck is very unreliable. She knows that she should prioritize gas mileage. She WANTS a Jeep Wrangler, or if not that, a truck. She's also 23, so my guess is the want is going to outweigh the should.

Well that's an easy one. Get the plug in hybrid Wrangler.

I will mention it to her.

[JAYSLOL]

I suspect my coworker is going to make an unwise vehicle choice. She drives 60 miles per day, and is currently driving her fiancé's vehicle because her 2000 truck is very unreliable. She knows that she should prioritize gas mileage. She WANTS a Jeep Wrangler, or if not that, a truck. She's also 23, so my guess is the want is going to outweigh the should.

Well that's an easy one. Get the plug in hybrid Wrangler.

Looks like a $50k base price for one of those.  The gas savings are likely to pale in comparison to the monster of a car payment.  How much does she make?

[zolotiyeruki]

*sigh* Yesterday, a coworker showed up at work with a new (or very recent model year) Ford Ecosport Titanium.  According to Ford's website, it starts at about $27k.

She used to drive an old, beat up Pontiac that was on its last legs, so I don't blame her for getting rid of it.  However, she and her husband seem to have consistent money problems, he is underemployed, and I can think of a dozen vehicles options in 30 seconds that would have met their needs and been waaaaay cheaper.  In fact, my coworker's husband is picking up what amounts to minimum wage work so they can make the car payment.

Today, we had a sudden rainstorm, and I hoofed it out to make sure my windows were closed.  My car was fine, but my coworker's car's sunroof was open.  I called over to her, and she was horrified that the inside of her new car was getting wet.

She's a great coworker, does her job really well, works hard, etc.  But my heavens, I shake my head at her financial choices some days.

A few things I took away from that interaction today:
1) I enjoy the fact that, because my car is old, I don't have to worry about a scratch in my car's paint, or rain getting in through the window for a couple minutes.
2) I am glad that I've learned to do my own car repair and maintenance, so that I can keep driving my old jalopy.  Sure, it needs more upkeep than a new car, but it's WAY cheaper than a car payment.
3) I'm glad that, between buying used cars and paying cash, we don't have a car payment.  Sure, it's not mathematically optimal, but the peace of mind is awesome.

[LennStar]

No kidding, blech.  We have been eating out once/ week because of COVID (getting takeout)

I don’t follow this logic.  What about Covid makes you eat out more often?

I’ve eaten out far less during Covid because it’s such a pain in the ass to disinfect (I reheat everything to 165).  I am aware that there’s “no evidence” for food borne Covid spread, but I also don’t know what studies have been done to prove/disprove the hypothesis.  Whenever I see that there’s “no evidence” for something I ask what evidence might be Availabe.  For example, has someone innoculated food with Covid and fed it to 100 monkeys?  No.  Has someone done intense contact tracing of an unmasked symptomatic line cook to see if any of their customers has contracted Covid?  Maybe?  I haven’t seen that study.  I’m willing to accept that it’s an unlikely avenue for transmission but also know that restaurant back of house is and has always been filthy so I don’t really trust those guys to take any precautions unless I’ve personally visited the kitchen

You try to find out where people have infected themselves if you catch them positive. You find a lot of reasons, but food is basically never the reason. There are one or two (where a cook was having heavy symptoms and not wearing a mask so you can imagine what was in the food) and a few maybes, but generally you can say it is safer to eat food from outside than to go shopping and grabbing the cart without desinfecting it (and this is already a relativly low-risk thing) and yourself afterward.

Unless you are elderly or have significant other issues, the odds of dying of Covid are infinitesimal.

When does elderly start for you? Even 20 year olds have been around 0,2% death rate - and that is with the "old" virus, the newer mutations seem to be more dangerous.

[By the River]

*sigh* Yesterday, a coworker showed up at work with a new (or very recent model year) Ford Ecosport Titanium.  According to Ford's website, it starts at about $27k.
...

Because reasons, I'm in the market for a car again.  My preferred car is something 2 or 3 years old coming off a lease with relatively low mileage and then I keep it for 8-10 years.  Last purchase was a 2 year old Honda Accord with 25K miles.  Its been a great car.   The cheapest I've found in this category is listed over $23,000.  That's nuts.  Anyway, if your coworker got the base model and keeps it a long time, they may not do bad. 

[zolotiyeruki]

*sigh* Yesterday, a coworker showed up at work with a new (or very recent model year) Ford Ecosport Titanium.  According to Ford's website, it starts at about $27k.
...

Because reasons, I'm in the market for a car again.  My preferred car is something 2 or 3 years old coming off a lease with relatively low mileage and then I keep it for 8-10 years.  Last purchase was a 2 year old Honda Accord with 25K miles.  Its been a great car.   The cheapest I've found in this category is listed over $23,000.  That's nuts.  Anyway, if your coworker got the base model and keeps it a long time, they may not do bad.

Well, the base model starts at $20k.  They got the Titanium, which starts around $27k.

I'm a fan of buying cars at around 100,000 miles.  That's when a bunch of maintenance comes due (shocks, timing belt, fluids, etc) so there's a bump in ownership cost, so people tend to trade them in.  I'm happy to do that maintenance myself in exchange for saving a bunch of money. :)

[Chris22]

*sigh* Yesterday, a coworker showed up at work with a new (or very recent model year) Ford Ecosport Titanium.  According to Ford's website, it starts at about $27k.
...

Because reasons, I'm in the market for a car again.  My preferred car is something 2 or 3 years old coming off a lease with relatively low mileage and then I keep it for 8-10 years.  Last purchase was a 2 year old Honda Accord with 25K miles.  Its been a great car.   The cheapest I've found in this category is listed over $23,000.  That's nuts.  Anyway, if your coworker got the base model and keeps it a long time, they may not do bad.

Well, the base model starts at $20k.  They got the Titanium, which starts around $27k.

I'm a fan of buying cars at around 100,000 miles.  That's when a bunch of maintenance comes due (shocks, timing belt, fluids, etc) so there's a bump in ownership cost, so people tend to trade them in.  I'm happy to do that maintenance myself in exchange for saving a bunch of money. :)

You can’t go by MSRPs with Fords.  They tend to discount heavily, especially relatively unpopular models like the Ecosport. A quick glance at KBB suggests <$25k without trying too hard.

[Paper Chaser]

*sigh* Yesterday, a coworker showed up at work with a new (or very recent model year) Ford Ecosport Titanium.  According to Ford's website, it starts at about $27k.
...

Because reasons, I'm in the market for a car again.  My preferred car is something 2 or 3 years old coming off a lease with relatively low mileage and then I keep it for 8-10 years.  Last purchase was a 2 year old Honda Accord with 25K miles.  Its been a great car.   The cheapest I've found in this category is listed over $23,000.  That's nuts.  Anyway, if your coworker got the base model and keeps it a long time, they may not do bad.

Well, the base model starts at $20k.  They got the Titanium, which starts around $27k.

I'm a fan of buying cars at around 100,000 miles.  That's when a bunch of maintenance comes due (shocks, timing belt, fluids, etc) so there's a bump in ownership cost, so people tend to trade them in.  I'm happy to do that maintenance myself in exchange for saving a bunch of money. :)

You can’t go by MSRPs with Fords.  They tend to discount heavily, especially relatively unpopular models like the Ecosport. A quick glance at KBB suggests <$25k without trying too hard.

This is a valid point. Autotrader shows 45 brand new EcoSports with the Titanium trim level for under $20k. Those dealers might be stacking discounts in order to advertise those prices as bait, but still... I really hope nobody is paying $27k for a tarted up EcoSport.

The real issue is that buying an EcoSport, new, and in the highest trim level is an all around terrible decision. They consistently finish last or very near the bottom in comparisons with other vehicles in their class. They depreciate quite a lot too.

US News ranked them dead last in the sub compact CUV category and said:
"The 2021 Ford EcoSport doesn't compare favorably with most vehicles in the subcompact SUV class. It suffers from an underpowered base engine, a harsh ride, and limited advanced safety features, which is why it ranks near the back of the segment."
"Is the Ford EcoSport a Good SUV?

No, the 2021 EcoSport is not a good subcompact SUV. Though this Ford has easy maneuverability in tight spaces and abundant cargo room, its negatives far outweigh its positives. Driver visibility is poor due to thick roof pillars and a narrow rear window. Taller folks will find the rear seats very tight, and there aren't many standard or available active safety features. Additionally, this Ford delivers a bumpy ride over uneven pavement, and acceleration is slow."

All that in a tiny CUV with a tiny engine and they can't even get 30mpg highway. There are just so many better choices...

[Chris22]

There are “better choices” but a lot of those come with higher (real world) price tags. Let’s face it, pretty much any modern car is pretty good. Someone buying a less good but cheaper Ford over a “better” Honda or Toyota is not making a terrible decision IMO.

[Dee_]

This is reminding me, I used to have a coworker who totaled a car once every other year (or at least it seemed that way). It was baffling to me. She sort of accepted it as the way things inevitably were going to be, or just bad luck.

I've met much worse drivers. I think she was just bad at driving defensively, somehow.

[Paper Chaser]

There are “better choices” but a lot of those come with higher (real world) price tags. Let’s face it, pretty much any modern car is pretty good. Someone buying a less good but cheaper Ford over a “better” Honda or Toyota is not making a terrible decision IMO.

Yeah, there aren't very many truly bad new vehicles (although Fiat and Alfa sure try). My point was that there are many better uses for that money. The EcoSport buyer has to be the type of person that doesn't research major purchases in the slightest. I'm not surprised at all to hear that zolotiyeruki's coworker that consistently makes poor financial choices also made a poor choice in transportation. People that make poor choices in one area of their lives often make poor choices in other areas too.

If a person has to buy new, and it has to be a sub compact CUV, the Mazda CX3 has very similar pricing, while looking better, having nicer materials, being more refined in nature and getting 10% better fuel economy. It's also got better crash safety scores than the EcoSport. The Korean models from Hyundai/Kia are again similar on pricing to the EcoSport, but offer a far superior warranty. And those are just the better options in that segment and price bracket.

If we loosen restrictions and allow used vehicles as well, a $20-25k budget buys a very nice Avalon hybrid that has more space, nicer appointments, higher quality, and trounces the EcoSport's fuel economy. If you're loyal to the Ford brand, you can get 1-3 year old Fusion hybrids and PHEVs with well under 30k miles for that price, and again have a nicer, safer, more efficient vehicle (I like my Fusion PHEV a lot).

Sometimes I'm just a little baffled when I see people make the choices that they do. They may not all be awful choices, but good grief. At least put in a little effort to try and get the big things right and avoid hamstringing yourself.

[mm1970]

Sometimes I'm just a little baffled when I see people make the choices that they do. They may not all be awful choices, but good grief. At least put in a little effort to try and get the big things right and avoid hamstringing yourself.

My stepfather ONLY buys Fords.  Only.

[dragoncar]

You try to find out where people have infected themselves if you catch them positive. You find a lot of reasons, but food is basically never the reason. There are one or two (where a cook was having heavy symptoms and not wearing a mask so you can imagine what was in the food) and a few maybes, but generally you can say it is safer to eat food from outside than to go shopping and grabbing the cart without desinfecting it (and this is already a relativly low-risk thing) and yourself afterward.

Ok I don’t want to crap up this thread with a Covid debate, especially since widespread vaccine availability is mooting most of it and I’m sure we have other threads for Covid which I really don’t want to join

But ill say that I understand hypothetically how we could detect/trace food borne transmission and because the US basically gave up on rigorous contract tracing early on I don’t think we ever collected enough data to disprove the hypothesis.  Correct my if I’m wrong, meaning an actual scholarly article, and PM if necessary so as not to foam the thread

And it would have been super easy for someone to do this research too.  Get a hundred monkeys and place active Covid on their meals.  See if they contract it.* As far as I know, nobody did this.  Again, correct me if I’m wrong.  I’d legitimately love to see the study and wouldn’t be surprised with either result.  I’m just disappointed that there was all this opportunity for basic research that wasn’t done (although I have scientist friends who assure me that data is coming someday, although they don’t specifically know who is analyzing it they feel confident someone somewhere is)


*note also that the respiratory Covid may not be the only form of infection.  Early on there were reports of Covid shedding in feces, which could indicate a gastrointestinal infection, presumably not as life threatening, but I didn’t see much since early reports

[Dee_]

And it would have been super easy for someone to do this research too.  Get a hundred monkeys and place active Covid on their meals.  See if they contract it.* As far as I know, nobody did this.  Again, correct me if I’m wrong.  I’d legitimately love to see the study and wouldn’t be surprised with either result.  I’m just disappointed that there was all this opportunity for basic research that wasn’t done (although I have scientist friends who assure me that data is coming someday, although they don’t specifically know who is analyzing it they feel confident someone somewhere is)

There's two very good reasons nobody did this - because it would have been fucking expensive, and it wouldn't have proven anything. Proving a negative is hard, e.g. COVID is NOT spread by contact transmission, cats are NOT the primary cause of the decline in songbird population, polymer networks with extensive long-range intermolecular interactions are NOT described by a de Gennes reptation or Rouse model. You get the picture. The reason it's hard is that there's usually a few counterexamples. Is COVID spread by contact? We could probably find a few cases where it possibly happened, sure.

It's much easier to accumulate positive examples until your colleagues scoff at a paper with a negative example. Sure, here's a case of possible foodborne COVID transmission. But there's
 two hundred thousand cases over here that were most likely respiratory transmission. Your single case is probably an anomaly or a lazy contact tracer. Is the single negative example sometimes a thread that unravels the established theories of an entire subfield? Sure, it happens sometimes. But not all the time.

So is COVID spread via physical contact? Unlikely. We don't say no, because scientists are cautious about making provably false statements. But it's much more likely it spreads via respiratory droplets,

"But maybe if we'd done the monkey experiment we would have had evidence! We just don't know!"

I don't really do in vivo studies so this is just speculation, but let's think this through. We acquire (say) 1,000 rhesus monkeys at a prohibitive cost of 5 million dollars, and hire a bunch of cheap postdocs and grad students to run the study. Let's say the facilities and staff are free, though they most certainly would not be. You feed them COVID laced mangoes.

Two possible outcomes:
1. They don't get COVID. Maybe we didn't give them enough. Maybe we waited too long between dosing and ingestion and the virus died. Maybe eating mangoes and COVID simultaneously reduces the potency of the virus. Maybe monkeys are less susceptible to oral COVID infection than humans are.
2. They get COVID. Maybe monkeys are more susceptible to COVID infection via the oral route than humans are. Maybe COVID manages to reproduce on room temperature mangoes but not room temperature bread. Maybe we gave them more COVID than a human would eat, even if the symptomatic line cook full on sneezed onto their food.

Meanwhile, while you're frantically trying to get your funding agency to give you more money for the followup experiments, the theory that "COVID is spread largely by people breathing in droplets breathed out infected people" explains most of the cases, and getting people to wear masks so they stop breathing air from all over the room and just the little pocket in front of them seems to reduce infection rates.

tl;dr Microwave your food if it makes you feel better. Just wear your mask.

[DadJokes]

"I don't want to continue this debate about covid in a thread that has nothing to do with covid, but I'm going to do it anyway, because I have to have the last word."

Y'all just let it go.

[dragoncar]

"I don't want to continue this debate about covid in a thread that has nothing to do with covid, but I'm going to do it anyway, because I have to have the last word."

Y'all just let it go.

I’m just letting people know I won’t respond here further on that topic - in fact Dee_ has had the last public word and I’m happy to listen and respond to all opinions through PM.  Thus, I’m not stopping the conversation, just suggesting we move it elsewhere because there was already a complaint about off topic discussion.  Seems only polite to me, and I suggest this is how all such off topic issues are handled here.

I didn’t originally realize what thread this was when I responded to the first post about Covid