Posts by wearywolf252

This just isn't working. Look, I get it—you need to prompt them when they land on the domain or during the login process, or something like that. It’s a necessity, fine. But forcing this right now? It's completely unusable.

Matthew Jackson2 said:It’s all a bit of an educated guess, I realize, but I decided to run some quick math myself based on the original measurements:

In the US, we have about 555 municipalities and cities. Let’s assume an average municipality has roughly 10 checkpoints—which, frankly, feels like a conservative estimate given that larger cities have way more, while those small towns tucked away near the mountain ranges have fewer due to the geography. If we consider that some of them are smaller hubs where a single officer can monitor both directions most of the day (essentially covering two towns at once), and then you have the bigger ones where you need one officer per direction, that brings us to needing 6 officers per shift. That totals 3,330 officers per shift just to secure all those checkpoints.

On the flip side, we've got 20,000 people currently stuck in quarantine. This essentially means that if we were to redistribute those 3,330 officers (per shift, mind you, not the total force) to instead monitor the folks in isolation, each officer would only be responsible for checking on 6 people. Since most of these people are clustered together in groups—families, neighbors, and whatnot—it translates to this: the exact same number of police officers currently busy guarding checkpoints between towns could monitor EVERY SINGLE person under quarantine orders to ensure they aren't peeking their noses out. And honestly, there’d likely still be plenty of personnel left over to help deliver groceries and medicine to those who can't get out to grab them.

Look, sorry, but awarding 10 points to a single municipality would only make sense if our towns were actually functioning properly. Given how things stand, 5 is a much more realistic number. My own area sits at 5, and it isn't even a small one. Most of the surrounding ones have about 4 each..

It's not that I don't think this whole system should be scrapped—or at least shifted up to the county level—but let's be honest here. Today, a "municipality" is basically just three tiny villages clustered along the same stretch of highway. Ten points? Give me a break..

Matthew Jackson2 said:I suppose I should tread carefully here, but you seem to be under the impression that I’m looking for an alternative—as if my only grievance is that I haven't provided a better way of doing things while simultaneously acknowledging they actually do a decent job. Honestly, I find myself at a complete loss for words; I truly have nothing to add to that particular line of reasoning.

Look, I consider myself a reasonable man—a level-headed individual who understands the need for order—but there comes a point where patience isn't just tested, it’s systematically dismantled. If I spend the first week being cooperative, then the second week trying to play by the rules, and by the third week I see the situation spiraling further into chaos while the restrictions only get more draconian and suffocating, what exactly am I supposed to do? At what precise moment am I expected to simply snap? I mean, I can sit here and be the only one following every single arbitrary mandate, but eventually, I’m going to reach a breaking point where I just want to yell, "To hell with all of you, I refuse to be the only sane person left in this circus." Maybe I won't be the one to lose my cool, but let’s be realistic: when things get this out of hand, at least ten percent of the population is going to hit that wall and finally push back. This whole thing has completely spun out of control.

The only other way this plays out is if people finally decide to stop waiting for permission and start taking matters into their own hands by carving out their own version of justice—and honestly, if that happens, this whole damn pandemic situation starts looking like a much smaller problem than what we're actually facing.

If the Secretary of Homeland Security can't guarantee that officers on the ground are actually following protocol, or if the Secretary of Health and Human Services can't ensure that an ER isn't turning away someone in desperate need of life-saving care, then we have reached a point where they’ve completely lost their grip on the very systems they claim to oversee. It’s a fundamental breakdown of leadership. In any other professional setting—and I mean really high-stakes environments like a major hospital administration or even a large corporate firm here in the States—you don't just sit by when things go sideways; you resign. You step down because the responsibility rests at the top. During a crisis, that internal accountability shouldn't just be a suggestion; it should be the absolute bedrock of how we function. When a failure occurs, the immediate supervisor has to act instantly. If they fail to act, their superior is obligated to step in and course-correct immediately. But if that entire chain of command remains paralyzed, if this systemic refusal to respond trickles all the way up to the Cabinet level, then the conversation is effectively over. At that stage, there is no longer a functioning government to debate with, because the leadership has essentially abdicated its duty.

I mean, sure, if you're talking about the islands, there's a certain logic to it—especially those spots that get completely cut off from the mainland when a massive storm rolls in off the coast—but honestly, everyone else in the region is just going to gravitate toward the four major medical hubs anyway.

Look, my main point was that this wouldn't make any sense for a place like Canada, whereas here in the States, there’s actually some logic to it. I'll grant you that the whole thing with the municipalities is a mess, but restricting movement between regions actually made sense initially—first because of how things were handled in California, then later with the crisis in the Midwest, and now it might actually be more critical down in Florida. You hit the nail on the head regarding the islands...
I honestly don't know which version would actually work. It'll probably stay nonsensical for a while longer, or maybe they'll just enforce it strictly in whatever region ends up being a disaster zone once the system is fully established.
I don't know. All I know is that it makes more sense for us than it would for Canada, and to me, that's logical enough.

It’s the same reason why it felt completely logical for us to immediately slam the brakes on travel and implement isolation protocols at our borders, whereas if Belgium had tried that, they wouldn't have known where to start given they haven't had hard borders for years with people constantly flowing through their airports. It wouldn't have made sense for them.
Every country just deals with its own specific set of headaches and advantages.

Matthew Jackson2 said:So, essentially, our primary issue is a broken system, rather than the behavior of the public itself.

The epidemiologists over in Canada called this exact same measure unnecessary and excessive. Yet here we are, with our own officials digging their heels in to maintain it, even though it’s clearly insane. To date, a third of the adult population already holds a pass, and these little political cliques are starting to cluster together because they've realized the whole thing isn't sustainable. It's just that nobody has the guts to stand up and tell the Emperor he's wearing no clothes.

You have to admit, the geography makes a massive difference. You can't compare us to Canada, where the population is spread out relatively evenly across a compact area. Here, everything is lopsided. Half the people are clustered around the Greater New York area, then you’ve got all those coastal islands and the heavy traffic down in Florida. Then there’s the Midwest, which feels completely isolated from the rest, and places like the West Coast that were hit hard early on because of how connected they are to international hubs. It’s not an apples-to-apples comparison.

Joshua Gray75 said:And what about the rest of America... does that just not matter? 🙄

It seems quite clear that this whole business of "grouping municipalities" into these exclusive zones isn't happening anywhere else in the States... perhaps? 🤔

Are the citizens in the other regions simply second-class residents now? Are we not all meant to be equal under the Constitution?

Is there a legal expert out there who can make sense of this logic—or does everything truly just depend on the whims of local power brokers...?? 🤔

So, the idea is that you can lift such a restriction—entirely—but only for a select few...? 🤔

There you go. It’s clear that local big shots can actually do their jobs, listen to the people, and follow through on sensible proposals they've hashed out with the headquarters to get permission, yeah...

From what I've gathered, things work similarly over in parts of the Midwest; municipalities are basically annexed to the larger cities. You end up falling under whichever precinct covers the area, rather than being governed by your own town hall.

rapidnomad512 said:Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović’s vision and goal is the Vertical, Central Europe, and potentially the Visegrad Group. 😉

But you and I both know what's actually going on over there, don't we? We could sit here writing elegies or playing semantic games, but that won't put food on the table. 😉 It feels foolish to play nice and pretend we're talking about pears when we both know we're dealing with apples. Let's stick to the apples! Moving on.

This thread serves as a reminder to those higher up the food chain that they can judge your performance simply by comparing the topic before you to the mess left after you.

Before you stepped in, this topic was the official policy of the President of the United States; since then, it's been throttled down to one post a week, with 30 deleted comments and 5 users banned (give or take, but I'm not far off).
It's obvious the issue lies with the thread itself and the Republicans—end of story!

Perhaps the issue is that the President fixated so heavily on the vertical that she ended up rejecting so many of those underlying ideas?

Brian Allen18 said:Revolution🙂🙂🙂
It’s time to unite and tear down this administration that refuses to ensure women can work with dignity, effectively forcing some to seek out shady sponsors just to get by.. 🙂

Exactly!!! Put all those women to work on the interstate highway projects!!! 😍

"Get her a job deal" 🙂

redbison22 said:What does a guy actually have to do in life to win over a woman who won't even give him the time of day because of his car, his bank account, or just his physical appearance?

If this topic is in the wrong place, please move it to the right section...

We need to get that Black American out of here—redbison22, or that "dark" little smithy, though since you're redbison22, that's clearly not an option...

Look, let’s be real about how this works. You want to win over a girl who’s driving a much nicer car than yours? Fine. She’s got a deeper wallet, too—probably filled with cash from some high-paying corporate gig. But if you're actually serious about stepping into that world, you’re going to need a certain kind of "dark-skinned" grit just to stand a chance. It’s a tough game, and honestly, most guys aren't even playing on the same field.

☕

Is this really necessary to go through again? 🤔

stormyraven14 said:As we all clearly understand, a strike is essentially just refusing to work because the working conditions have become unacceptable.

Let’s play a hypothetical scenario here. Suppose a handful of moderators—just for the sake of argument—disagree with a specific rule and decide to go on strike. What would the fallout actually be?

According to them, obviously.

In America, with hundreds of thousands of people looking for work, the result of a strike like that would simply be getting fired and replaced by someone even cheaper from the unemployment office. Is that how things work here, too? Is that an actual possibility?

What I'm trying to get at is this: if the majority of the moderators disagree with a policy but are "forced" to enforce it, would they end up screwed for not following it themselves?

I honestly think a "work-to-rule" situation in this context would be the absolute peak of 🤣 Grey Forum 😁

tl;dr

Look, man, you can't just go running after every single troll or anyone looking to stir up drama for the sake of making noise...

That’s honestly pushing things even further than Utopia...

Just forget about this one. I get that your intentions are good, but practically speaking, you're about as useful as sandpaper when you actually need toilet paper...

As far as Intel is concerned, everything is perfectly legal... It all boils down to whether or not you're defrauding the client. If you aren't billing them specifically for psychotherapy, then there's no issue. The psychological counseling this individual received might be virtually indistinguishable from actual psychotherapy, but since he isn't licensed, it doesn't qualify as such under the Psychology Practice Act. Maybe it feels the same to the person receiving it... but nobody is claiming it is, and nobody is charging for it as such. So, frankly, I don't see anything wrong here... 🙂

So, I guess saying "for home, ready" is just as fine then, right? As long as it's purely meant to be motivational and doesn't point to anyone specific... Or is it? 🤔

Honestly, I’d much rather people just be upfront about everything so you actually know who you're dealing with from the jump. Otherwise, we're going to end up like FIFA, where they just ban the fonts entirely once things get messy. 😵

Megan Sanders3 said:David got married and has a little girl now!!!

Nice 😬

But why even ask this on a US forum? I mean, there are probably way more people here who could weigh in on the actual facts, or dive into the psychology of it all, or whatever. But here... it’s just kind of a weird vibe.. 🤷

I won't get all philosophical on you... But look, if you aren't just trolling for attention, you need professional intervention. And I mean serious, step-by-step help. Reach out to social services, the police, a psychiatrist—basically anyone who can actually assist. And believe me, seeking help doesn't make you crazy.

On the other hand, if this is just some elaborate troll, then I have to hand it to you—your attention to detail is impressive. But what actually happened with David? He always struck me as a decent guy.😛