Posts by Jessica Gonzalez

brightpilot6 said:So, the entire argument put forth by Jessica Gonzalez is built on the premise that the danger simply "doesn't exist." They’ve been insisting on this since the very beginning, which I can only describe as an uneducated guess. It’s uneducated because it completely disregards the consensus held by the 99.9% of people who have spent their entire lives studying this field.

To be clear, no scientist was actually claiming this was Ebola. Rather, they suggested it was something akin to a flu strain, but one that (a) spreads significantly faster, (b) lacks any known immunity, (c) currently has no vaccine or cure, (d) has an unknown mutation rate, (e) leaves us in the dark regarding long-term effects on survivors, and (f) requires intensive care in about 5% of cases. All of those facts remain true today.

Furthermore, there isn't a single serious nation on Earth—not even Sweden—that hasn't implemented radical, unprecedented measures to defend against the virus, which is precisely why the numbers have remained manageable. This applies even to countries that initially treated the threat with nothing but mockery.

But for a certain crowd here, the danger remains non-existent or negligible, purely because statistically speaking, THEY have very little chance of getting screwed over. I suppose that says everything you need to know.

That specific measure being presented is—well, it’s basically non-existent. Sure, the sickness and the virus itself are real, but I guess those projections regarding how deadly or widespread it will be are just false. I remember someone from Germany posting over on the Natural Science forum about how their scientists were claiming it was inevitable that 70% of the German population—nearly 60 million people—would get infected immediately. They also suggested that 5-20% of people would flood the hospitals, which would mean millions of patients. I told him then that there’s a better chance of Godzilla stomping through Washington, D.C., at the exact same time, and I still stand by that. It all seems like nothing more than spreading panic and apocalyptic scenarios.

"You look like a little flower"

brightpilot6 said:The fundamental issue here is that you were swinging blindly from the start without any real sense of direction regarding the data. And let’s be honest, you didn't have any because nobody actually did. There isn't any reliable information right now either, since no one can truly fathom how many people would have been infected or lost in any given country if we hadn't implemented such sweeping measures.

You wouldn't base a household budget on uneducated guesswork, so why on earth would anyone attempt to plan a national economy that way?

Well, there’s a catch in all of this. Even those extreme measures—I’m mostly talking about the total economic lockdown—were implemented without much hard data to back them up. I guess I understand the logic that prevention is better than cure, but prevent what exactly? People already live normal lives alongside existing risks; there are hundreds of illnesses out there that people face, yet society manages to coexist with those dangers. It feels like people have been scared into believing a certain kind of death is inevitable. I don't think people are actually afraid of the virus because they're worried about overloading the healthcare system. If that were really the case, so many things wouldn't be part of our daily lives. I suppose the human brain just isn't wired to spend every waking moment in a state of tension simply because "the system might fail." People aren't thinking about the system; they're thinking about the immediate threat to themselves. People got terrified of the virus because they were sold a story that it would kill them. And honestly, that seems dangerous, maybe because it erodes people's confidence, their will to live, and their faith in tomorrow. Even during the American Civil War, it wasn't like this. Stadiums like Maksimir used to be packed, even though a single idiot on the opposing side could have caused massive casualties with artillery. People would cross a pontoon bridge at Maslenica even while being targeted. They accepted much higher risks because they didn't see the point in hiding away. Now, kids can't even go to the park because of a perceived danger. It’s because the narrative was pushed that a child on a slide could catch a virus that wipes out the whole family. When the first case was identified, people in Washington, D.C. acted like a nuclear reactor had exploded near a power plant. I guess it's because they've been taught to fear a painful end.

I’m already quite familiar with the whole history of this virus, including the statistics from places like Bergamo, Spain, and New York. There’s really no need to go in that direction, as you're just stating things everyone already knows. If anyone is going to make decisions that could potentially ruin millions of lives, they should probably stick to hard facts rather than relying on computer projections that aren't even close to reality and seem to change every single day. Personally, I'm doing fine; my job is secure, and my pay has actually never been higher. In fact, I actually enjoy working from home since it gives me more time to spend with my kid. But I can see what’s happening around me. Someone effectively shut down people's livelihoods and incomes, yet everyone still needs to keep their fridge stocked. It seems to me that those who crashed the economy don't even understand the basics—neither regarding the virus nor economics. They don't even seem sure about whether masks are necessary, so why am I supposed to accept that these draconian measures were timely or accurate? No thanks. I certainly won't be justifying myself to extremists who call people out just for walking around outside. To be honest, I don't really care about the risk of getting infected or infecting someone else, because objectively speaking, I’m not putting myself at risk—I maintain my distance and I'm not touching door handles. If I somehow catch it just by walking down the street, then I'll just shake hands with the virus and congratulate it. But there is absolutely no way I'm going to apologize to anyone for being out.

I’ve watched the first three episodes, and I'm honestly not sure if I'll stick with it until the end. I just don't feel there's enough substance to justify sitting in front of the TV for another five hours. To me, the most compelling parts are the stories and footage about growing up and those early career milestones. All that stuff about the second three-peat and the internal club drama feels a bit like artificial hype, trying to make the movie more dramatic than reality actually was. Generally speaking, the NBA always markets itself as this larger-than-life saga, focusing heavily on individuals and their personal struggles just so the whole circus can put on a spectacle. I don't think any other American league treats its stars quite like that. This documentary seems like just another PR stunt for Jordan and the NBA, and in that sense, it's almost perfect. I do have to praise the quality of the footage from over 20 years ago, though; you wouldn't even guess it wasn't filmed recently.

If you're feeling hungry, maybe try this one. It's pretty simple, but I guess it's quite easy to watch.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2883512/

wiredrider9 said:Honestly, we've all collectively lost our damn minds—more or less—and things are about to get real entertaining over the next few months, just wait and see.

I'm being serious, maybe it's time to bring out the heavy hitters. I'll go grab a bite to eat and come back twenty minutes later to find several new pages of discussion.

Offside is stronger than ever 🙏

Walter Grant5 said:For God's sake, can this sport actually pull an off-season hiatus like they used to?

To anyone saying it's impossible—it's not. Of course it can happen. I mean, did they play soccer during World War II?

What if we just "accidentally" wrapped up the championships and leagues by next August? Oh wait, my bad, apparently that's "impossible."

Nothing is impossible.

I totally agree, though I guess modern professional sports have become so tangled up in massive contracts that changing things isn't easy, let alone canceling them. Players are on season-long deals, TV rights are sold by the season, and we're talking billions of dollars involved.

The French GDP dropped by 5.8% in the first quarter, while Spain saw a 5.2% dip and Italy fell by 4.8% compared to the previous three months—marking their steepest declines since statistical agencies started tracking this data.

Since this marks the second consecutive quarter of shrinking GDP, I guess France is technically in a recession now.

That first-quarter drop is actually the largest since World War II, even surpassing the decline seen in the second quarter of 1968, when civil unrest and strikes caused activity to tumble by 5.3%.

As for Spain, that 5.2% decrease in the first quarter is probably their biggest slump since the Bureau of Economic Analysis began releasing these kinds of reports back in 1970.

restlesssurfer97 said:Summer isn't even a real issue unless we're talking about the European Championship or the World Cup, you know? Otherwise, it's just a total headache.

I hear there might be some player protests, if you ask me.

Hopefully, they at least finish out the Champions League.

urbanhawk17 said:Maybe they should just put a crucifix at the entrance of the Rose Bowl and have them play there on Sundays.

They actually already have a Saint Benedict medallion, so what you're saying might be spot on. I guess Mamić really is a visionary.

urbanhawk17 said:I think the government told the Frenchmen there wouldn't be a continuation.

They basically just made a decision on the champion because they had to. If the league had its way, I guess they would've played right through the summer.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

That might be true, though I did read somewhere that the summer schedule was an issue for one of the leagues.

I guess some leagues might be starting to factor in how brutal the heat can get during June, July, and August, which definitely brings its own set of risks. Especially if there's a heavy schedule with a ton of games packed into just a few days.

restlesssurfer97 said:So, who’s actually going to step up and take down Ed Koch? Everyone keeps acting like he’s already out of the picture, talking about him like he’s a ghost, and they’ve been doing it for years now, but people seem to forget that he isn't just going to vanish—someone actually has to go out there and beat him at the polls.

As long as there isn't a heavyweight contender standing across from him on election day, he’s just going to keep holding onto that seat.

If Tomasevic is really the most serious challenger we have coming up in the next cycle, then honestly, you might as well just hand Ed Koch another term right now.

There really isn't any real opposition, so there isn't a single candidate to represent them. It doesn't help if five different candidates run and each only gets 5% of the vote. I suppose the reason there's no opposition is probably because Milton Bradley just buys them all off, making the whole election feel like a fake fight. What you said seems to be the only truth here—a strong candidate who can actually rally the Washington, D.C. residents could easily beat that guy, but we seem far from having someone like that. For example, if Joe Biden had run for mayor instead of president, I think Washington, D.C. would be in a much better spot than it is now. Someone like Kolinda doesn't matter because that role isn't as impactful, whereas we have to deal with this guy's work every single day. Now that people are mentioning Joe Biden, it doesn't really change things. He lives right in the heart of Washington, D.C., and he's such a major figure in politics that the group he leans toward in the city likely has enough influence to make him mayor if he wanted to.

urbanhawk17 said:I think you missed the point.

I guess I see what you're getting at, but maybe you also see where I'm coming from.

I'm not sure who posted that link for the UFO footage, but I don't think there's anything there. You can't really see anything at all, so it feels pretty irrelevant whether someone filmed it or just edited it on their computer. It honestly feels like those clickbait headlines, like "You won't believe what a Newcastle legend said about Lionel Messi. Everyone is talking about this American player."

If you're waiting on someone like Bandić to actually step up and handle this issue, I guess you might be waiting a long time.

The situation with Finger seems pretty great; I guess the crew might end up picking up my stuff for a few thousand bucks, based on how things kicked off in those first few minutes.

wiredrider9 said:https://www.nytimes.com/article/economy-jobs-report-analysis/64208

That’s exactly what I’m asking 🙄

Honestly, why even pay attention to people who don't actually have any decision-making power? I guess this link about aliens might be more interesting. Though, it could probably just be clickbait designed to give everyone something to argue about. UFO stories haven't really moved forward in decades, either. I suppose until the Secretary of Defense holds a press conference to tell us something official, it's all just fake news. #stayhome

Elizabeth Mendoza said:Honestly? He was way more than just a bench player.

I guess he really was a bench player, at least in how people perceived him, and he seemed pretty comfortable in that role. It probably opens up another big debate about whether it’s better to be the sixth man for the Bulls or the leading scorer for the Nets. Either way, I think one of them was clearly more aggressive and hungry for the win—a true athlete. Maybe that's why fans tend to love and remember him more.