News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
[dead]
Re:Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on... by failrate on Saturday May 30, 2020 @02:58PM (#23363653)
Motor cycle riding is not particularly contagious.

Additionally, safety rules are in place to make Motor cycle riding as safe as possible for the rider and anyone with whom they interact.

Re:Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on... by jrockway on Saturday May 30, 2020 @03:09PM (#23363749)
I think the risk of motorcycle riding is mostly borne by the rider. If you think the reward outweighs the risk, you are welcome to ride. If you think it's too risky, you can decide to not ride. You have a great deal of control over your destiny. (There are many other risks, including risks to others, but we're ignoring those for this comment.)

The calculus of a pandemic is different. Your choices affect others, potentially exponentially. You can decide you're in a low risk group, and so you don't care if you get infected. So you do get infected, and like your risk analysis determined, are fine. But you also infected 3 more people thinking the same thing. They each infect more people. One of those people several "generations" away from you then receives an emergency phone call from the nursing home, and rush to go see grandma. They infect several people in the nursing home, and now people that didn't want to take the risk of getting COVID-19 so you could do something you wanted to get COVID-19 and die. When dealing with exponential growth, your small choices can explode into large consequences.

People don't do well with cause and effect that they are strongly removed from, and that's what we're seeing with calls to reopen. The negative effects of their behavior will never affect them, so their thought is to ignore it. People in charge of public health have to balance these externalities, and that's what they're trying to do. I am not saying that they made the right decision, but it still seems prudent to me to avoid unnecessary activities if it means you may save someone else's life. We did achieve some important goals in the 3 months that we've been shut down so far. We have better tests. We have better contact tracing. We have more PPE. We have taught people to socially distance. So we are certainly making progress towards being able to live more freely without increasing the risk to the most vulnerable. But we are not in the clear yet.

Re:Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on... by root_axis on Saturday May 30, 2020 @03:14PM (#23363790)
Riding a motorcycle is not at all similar to the spread of a highly contagious virus. Further, the style of argument where one sarcastically suggests banning a completely unrelated source of death with respect to a different topic is not conducive to productive discourse.
Re:Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on... by flyingcroissant on Saturday May 30, 2020 @03:02PM (#23363698)
It is completely reasonable to take precautions to avoid spreading a virus, just like you should wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle to protect yourself in the event that you crash.
Re:Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on... by generalpass on Saturday May 30, 2020 @03:29PM (#23363885)
> It is completely reasonable to take precautions to avoid spreading a virus, just like you should wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle to protect yourself in the event that you crash.

They were both wearing helmets.

Re:Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on... by flyingcroissant on Saturday May 30, 2020 @04:10PM (#23364222)
I did not say that wearing a helmet guaranteed that no motorcycle rider would ever be injured.
Re:Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on... by tehwebguy on Saturday May 30, 2020 @03:11PM (#23363771)
I thought this was the motorcycles-only synagogue too but turns out it’s just a regular one.
Re:Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on... by dvt on Saturday May 30, 2020 @02:58PM (#23363650)
I lean libertarian, but there's cases where paternalistic laws make sense. For example, w.r.t. motorcycle riding, helmets are required. COVID-19 is a special case where paternalistic laws (albeit technically these orders aren't laws) seem proportional. A reduction in church capacity doesn't really seem like government overreach in the middle of a pandemic; especially because buildings already have (fire-department imposed) capacity limits.
Re:Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on... by mythrwy on Saturday May 30, 2020 @03:02PM (#23363691)
Helmets aren't required in all US states (not sure why people don't wear them anyway, but some people don't).
Re:Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on... by dvt on Saturday May 30, 2020 @03:06PM (#23363725)
> which seems strange but I guess ones life is their own business

It's not strange at all. America is a federation of states which get to tax you, and get to pass their own laws. Your Mayor and Governor have much more impact in your day-to-day life than the President.

Re:Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on... by mythrwy on Saturday May 30, 2020 @03:09PM (#23363750)
Right, sorry, comment edited while you were responding.

It just seems to strange to me they wouldn't be required in every state because it's such a severe safety hazard not to wear them.

Re:Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on... by dmckeon on Saturday May 30, 2020 @03:31PM (#23363900)
Because in the US, states get to make some rules, and the federal government gets to make some other rules, and each is protective of their rights and prerogatives as enumerated in the US constitution, as amended. Look into amendments 9, 10, 13, & 14 for more.

When the US federal government has wanted to enforce things like a nation-wide speed limit, or vehicle safety requirements, they have had to threaten to withhold highway funding to get states to go along by passing state-by-state laws. In theory, the same could be done with helmet laws, but enough political energy has not materialized for that to happen. This pattern will have implications for full-self-driving vehicles.

Re:Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on... by mythrwy on Saturday May 30, 2020 @03:34PM (#23363914)
Yes thanks, I'm aware of how the federal system works.

Really in the weeds by now, but it just seems strange to me that each state has not decided, on it's own (as per the structure of our federal and state system of governance), to make helmets mandatory.