|
I didn't even know you were Australian[^]
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
So is this latest pandemic Mother natures way of reducing the population, decimating the elderly who are biologically less valuable that the young. Her way of implementing the 3 score and ten (I know that comes from the sky pixie but lets go with that).
I am not trolling the forum much
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
decimating?
I don't know how it will end... but right now is not even thousandmating the population.
And yes... I am taking the old definition of 10% to make the "joke", not the one of drastically reducing that is more extended today
But answering your question in a bit more serious tone... I am not sure if mother nature really is after this virus or we could have something to do with it as a new conspiracy theory is saying (I don't really care) but I think it will still be less hard as we actually deserve.
If I were the Mother Nature, I would be inmensely pissed off about humanity.
Heck... being human myself, I am sometimes pissed off about humanity.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
modified 12-Mar-20 19:24pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Mortality among the vulnerable is about 8% I believe (compared to about 0.1% for the flu), so decimating is a fairly accurate use of the historical definition. When you factor in deaths by all ages that number comes down, obviously, but anyone who denies covid-19 is no more dangerous than the flu is being disingenuous.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: decimating is a fairly accurate use of the historical definition
I had heard that the original historical definition was to reduce to 10% (i.e. kill 90%), not reduce by 10% (i.e. leave 90%) which is the commonly understood meaning (and the one that I grew up understanding it to mean).
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, we're being realists. The flue kills tens of thousands, and even into the hundreds of thousands each year. COVID-19 has so far killed less than 5,000 people. The real panic is because it's new.
|
|
|
|
|
obermd wrote: The real panic is because it's new.
And because of the relativity of the numbers...
obermd wrote: The flue kills tens of thousands
From hundreds of millions infected
obermd wrote: COVID-19 has so far killed less than 5,000 people.
from around 110k people infected. And yes, I know.. most of them were old and not that healthy, but still the % numbers are higher than the flu.
I hope you are right and it in the end is "less than the flu", I really hope it.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
The flu kills that many because it is endemic, however covid 19 has just got started. Saying covid is no worse than the flu because that kills more is like jumping off a tall building and on the way down saying "so far so good".
|
|
|
|
|
You trot out "sky pixie" and anthropomorphize Mother Nature in the same post?
It's just the usual competition among various sets of genes.
|
|
|
|
|
Right now, there is no problem in the USofA, is there? You've got a leader who has a natural understanding of the situation.
My question is: If the pandemic hits different population groups with different strength - like when white man arrived in the new world with viruses hitting the natives like a bomb. Imagine now that Corona hits your garbage collectors, taxi drivers, street sweepers, and at the end of the summer: Your fruit pickers. Would it at all affect you?
Or, what if the WASPs were the one that really took the blow - could they easily be replaced, in your private and work environment?
For personal relationships I guess it really doesn't matter. "I'm sorry to hear that, but I still have 5119 friends on FB." That's it. Loosing a personal friend on FB may be restricted to deleting a line in your phone book.
|
|
|
|
|
Nature doesn't do things with intent, things just happen.
|
|
|
|
|
"Mother nature" certainly cares about life, but in a general sense, not "hunan" life in particular. Humans are in no way special.
Any decimation of any population has attacked the weak ones, whether they are the old ones, the young ones or the sick ones, whether the attack is by diseases, predators or otherwise. You could ask Darwin about that. It is not a question about the survival of the fattest, but the survival of the fittest.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 7989122 wrote: "Mother nature" certainly cares about life,
I wouldn't go that far.
Mother Nature rules Jupiter, Venus, Mars, and all the rest, too.
Life? She doesn't give a damn. It's completely irrelevant to her and to the universe.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Life. Don't talk to me about life.
|
|
|
|
|
It's a warning; quit shitting on me.
Monday starts Diarrhea awareness week, runs until Friday!
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
It's probabilities: "bad habits" that eventually bite back. Like "radium" face powder for that "glow".
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think so. I can point out at least a handful of people (or more) Mother Nature would definitely be better off without! 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
COVID-19 is certainly a low-level warning.
If nature wanted, it could have made it really worse and keep the mortality rate to 30-40% and screw up the humans.
It's a warning about:
1. Being more responsible towards the planet.
2. Pro-active control/balance of human population.
3. Refocusing on healthcare than Defense/Offense budgets.
4. Realize the possibility of friendship between unlikely countries. Like US helping China & Iran.
5. And finally, a moderated punishment for eating Batman's pet.
|
|
|
|
|
Nand32 wrote: And finally, a moderated punishment for eating Batman's pet.
I thought you should say "killing John Wick's pet". Surely, Batman's only pet was a Robin, right? And I can imagine that roasted Robin could be quite delicious - albeit a very small mouthfull...
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
Mark Twain
modified 13-Mar-20 4:55am.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't even go there. It's just evolution, so is indeed Mother Nature's way, but there's no sentient thought behind it.
Conspiracy theories are fun (especially when you can sit back and watch the manic fervour that people defend them with), but getting religion involved will get people killed.
Fave conspiracy theories, to date:
1. It's a Chinese secret weapon that escaped into the population.
 In which case it's a pretty piss-poor weapon.
 It gives a good reason for building a wall in China -- because walls work!
 Oh, wait...
2. It's a US secret weapon, that was released in China and Iran, but, of course, the US army screwed it up.
In which case it's a pretty piss-poor weapon.
It explains why a certain-coloured person refuses to be tested -- he's already had the cure, and he doesn't want the testers to find out.
See?
Conspiracy theories are fun; religious cr@p, not.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Then it's failing spectacularly to do even that.
It's a lot more efficient at decimating the world's economies than the population. My latest portfolio report can attest to that.
|
|
|
|
|
Coming from: Display every 10th number in an array?[^]
#1) For me if I have to print every 10th element in an array (0-based) I would go for a[9], a[19], a[29]... which are in place 10th, 20th, 30th...
#2) But all answers there are to print a[0], a[10], a[20]... which are places 1st, 11th, 21st...
I just wonder... would you all english native speakers understand it like this (option #2)?
EDIT: Thank you for the answers... I am glad to see my head is still working as it should 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
modified 12-Mar-20 15:25pm.
|
|
|
|
|
#1 is the human thinking transformed into a progam, while #2 is a more math/computer thinking - print all where index divided by 10 gives 0...
#1 is to my taste and actually fits the question...
(and I'm not a native English, but the question isn't that complicated)
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
