1x40: Zero-Dollar Energy

Show Feedback
61

Fair enough. From my perspective, one thing that makes these segments interesting is that you have four fairly intelligent (-ish. I hope. Or at least four non-dolts…) people discussing a topic they have researched and are interested in but one they are not directly or professionally involved in. That means none of us have an agenda, any preconceived notions or bias (aside from the innate bias that all humans have), or any of the other relationship/disclosure/insider information/partisan issues that come into play in those situations. Coupled with the respect we have for each other and our highly varied backgrounds, it typically means we can rationally discuss some traditionally contentious issues and hopefully do so with a fresh perspective. And on top of that be mildly entertaining in the process. I (and I’m guessing my three co-presenters) am always interested in feedback though. Maybe we’re way off the mark here. Either way, let us know. While the show is and will always be (and will live and die being) “things that interest the Bad Voltage crew”, the community has a huge impact on the overall general direction we pursue.

–jeremy

62

I hope you can at least see how it could come off as disingenuous to make statements such as “I was waiting for someone to call Bryan on his bullshit” while at the same time admitting you stopping listening mid-segment. You can’t say you didn’t like how a book ended if you didn’t bother reading the ending. I for one hope you’ll listen to the rest and make a judgement based on what was actually said, not what you imagine may have been said. From there, I hope you choose to keep listening based on the merits of what you heard.

–jeremy

63

In fairness, I went back and listened to the last few minutes of the segment. I will give you credit for sticking up on the legal issue, but my point still stands as far as the dangers of vaccines, Bryan ran through the anti-vax playbook, shouted down Stuart a bunch (but not Jono, he didn’t really need to), and wrapped the section while dodging black helicopters. You are intelligent folks and I have enjoyed hearing you discuss intelligent things, but is the third time off the top of my head that you have played some hardcore amateur hour with social issues (gun control and atheism, were the others), and while I can roll my eyes at the first two, letting anti-vax propaganda slide without rebuttal is the reason shit like the Jenny McCarthy body count exists, and I have a hard time condoning that type of behavior.

64

What’s your favorite T.V. show?

65

People do tend to believe the propaganda that suits them.

66

This will be good

Firefly

And keep in mind that my specific problem is the context of the presentation not the presenter, so no hopscotching over to Joss or Adam.

67

I couldn’t sleep and listened to the Vax discussion through an insomniac haze while doing some ironing.

I want to say something about the difference between faith and trust, between libertarianism and liberalism, but I’ve tried to write this post 4 times and my brain isn’t having any of it!

1 Like
68

So that was a pretty great show. Intense, don’t do it all the time ok - I can’t code with that in the background :smile:

Oddly, at the end of it all, I find that I’ve gained a lot of respect for Bryan. There was quite a bit of caution and humility in his presentation, something I’ve not heard from him much (ever) at all? As a person with my own somewhat controversial and nuanced beliefs (a nerdy, sciency, drinking, swearing, devout Jesus-believer that truly loathes religious institutions yet loves the people that participate in and promulgate them), I know how fucking scary it can be to put yourself out there and tell people what you actually think, particularly when there’s so much misleading or outright incorrect information everywhere. Its not just fear of being yelled at, but the fear of losing the respect of people whose opinions you really care about. So well done Bryan!

It seems like there was two main threads running through the discussion: whether or not vaccinations are any good, and whether or not we should make every decision for ourselves vs trusting other people/institutions.

So I’m a big believer in the importance of society and community over the individual. In my mind democracy is not “I get to do whatever I want and you can’t tell me what to do” but more “I get to have input into the decisions that we as a society make for ourselves, but ultimately I’m subservient to society as a whole”. My unscientific perspective is that the former is a more American angle while the latter is more European (I’m Australian, so somewhat descended from that line). But I’m making broad generalisations there.

My first response to the “population of Europe vs my kids” question is that my kids die. Of course I don’t know how I’d respond if I actually had to make that choice, but in terms of a worldview or philosophy, that’s it. We’re a tiny part of this epic tale of humanity. We’re here for a short amount of time to give shape to a small part of that story, and then we leave. My contribution is important, but the ultimate goal is to try and make things better for everyone else, now and in the future. Yeah, that’s a bit flowery. And fuck, I’m no saint. But I try to live along those lines, and teach my kids to do the same. Basically, don’t be a dick, offer a hand when you see someone that needs it, do the best job you can every day and enjoy yourself.

And that’s why I do what the government or other organisations tell me on matters where I’m not an expert. I trust that they’re getting the right advice from people that I and everyone else agrees are expert. That’s not to say I’m never going to look into things myself, but if I see a whole bunch of people and groups for across the spectrum say “this is the right thing to do”, then I’m probably going to believe them. And for the things where I am an expert (technology), I’m going to point out things that are wrong and things that have been missed and try make sure that that moves in the right direction. And if it doesn’t go that way, then I’m going to ignore the rules, but I’m going to explain why as well.

The corollary to the above is that the information that led to the decision needs to be available, and that’s something I really struggle with with my government in particular but also with a lot of people. I don’t mind you having a completely opposite opinion to me, but tell me your thinking behind it. Help me to understand your position. You might not change my mind, but I’m sure I can learn something from you and maybe you can learn something from me too.

So pulling all that together, I’m on the side of “lets make sure this disease can’t get a foothold anywhere” rather than “we’ve got access to clean water and great healthcare, we’ll be fine”. But, as I say, I appreciate that Bryan explained his position well, and it seems clear to me that our differing opinions come from a different view of how the world (should) work rather than a binary “you’re right and I’m wrong”.

69

just a quick note-
many states in the US provide exemptions to vaccinations for
religious belief (sometimes requires statement from religious leader stating said belief)
dire health consequence (ex.my cousin is extremely allergic to egg’s and since most vaccinations are produced using chicken egg’s in America he had to be very careful about which type of shot he got…there are more options available now for vaccines such as flu-shots that do not use egg’s but price and quantity play a role in this).

One large elephant in the room that may have an impact on the discussion are individual nations rules on how vaccines are produced. The US FDA just wont up and allow a vaccine from Australia to be used in New Jersey…why? the simple answer is government. The same government will allow the importation of a vaccine from Canada to the US because its being imported by big pharma but wont allow an individual to get their medications sent to them via a Canadian pharmacy.
Some of the fire in this argument about vaccination comes from government policy…
.

70

It is, unfortunately whenever I know about a topic (e.g. Digital rights) I realise how much shit polititans talk, and how rubbish their policies are. See also drug policy and any attempt to follow evidence based policy.

As soon as the general public and media machine get involved it costs votes, and the science view gets pushed aside.

71

I think most of us enjoy a wide range of topics: I know I do and I think most of us in this community are vocal enough that we would know if the non-technical topics were not going down well.

To pick up on the “Vaccines” discussion I think @bryanlunduke is correct in saying you need to consider the science when deciding on your actions, such as should he vaccinate his daughter, but I also largely disagree with his conclusions. Most of vaccinations people are expected to have, here in the UK at least, bring significantly more benefit than risk. I would assume the same is true in the US but I have no personal experience to back that up. But I certainly would not agree with @sil that they should be forced on anyone.

72

What’s your favorite character on Firefly?

73

I think next episode should be distinctly non-serious. Maybe an extended discussion on fart jokes.

It really did break down to those distinctly different discussions, didn’t it? The second part (trusting the government, etc.) has come up before. A few times actually. Wonder if, down the road, we should simply have a segment focused entirely on that.

Oh, and thanks for the kind words. :smile:

74

Sorry, not interested in 20 questions.

1 Like
75

While I enjoy a good argument, especially on a subject I feel vehemently about which gives me reason to question my own beliefs (albeit, not so much in this case) what is absolutely clear to me is that you all need to be in the same room when recording. I know that’s not possible.

The amount of times I’ve nearly screamed at my car radio because @bryanlunduke talks all over someone, doesn’t let them finish their point, comes up with utter horseshit (that was a cruel position to put @sil in at the end)… I’m struggling to find a reason to keep listening.

I enjoy the spirit of the show, I enjoy your differing opinions, but holy shit one of you needs to tell @bryanlunduke to STFU when he’s being a dick sometimes.

As to the topic – vaccinations – I do what my doctor advises. I do what my accountant advises. I do what my lawyer advises. Why? They are experts, I am not. It is not politics, you don’t get a choice. The doctor says “you should do this, it is overwhelmingly beneficial” and you do it, because if I google everything it’s going to come back that my cough is TB, autism is a direct result of vaccination, and that Ron Paul should be President. The medical expert community gave the advice, not Mumsnet ffs.

1 Like
76

Thanks for your thoughts, @dotwaffle, as you know we trust your judgement.

You are talking about two things here:

  1. Presenters talking over each.
  2. @bryanlunduke “being a dick”.

For (1) this is definitely an issue sometimes. Then again, I don’t think has to do with being in the same room…we had exactly the same issue with LugRadio.

On this recent show I think what was a contributing factor was that @sil’s Google Hangout volume was quite low and @bryanlunduke was quite high, so that may be contributed. In future I will ask us all to check our volume’s are equal on the hangout as well as the recordings.

For 2, can you share how you thought Bryan was being a dick?

77

That was a nice debate about vaccine and I do like that you mix technology and social matters.

Before listening to the segment I had the opinion that vaccination should be recommended and not forced. But one comment made me lean more towards @sil viewpoint. That was the comment by @bryanlunduke “I’d rather let all Europeans die than let any harm come to my daughter”. I don’t disagree with that comment at all, I’d say the same thing, and I’m European. But that’s the problem. As individuals we are not capable of making decisions for the greater good of the community, human race, environment or whatever.

1 Like
78

Thanks @jonobacon. Essentially, @bryanlunduke will have just made a long point and it’s now time for someone to respond to those points. Someone will get half a sentence out before he butts back in with “hold on, hold on, I think…” and keeps talking. The other person keeps talking for 2-3 seconds clealr expecting to be able to finish their sentence… But @bryanlunduke is talking all over them.

It’s not just once or twice, this is many times per episode. @bryanlunduke I want yo hear what you have to say, I appreciate the content you’re giving. However, you really do need to listen and cede the floor occasionally. You’re all very interesting and entertaining in person, but it almost feels like every time @jeremy makes a point he is cut off by @bryanlunduke trying to get in a “humorous” sidebar.

Once again, not a reflection on the content… And you are by no means the only people that do it (UUPC is almost unlistenable since they stopped recording together) but by far the one that makes me the most irritated is when it happens on BV.

It’s not unsalvageable. But someone does need to act as moderator if you haven’t got the explicit visual clues that you have in person.

1 Like
79

I think this is really helpful, @dotwaffle. We will have a discussion and try to reign the talking over each other a bit better.

We do have visual cues: we are on a Google Hangout, so it isn’t tremendously different to being in the same room (in fact, it feels very similar to when we recorded LugRadio), but I think we can define some clear visual cues to have someone make it clear they want to get a word in.

It is always tough with four excitable personalities, but from my experience with LugRadio, it gets better over time. Thanks for sharing this though.

80

You really are a lovely chap aren’t you :smile:

1 Like