Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Got about 3-4 "s more lite/fluffy stuff still in the mid 20s.Old Man Winter pulling up a chair this week and getting reaquainted 

An interesting observation for me is to compare what scientists write about CC and what one reads in the popular media.  Scientists of course are all about "doubt" and "probability" and "uncertainty".  The media distill this down, generally speaking, to absolutes, certainty, "97% of scientists agree" (with what?).

I understand the general public doesn't deal well with probability and statistics in general.  So, the messages are basically akin to "If you text and drive, you will DIE!!!!".  The public fears things that are almost non-issues for epidemiologists.  I once saw a list of "risk factors" that the general public had ranked almost the reverse of the actual statistical risk, like "living within 20 miles of a nuclear power plant" was top ten for the public, and near last for epidemiologists.

The GP ignores, largely the dangers of obesity, smoking (this has changed over a long time), drinking,and other rather hazardous practices and worries about gluten free and organic and whatever else, while watching TV 8 hours a day, or sitting mired on their computer or device.

Huh.

I did go to the gym earlier, did a lot of stretching, still a bit sore.  Anyway.  "We" don't deal well with long term threats, things that appear to be "far off", Social Security, the national debt, climate change, ... because there is pain TODAY in return for perhaps less pain in 25 years or so.  We don't lose weight because we like ribs and French fries and cake and ice cream and we'll go to the gym tomorrow, maybe, and then we don't see much impact of course except some soreness.

So, we resort to some miracle pill or diet or horse crappola of whatever ilk.  I'm lazy too.  I really have to work to get off my derrier.  Thinking about baseball is enormously helpful.

I understand the general public doesn't deal well with probability and statistics in general.  So, the messages are basically akin to "If you text and drive, you will DIE!!!!".  The public fears things that are almost non-issues for epidemiologists.  I once saw a list of "risk factors" that the general public had ranked almost the reverse of the actual statistical risk, like "living within 20 miles of a nuclear power plant" was top ten for the public, and near last for epidemiologists.

I think a lot of it is the illusion of control. People don't fear driving, even though it's statistically a very dangerous activity, because they think they're in control. Even true of texting and driving... The deaths only happen to "someone else" because I *know* I'm paying enough attention even though I look at my phone every 100 feet, right? They fear airline flights, because they're just a passenger and they have no control, even though per-mile fatality rates of airline travel are far lower than driving. 

The GP ignores, largely the dangers of obesity, smoking (this has changed over a long time), drinking,and other rather hazardous practices and worries about gluten free and organic and whatever else, while watching TV 8 hours a day, or sitting mired on their computer or device.

Again, control, as well as hypocrisy. We all know obesity is bad. But bacon tastes good. Pork chops taste good. And working out is hard. So we rationalize that extra serving of dinner while we rationalize why today is just a bad day to go to the gym. And then, lo and behold, we get fat. The same is true of any mind-altering substance, like nicotine or alcohol or drugs. We reprogram our brains to rationalize why doing something we know is bad is okay.

We all like to believe that we're rational creatures, sort of super-robots with free will. But in reality, we're still animals, and have animal urges that often act BEFORE our brains engage, so we do things we shouldn't and rationalize it after the fact.

It’s estimated that by 2050, nearly 60% of all new car sales in the U.S. will be electric vehicles (EVs). Each year, automakers offer more EV models - many of which surpass 150 miles on a single charge - and studies show most U.S. consumers like the environmental benefits of this new technology. However, price and concern over the availability of chargers along interstates and highways continues to deter buyers.

To remove some of these barriers, MidAmerican Energy has launched a first-of-its kind effort in Iowa to establish a network of DC fast-charging stations in rural and urban communities. A DC fast-charger, also called a “Level 3” charger, can generally charge an electric vehicle in 20-45 minutes.

We are now reviewing applications from businesses and community entities in targeted areas that are interested in hosting charging facilities that MidAmerican Energy will purchase, install and maintain. Charging station sites will be approximately 50 miles away from each other to address the range anxiety for customers and ultimately jump-start the growth of Iowa’s electric vehicle industry. See targeted locations and additional qualifications below.

Weather here is miserable, rarely any sun, drizzling right now, depressing.

Cold with sun is not bad for me, but minimal sun for weeks is very bad.

Wish I were home.

71 with sun and [mostly] blue skies here right now. 

I had to go to a customer visit in San Diego this morning, and I couldn't take the Jeep because 2+ hours of highway driving might have given me sunburn