Ironically, this was played for the Class of 98 at our Senior Prom and the lyric for the song was Class of 97, the version from the album before they re-released it for that money grab with Class of 99.
The song was just a retelling of the original ‘Wear Sunscreen’ written by Mary Schmich, a columnist for the Chicago Tribune in 1997.
Yes, and I appreciate the scientific method, but applying it with statistics such a singular market research sampling can be dubious because it requires assumptions that aren't actually validated.
The more you learn, the more you realize we all have blindspots all overr the place. This result of the provided sample size statistics cannot be proven without iterations, which have not been done.
The politics of it are chess, while the statistics are just playing tic tac toe while discarding considerations of nuance with a wave of 'but science' hand.
But the practice of “maintaining a greater than usual physical distance” goes back to the 14th century, when ships arriving to Venice during an outbreak of the Black Death were forced to quarantine, or sit at anchor, for 40 days.
Your mind seems trapped in a alternate reality of conspiracy, you should absolutely seek some therapy with a licensed mental health professional.
but when you guys pretend that the Mayor of LA wouldnt have gotten covid if she wore a mask
You are imagining a group of people working against you, and projecting your on religious-like belief against anyone not within your strict bubble of expectations of belief.
The Mayor of LA needs to wear a mask to reduce the chance of her spreading it further. Wearing a mask when infected is actually the most useful case for masking. You can be infected without knowing it, so wearing the mask to reduce the particle spread even if you are not symptomatic is absolutely a good thing to do. Wearing a mask when not infected, but around other people, is not and was never posited as a guaranteed protection from infection, but from either side of the equation, infected or not, you still end up filtering even some amount of inbound particles when you are breathing with a proper mask.
Arbitrarily claiming it doesn't work or didn't have any measurable difference, especially in the face of linked evidence by actual medical professionals showing it does and it did, demonstrates you are proselytizing belief built with actual misinformation.
Just imagine if there was an actual open consortium not spearheaded by monied commercial interests that could temper recent Google decisions. They've lost a lot, if not all, of their goodwill with old guard, open web standards nerds. And the old guard that still actively support their standards influencing schemes now make too much money to stop.
I don't know why, maybe because it's Sunday morning and I'm just drinking my coffee and browsing around while the rest of the house sleeps in, but this triggered a rabbit hole for me. I already have a lil plugin just for quickly saving direct to PNG or JPG when I right click a WebP in my browsers, but I SHOULDN'T GODDAMN HAVE TO.
WEBP as a wrapper (as coupled along with AVIF/AV1/VP8/etc) seems all about reassertion of corporate control of web file formats by pivoting codecs back toward patent encumbrance as a control factor, just without universal royalty hooks attached to anyone that touches even free and open software utilizing it. We were actually FREE of that bullshit for a short time. PNG has no patent encumbrance. GIF, MP3, MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4 Part 2 all have expired patents and can be used freely.
[Don't get me wrong, MPEG as an org was and is pure corruption and greed, and MPEG-4 Part 2 adoption was fully diminished outside of 'free' circles based on their stated intention to apply a 'content fee' to the royalty requirements. It's obvious why VP8 -> AV1 had to happen one way or another to break their royalty cabal insanity, but it still doesn't taste good at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-4_Part_2 ]
The consortium of companies behind WebP and AV1 are all taking part in the enshittification of the entire technology sector, from web sites and web apps, operating systems, and application ecosystems. Why would we ever trust them to not rug pull the 'irrevocable but revocable' patent license scheme? They only put it together in the first place to end run having to pay someone who was 'not them' any royalties for image/video/audio encoding.
Google hereby grants to you a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge,
royalty-free,** irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license** to
make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, transfer, and otherwise
run, modify and propagate the contents of these implementations of WebM, where
such license applies only to those patent claims, both currently owned by
Google and acquired in the future, licensable by Google that are necessarily
infringed by these implementations of WebM. This grant does not include claims
that would be infringed only as a consequence of further modification of these
implementations.
PNG was developed as an improved, non-patented replacement for Graphics Interchange Format (GIF)—unofficially, the initials PNG stood for the recursive acronym "PNG's not GIF".
AV1, VP8, VP9, and other modernized "open source" or "free" Video Codecs all appear to be patent encumbered.
Now we just need a Brennan Lee Mulligan flavored fully charged rant about the billionaire class of corporatists forcing webp with its patent encumbrance on us all.
So we're getting Truman Show'ed, but on a scale assumed to be beyond our capability to investigate.