LTS

He has connections to existing Canes media people there, I know that.

I'm curious if uproots and moves to North Carolina.... Wouldn't be surprised if some radio station down there could use a guy like him to cover the Canes...

I've been in situations where people outside the company know who is being let go and when before anyone inside does. I've also been in situations where no one knew what was coming before it happened. Inside my company I have been moved 3 times without ever having a clue it was coming. I could, just as easily, have been let go. Thankfully the people above me took the steps to talk internally to find a new location for me before it happened. I have known others who were simply let go and then rehired (in a different role and department) the next day when they let everyone know they were let go. These things come in all shapes and sizes and I don't think it's right to subscribe any single situation that can occur to this one. Whatever happened, happened. That said, if you work for a team that has stories coming out about management in disarray and a team that continues to not succeed I am not sure why you would feel any level of job security. Management has to say what they have to say. I've had to toe that line, it sucks. There's no joy in having to blatantly lie to your employees' faces about a situation, but the rules of the game are such that you are required to do so.

Here's where I am at. You've been doing this long enough by now that you should learn how to ignore the few over the many. Most people seek to condemn before they seek to understand. It's easier to just dismiss and attack than it is to stop, contemplate, and inquire for more information. This problem is only magnified when it comes to the line of work you are in. Now, your big problem is taking the posts of a few and lumping them together and constituting that as "the board". Imagine some of us looking at the disingenuous and ignorant articles and rants that your peers make and then just lumping you in with them. Clearly it's not right. Do you want to be held to the standards you project or would you prefer I choose a random Buffalo media personality and just subscribe their standards to you? I think the answer is clear. Conversely, I think by lumping "the board" into the conversation you are asking for people to react, as they should. What exacerbates the problem is how you choose to respond to those who doubt you. You do inflect a tone of superiority against the "lowly board members". By insulting the masses because of the few you force others into a position to either defend themselves from you or to somehow encourage you to stick around. Those who defend themselves add fuel to your fire of "being attacked en mass" and those who encourage you to stick around must do so, so vociferously, that it comes across with some level of idolization, or at the very least, a supplication to you in defense of some projected victimization that, at least to me, is not real. Have people questioned you? Yes. Are they reflective of the masses? I don't think so. Don't disrespect the board by assuming we cannot all read the situation as it is unfolding. Your continuing insistence of a situation is no more, or less, than what you claim others are doing to you. The problem is that you keep referring to the board as being party to these actions when, in fact, it's only a few. I think it's clear why people get upset over that.

Yeah.. a bunch related to Black Lives Matter, Antifa, shootings.. none of which should really be in this thread, but in their own.

There's no reason to not put some level of belief in what is being reported. These types of stories come out regarding college athletics, fraternities, sororities, and other clubs of exclusivity where people want so much to belong or to make it that they are willing to put up with this stuff. It's terrible that people are put in a position of "give up what you love, or be dehumanized"... It's disgusting. There's really no right word for it so I am just going to use disgusting. As for this situation, I've no reason to doubt any of it. Not one bit. It's.... disgusting.

So, if you are feeling burned by the "experienced" hockey people, it's unlikely they were going to hire one who might come in and tell them to hire even more people who won't do anything or whose workloads will be a bit too light. The outside company has a vested interest because they probably want a good review and recommendation from the Pegulas. Perhaps there is more business at stake in other areas with the Pegulas, perhaps other opportunities within hockey. Let's say it works out, people will want to know who that outside consulting group was and how they can bring them in. There's a lot of interest in getting it right. It's not like consultants make their money on a single job.

It's an interesting change, but as more information comes out it begins to make sense. The Pegulas have tried the "old hockey" way since they bought the team. They've had "NHL" people in their ear and in their pockets and nothing has come of it. Certainly this can be because of them and not the "old hockey" people. But they are the owners, they can choose to sell the team, or to cap the Pegula well and cut off the "old hockey guard". With regards to scouting one has to wonder why you need so many these days. If you are going to put stock in analytics then you can easily pull the analytics on players from all over the world. You'll identify the key pieces you are looking for and then you send the scouts to check them out and use the eye test to confirm the data. Better than waiting for one of 30 scouts to "see" something and then find the data to prove what you saw. I'm ambivalent. The Pegulas have not done anything right yet with the Sabres. This is just a change in my book. Could it be worse? I suppose, but not much. If it's better, then great. I certainly expect the "old guard" to be quite critical of the move however.

Hey all, sorry, extremely busy at work. I've barely been around and will likely not be around much over the next few months. I'm not gonna get involved in the conversation, but why are these posts in the Donald Trump thread as opposed to being in their own thread to discuss the topic? Are these moved by the mods? If they were please let me know so I can ask that if they are gonna drop kick posts into this club that they at least not just dump it into a thread to which it doesn't directly apply.

When you pat a duck on the head it sits there. When you pat a goose on the head it chases you around a circle.

Yes, that line is quite clear. It's better than nothing. The real question is how much better? Are people really safe because others are wearing masks or are they saf"er". Which is to say, perhaps they have a 1% less chance because of a mask. So yes, better than nothing, but not necessarily effective. Do you feel safe because someone is wearing a mask when you don't know how effective it is?

The last resort better than nothing wording is from a study in 2017. The social manipulation isn't played out in weeks or months, it's played out in years and decades. The fact that it cannot be explained now does not mean that in 10 years the dots won't be connected. To what end? I honestly don't know. Wearing a mask would certainly screw up face recognition algorithms, but what if the alternative given was, wear a mask or submit to loading a tracking application on your device so your location can be tracked? How many people opt for the mask or the app? That's not really a conversation for this thread, but it's just one potential thought right off the top of my head. See, you have to know this auto mechanic. While they try not to be TOO clear in demonstrating their political leanings, etc. Let's just say they have said enough to demonstrate they firmly fall in the "very conservative, screw Democrats and any social policy that infringes upon my rights group". The quotes were very clearly there because they don't believe in the mask wearing.. hence none of them wearing masks. Imagine that, the guy who drove my car around to test the brakes and then parked it in the lot was not wearing a mask and did not clean my car before leaving it for me to go get in and drive around. Seems like that would go against guidance given in other areas of society and business, but that's exactly what happened.

I wish I had a hot tub to fall into accidentally. ? So, as one would expect, there are articles and conversations every day about the efficacy of cloth masks. They range on both sides. You have statements from respected organizations that say "last resort", "better than nothing". You have others saying "75% effective" "67% effective" ">50% effective". Of course they all come with the "when worn properly and accompanied by good hygiene". There are studies out there trying to figure out what the impact of NOT washing your hands would be while still wearing a mask and vice versa. The studies I accept. They are what I want to see. I want to see those details. But given all the back and forth it begins to wreak of behind the scenes manipulation of society to affect a certain outcome. I have no idea what it would be, but usually these things are tied to longer end game items. I'm not being conspiracy theory like here. I think we all know that messages and initiatives are played out on the public in order to condition responses. This is especially true after large disasters. I wore a mask to my auto shop... I could have figured that none of them would be wearing masks. They have chairs in front of the counter but the sign reads: Putting for your safety in quotes really underscored their belief in things.

I am not questioning these masks. I am questioning the cloth masks that people are wearing around in public. The ones that, depending on the material, the layers, the fit, seal, etc. are all basically unproven to provide any meaningful protection. Your last link is no longer valid so I can't review. 10/2017 - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24229526/ - Conclusion: Our findings suggest that a homemade mask should only be considered as a last resort to prevent droplet transmission from infected individuals, but it would be better than no protection. These days there are new studies coming out all the time that point to masks being effective, or not. It's really not about me wearing a mask so much as asking, does it even matter? If they are proven ineffective or for the most part ineffective then a lot of people will be walking out into the world with a false sense of security about how well protected they actually are from this virus. If you have concerns over being infected, do masks really make it okay for you? I don't have concerns, but the question isn't about me. Let's say I wear a mask and ultimately infect someone because I believed it was effective. Do I get a pass on "involuntary manslaughter"? Is it okay that I was wearing a mask or then does someone come back and I get sued because it didn't seal properly or enough or whatever reason. This is why I avoid the whole interaction with people right now. It's not for me, I don't care about getting infected. I don't want to be, but I accept that I will likely be exposed, just as I am every year to influenza, and the outcome will be what it is. I'm living in fear of it and I don't have a reason to live in fear of it. Again, that's me, that's not anyone else.

Yes, I think there is no question a mask will stop something. It's not really the large droplets that are the risk, but the smaller ones that bleed out from the mask. It's not just a sneeze or a cough but a constant breathing. Take a grocery store with 100 people in it, continually. While a mask is being worn, it's still the efficacy of the mask * 100, times the number of people who have been in the store before, etc. To me, that's a risk of being exposed that is fairly significant. It's the perception that counts. People need to feel like they are being protected. Is there a cost of wearing a mask? Potentially. If it's ineffective and people believe it is effective then the cost could very well be people engaging in activities they would have avoided. For me it's not entirely "should we be forced to wear masks". There is a part of me that pushes against that. The bigger part is questioning the efficacy of these masks and to what extent they are effective. I don't think it's overthinking things to want to know how effective the measures taken prove to be. Scientists are studying these things in an effort to understand. Are they guilty of overthinking it? I don't think so. I think they are keenly interested in knowing as well. At this point so much has been made about the efficiency of these masks that if something were to prove the opposite it could cause significant hysteria. I consider that in wanting to know because the last thing I want is the powers that be doubling down on something like that. (I don't mean the President). It's happened before, it's not out of the question. You have the N95 mask, that helps you immensely. As for outdoor transmittal I think back to the link you shared (that was widely shared from what I saw) and I believe heartily in that information. Perhaps because I want to, but to me, common sense says, if you are outdoors, where few people travel, your risks should be near zero. If they aren't then how could a supermarket ever be considered safe?

The cloth masks that people are making at home. I'm not questioning those that have been tested and proven to be effective. The public isn't being asked to wear those masks that are proven effective. You are right I am not linking to the stories. You can easily search the Internet for many credible sources. The last link I posted spoke to analysis of COVID numbers and ended up in the politics section, despite not being at all political. I'm not interested in posting links anymore. I read an article on CNN today that said cloth masks are 50% effective. Of course it did so with a quote from a researcher and no link to the study that supported that claim. At a minimum, the information I am referring to at least speaks to the studies that are being conducted so we can understand why they are claiming what they claim. I even mentioned (or thought I did) some studies show that masks aren't reducing the droplets but they are reducing the distance they travel, which, if they immediately fall to the ground and stay there is a good thing, I suppose. But I mentioned air circulation systems could cause them to be carried further, right? The church choir was in response to Mark, not in response to an actual incident. The response about wearing or not wearing a mask is very much comfort. But it's also questioning whether it has an efficacy whatsoever. Am I doing something just because someone said to do it or does it actually have value? If I saw that these cloth masks actually worked, definitively, I might change my mind. However, I've not seen it. There's as much information that points counter to that and it's not coming from off the wall sources. As I asked, and so far people have conveniently avoided... if you have a 75% chance to be exposed to the virus, even if people are wearing masks, are you venturing into that venue? What percentage risk is enough for you? For anyone?

Wow, so a post that discusses the analytics behind the numbers that are being used to discuss the opening of states was moved to politics? Okay.. so I guess the thread in the main forum will be specifically ONLY for COVID discussions and not any policies or other risks associated with it? Like, say, choosing to wear masks or hanging out indoors. Sad... I tried so hard to make it NOT a poltiical post.

I looked for ways to shorten your response to reduce scrolling on people, but it seems I can't.. I quoted you so you'd get credit for bringing up environment with regards to mask wearing. I agreed 100% with you. I don't like office environments overall. I'm glad I don't work in one except when I need to visit corporate HQ once per month (and naturally that has not happened the past few months). I'm not yet sure on where I would fall if I had to go back to one. I will address more on the mask wearing below. I'm not sure about the plane either. I think it really corresponds more to my deeper thinking on the overall virus situation. Which I will touch on below. The efficacy of masks is of great debate. By accounts I have seen, masks offer a small percentage improvement at best. I think far more study has to happen for me to believe they are nothing more than a way to placate people's fears. In enclosed environments where virus concentrations will be heaviest, masks allow air to slip in around the edges. Airflow seeks the path of least resistance and so cloth masks, with their poor seal, do little to moderate the ingestion of the virus. Other studies have shown that masks may shorten the distance the virus travels when expelled, but even then, in a normal airflow situation, the virus will be carried around. Air circulation systems will see to that. All of that to say, in your church scenario, why would anyone want to be there unless they are willing to take the risks? If a person entering that church scenario knew they would have an 85% chance of being exposed to the virus, would they still go? What about 50%? By choosing to interact with people, especially indoors, we are all accepting a heightened risk of exposure, masks or not. As for me, I would not be in the church, so I would not contribute to that situation. However, I am very much not afraid of the virus. I have accepted I will be exposed to it. Just like I am exposed to many other things on a daily basis. How it will impact me will be what it will be. If I am damaged by it, so be it. If I am killed, then that's the end of my line. Death comes for us all in the end. I don't go seeking it, nor looking to increase its chances. You won't find me running parkour on the edge of a skyscraper. If my family dies, they die. I don't want for it, not in the slightest, but I am also not naive to its inevitability. Weave brings up the libertarian viewpoint. I agree. My personal choice is to not wear a mask, but I am respectful of the remainder of society so I also choose to limit where I go. I have worn a mask, and I will do so. Not because I think it's effective, but because I think it keeps the masses calmed. I will wear a mask when I take my car into the mechanic tomorrow morning. There is a flip side to not putting others at risk and that's the point at which I give up so much of how I live just so someone else who has a genetic predisposition to this virus might have a greater chance of survival. Everyone has that point where they are giving up too much living to worry about prevent dying, their own or others. Where is that point is going to be the great debate in our society. I ask the question, not because I have an answer, I don't. I currently don't think we know enough to be informed of anything. I also think that if we don't increase our risk of exposure we will be facing greater problems than just a virus. When will violent confrontation plague our headlines? We've seen people trample each other to get a cheap TV. I have no doubt that society will do much worse with this virus. Whether it's violent protesting to obtain a perceived "freedom" or a violent response by someone to stop their perceived "risk". Politicians are not going to be our saviors. They need to get re-elected and will quickly backpedal from the right decision if the public demands it, if business demands it. The NCAA didn't open up all collegiate sports, it opened up football and men's and women's basketball. The biggest money making sports colleges can have. These sports put sweaty, heavy breathing people in close contact for prolonged periods. Football increases risk with numbers, though mostly outdoors. Basketball is indoors, in a localized space. Money wins... it would seem. For now I wait and discuss, thankful that I am able to do so.

Have a pretty good grosbeak shot at this point. The Oriole.. not so much.

Much as you are convinced you are right. You are both using the same argument to state your case. "I'm right because I believe I am." See above.. I know these are out of order, but so be it. There is no way anything we've received as the cockroaches of society is 100% factual. So while you may know where something comes from you can't know that it's 100% accurate. If Trump were the first President ever then no former president would matter, but people would talk about the situation before there was a President. When we talk about GMs of hockey teams do we not often speak of the GM that left a mess or the GM who inherited a good team? Same as a coach. The situation that existed prior to a change in leadership (of any organization) will play into what transpires in the years following the change. Depending on the size of the organization and the propensity and capability for rapid change the impact may be lessened or expanded. If one looked at stock market performance solely under Trump's reign, one would say that it improved significantly. Yet I have seen arguments saying that the foundation for that improvement was laid during the Obama reign. I'm not saying you did that, just saying that people give credit to the prior president for some things while at the same time declining to lay fault at the prior president for other things.

Been out shooting pictures most mornings.. each day we hope to find at least one new species of bird (the migration season is ending so it will get tougher). The few days prior we had heard Indigo buntings in the areas we had been, got a few glimpses at them but I couldn't get a good picture. Saturday morning we were heading back out of the trail and we caught a flash of blue... (indigo?). Anyway.. managed to get 1 picture with the camera before it moved back into the trees... Sometimes you get lucky...

I think the key behind any discussion on wearing masks should come with a description of the environments you expect people to wear them. I don't wear a mask, but I am spending most of time out in the woods these days where I might encounter 5-10 other people the entire couple of hours I am out there. The two times I've worn it were because I had to enter a store and the store required it. I choose to avoid it by avoiding people and enclosed spaces. I, personally, have not become comfortable with wearing a mask, yet. Thankfully I am able to avoid most situations where it would be 100% required. There is a deeper question at play here as well. For those that are opining that others wear masks, are you intending for them to be worn until there is a vaccine? What if there is never a vaccine? I'm curious to hear those thoughts as well. I'd ask that of those who don't want to wear masks but I think that reasoning is more self-evident as that was the social norm prior to all of this. Airborne viral risks, pollution, and other contaminants existed prior to this and most everyone felt comfortable not wearing a mask. Let's dig deeper into why everyone feels a certain way. Deeper than the seatbelt argument, which I find intriguing for two reasons. First, seatbelts are a law, so it's not the perfect analogy. But second, I used to be wholeheartedly against seat belts, at least so much as it being a law. I certainly felt it was a personal choice, if you don't want to be ejected from a car when you are in an accident, wear it. It's proven to save lives. But if you want to live dangerously, so be it. Seat belts don't cause accidents, so it's not putting others at risk. But then one day someone said to me, what if your car is hit by something and because you are wearing your seat belt you remain in your seat and are able to regain control of your car before it hits something/someone else. That won me over... after years of conversation someone made a point that changed my mind. I think deeper and better understandings can be had with regards to the wearing of masks. It will be tough because the subject is new, it's emotional, and people are already highly irritated and stressed over the situation. It just means we have to work harder to understand each other more.

I mean CNN spoke out about Texas and the jump in cases after reopening. But talk about politicizing the news... This morning I read this piece - https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/05/19/the_covid_spike_in_reopened_texas_cnn_gets_it_wrong_143239.html (despite the website, it's not a political post) I thought it was a nice breakdown of the data and how news outlets just go for the headline and not the truth. It would be nice to see them all be more impartial and simply report the information for people. It might actually encourage people, in general, to spend more time thinking on things and less time just repeating headlines.

Very true.. It happens even at that young age. I mean around here it's less often simply because we live in Rochester/Buffalo and there are plenty of legitimate development options with professional ties, but that doesn't exist everywhere.

Actually came across a Wimberley Monopod Gimbal head that looks kind of promising. I have a decent ball head now, but man the weight of the camera is tough. It's nice to be able to let go of it once in a while like you could with a tripod and gimbal head. Yeah.. stability is critical. When I do hockey games (I'm not using a 200-600 lens) but I was using my DJI Ronin S.. I just sat there pushing the controller stick left or right to pan along with the game and watched it on the LCD. Super smooth...