I don't know about anyone else, I don't have my ring doorbell inside my house, in my back yard. It videos anyone coming to my door. Doesn't see the street nor my driveway (wish it did but I have a wall on the side of my entry. I wouldn't have cameras inside my house but have been thinking about cameras in my back yard. The ring camera is only triggered by movement. It goes on when someone moves within the short range of the camera. It does not go on with cars on the street or people walking on the street. Even if it did, that is public space. The Country could have cameras on the telephone poles, for all I know. Frankly there are cameras everywhere. I just paid a 'red-light ticket' my husband got by making a left on a steady red light...$158.00. He swears the turn signal was yellow. I went online and viewed the video and it was clearly red. Guilty. I guess you could call that a privacy issue? Another point. I read the article. Who is Gizmode? I never heard of them. . A simple Google search describes the website, Gizmodo as: " Gizmodo (/ɡɪzˈmoʊdoʊ/ giz-MOH-doh) is a design, technology, science and science fiction website. It was originally launched as part of the Gawker Media network run by Nick Denton, and runs on the Kinja platform. Gizmodo also includes the subsite io9, which focuses on science fiction and futurism. " Hummm, a Science Fiction website. Interesting.... The bottom line, the camera is not inside my house recording 'whatever.' It is at your front door. It records people coming to your door. If you are involved in something shady, maybe you wouldn't want anyone to see who comes to your door. From my research, they cannot share anything with the police unless you give permission (privacy laws). I paid $100.00 for a one of the best items I ever spent money on. I like getting alerts when I'm not home, I like seeing who is ringing my doorbell. I like getting an alert when a package is left at the door. Anyone who comes to my door would be visible from my windows if I looked out. I don't see a difference between my eyes or the doorbell camera. Jane

From Horticulture Week, 1-19-2020 David Austin Roses consolidates range David Austin, has cut its range by 30%. …no longer available: 'Munstead Wood', 'Lady Emma Hamilton', 'Abraham Darby', 'William Shakespeare', 'Elsie Braithwaite', 'Alan Titchmarsh' and others. …Numbers of varieties available are now 86, down 30%, with more old varieties set to be dropped. 'Gertrude Jekyll' remains a top seller and will continue to be sold. David Austin Roses' Kate Porter said: "We've made some significant changes to the range for the good of the customer. Some of the well-known varieties we are withdrawing from the range. What was wonderful 20 years ago, standards have changed and we've improved breeding standards." David Austin's Paul Manley recommends new varieties such as 'Olivia Rose Austin'. *Emphasis and a grain of salt are mine.

Here it is. However, a heads up. Right now, the WaPo gives you free access to anything that is COVID-19 related. Sign up for our Coronavirus Updates newsletter to track the outbreak. All stories linked in the newsletter are free to access. By Michael S. Rosenwald March 28, 2020 at 7:21 a.m. EDT The panic hit her first. Holed up at home in Queens, withNew York City about to be overwhelmed by the novel coronavirus, Yijun Lin worried about her mortality. Doom settled into alarm. Then, as days passed in isolation, a different feeling took hold. “I began to feel a little bored,” she said. Lin was uniquely suited to do something productive about it, though. She’s an incoming doctoral student in psychology at the University of Florida, where her adviser is Erin Westgate, one of a handful of scholars in the world who studies boredom and its surprising benefits. “Are you researching any topic related to covid-19?” she wrote in an email to Westgate, referring to the disease caused by the coronavirus. “I feel it is a perfect opportunity to study boredom.” Westgate agreed, immediately setting off to organize a study. With millions around the world stuck at home and the novelty of watching the entire Netflix inventory waning, boredom scholars, who are actually quite interesting, are scrambling to study a vast petri dish of boredom — young and old, rich and poor, East and West. AD “This really is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to hopefully learn some really important things,” Westgate said. She won’t have trouble finding subjects. Boredom abounds. In a subreddit devoted to boredom, someonewrote: “Bored while stuck at home and apparently beer and pringles isn’t the answer! What should I try next?” The next day, someone replied: “Try counting the tiles at home! It cured my boredom.” It’s not just adults. Just ask parents. “My kid is so bored being home he VOLUNTARILY practiced his piano!” a Buffalo mantweeted recently. “One thing I keep telling my 9 year-old,” another tweeted. “Some day you’ll have kids who complain that they’re bored. And you will be able to lay down the best-ever ‘When I was your age . . .’ ” As a scholarly matter, boredom is a relatively new research area in psychology. Historically, boredom was the turf of philosophers, a more dreary, Debbie Downer posse of thinkers. AD “The literature in philosophy has been very negative about the experience of boredom,” said Wijnand A.P. van Tilburg, a psychologist and boredom scholar at the University of Essex in England. “They looked at it from a more existential point of view. The psychologists, we look at emotion — not whether it’s good or bad emotion, how it functions.” But boredom was somehow overlooked in psychology for centuries. About a decade ago, Sandi Mann, a psychologist at the University of Central Lancashire in England and author of a not-boringbook on boredom, looked into the subject and was startled by how little research had been done. “That really appealed to me,” she said, fighting a cough while recovering from an apparent case of covid-19. “Boredom isn’t an overstudied area like, you know, stress. Before I studied boredom, I studied anger, and that’s been studied so much that it became a bit boring.” AD The central question in boredom studies — and the one that makes Westgate and others so anxious to examine boredom within the confines of a pandemic — is the fork in the road that appears when boredom sets in. Bored people can take the sit-on-the-couch-and-eat-a-lot-of-Pringles path. Studies have shown that boredom can increase obesity, smoking and crime. Or the idled can take the Isaac Newton approach. During the Great Plague of London in 1665, he used his social distancing time to discover calculus and gravity. During a pandemic, Isaac Newton had to work from home, too. He used the time wisely. Mann and van Tilburg, among several other researchers, have in the past decade conducted experiments trying to tease out the potential benefits of boredom. A tricky aspect of conducting such studies is inducing sufficient boredom — far less of a problem during a pandemic. In van Tilburg’s case, he has conducted experiments in which participants are told to count the number of letters in academic footnotes about imperial Rome. Those who became bored became nostalgic for more productive times in their lives. His boredom studies also showed a tendency for bored people to replace feelings of emptiness with caring acts, such as blood donation. AD Mann, in her experiments, has asked study subjects to copy numbers from a telephone book. “Meaningless, boring repetitive, it ticks all the boxes,” she said. Mann then gave a creative task to the bored people and a non-bored control group: come up with as many uses as possible for plastic cups. The bored did better than the non-bored. While these and other studies show the tantalizing promise of boredom, scholars don’t yet know how bored people, in moments of boredom, choose productive vs. nonproductive paths. The answer might be related to personality type or the setting around them. Scholars are anxious to learn more. “Boredom isn’t good or bad,” said John Eastwood, who runs the Boredom Lab at York University in Canada and is co-author of “Out of My Skull,” a forthcoming book on boredom. “It’s what we do with that signal.” AD That’s a confusing moment, especially amid the pandemic, with news outlets and social media publishing endless lists of things to do with all the newfound time, from the juiciest TV to downloading hours of podcasts — a digital bounty that Newton, thankfully, didn’t encounter. “When you don’t have a lot going on, you might say, ‘Wow, I’m going to binge watch Netflix. This is perfect,’ ” Eastwood said. “That will get rid of the feeling in the short term. But treating yourself like an empty vessel to fill with a compelling experience makes you more ripe for boredom down the road.” Why? “Because what you’ve done,” Eastwood said, “is you’ve failed to become the author of your own life.” So what should bored people do? First of all, children and adults should embrace boredom, the experts say. When the brain is bored, it is magical, finding connections, devising ideas, making plans. Remember why you doodle during meetings. Because you’re bored. The doodles are creative, even if they aren’t pretty. AD Another suggestion: Parents shouldn’t create too much structure for their children. If they’re bored, let them be bored. But they also need to create the right conditions for boredom to be meaningful, and that means limiting screen time. (This reporter, who has two children, realizes this will be painful at first.) “There is literally so much time with absolutely nothing to do,” Mann said. “Their minds should be wondering and wandering. What will they come up with? There’s enormous potential that we risk losing here if we don’t capitalize on it.” As for Westgate and her new doctoral student, they came up with a survey that they are sending to bored people, asking them how they are spending their time and why and when they chose to do certain activities. If they were bored, how did they deal with it? Did they do something new for the first time? AD “This is like one of those party game prompts,” Westgate said. “Like, ‘You’re stuck on a deserted island. What book do you read?’ ” Only now, the question is real. “You’re stuck at home for weeks, possibly months,” she said. “What do you do? That’s what we’re living.” Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated where Wijnand A.P. van Tilburg is a professor.

I was thinking this morning about how to reduce the polarization. I have no idea how to deal with the social media issue, but I think that the structure of our two party system and the electoral college contribute to polarization. I think that ranked choice voting would be a good first step. Think of a primary with 15 or 20 candidates, which we had in this election and in 2016. You tend to have a lot of candidates in the middle of the field and a few that are farther to the left of right. The middle-of-road vote gets split among a bunch of candidates, which gives the more extreme candidates an opening, even though collectively the middle-of-the-field candidates have more support. In ranked choice voting, you choose your 1st choice candidate, 2nd choice, etc. When they tally the votes, they do it in rounds. After the 1st round, they eliminate the candidate with the lowest number of 1st choice votes. The vote of anyone who listed that candidate as their first choice gets reallocated to their second choice candidate. The votes are retallied and the last place candidate is again dropped. Repeat, until you run out of rankings (I think I've only had to rank up to 5 candidates, even when the field was larger). I hesitate to use concrete examples for fear of setting off censorship. But if you are voting on 3 candidates, who we will call Left, Middle, and Right (though within a party primary, one of those would be "center), and the people who like the Left candidate put Middle as their second choice, and people who like the right candidate put Middle as their second choice, then the candidate in the middle will get the nomination. The primaries are a good place to start (especially since it is purely up to the parties). But what if we went further, and used it in the general election? And what if the Electoral College used ranked-choice voting (that would definitely take a constitutional amendment)? I think with that change you could have more than two major parties, and the ranking would push the final choice toward the middle. I think. I'm obviously ready for some serious reform.