So, what are the salient points in this article? It's on a humanist website, and I kind of like humanists, and, in principle, humans, so I read it carefully.<p>* Habits change. This insight is the bulk of the article. Restaurants are mentioned three times, but restaurants are a relic of class divisions from around 1900, where a patron is pampered by servants, while leaking money in all directions. So their continued existence is surprising, and maintained by habits, and the pandemic was a shakedown for habits.<p>* Something about resilience. Should I mention preppers? They tend to be introverts, I think, and they're all about resilience, so that confuses matters. But the general idea here is that soft pudgy cybernauts would be bewildered in an emergency that could not be dealt with by ordering deliveries. Could they go out and, like, ask for help, or patiently hunt for food in a crisis? I think the answer is actually mostly yes, and those who were conspicuously helpless would be helped, and this is really a non-issue. <i>Go out for a pointless walk as non-specific training against divers emergencies</i> is not great advice.<p>* Something about surprises (stimulation), and serendipity. This is a fair point <i>but</i> it's expensive, at least in terms of time, and the payoffs aren't so great. In return for losing an hour of coding, you might see a squirrel. I endorse this in moderation. Of course here I'm ignoring the main thrust which is about human interaction: as well as the squirrel, you might speak to an old lady (they constantly prowl the streets, waiting for scraps of conversation). And that's true, and adds variety, I suppose. There's a point in the article where this whole thesis of <i>a massive crisis of shut-ins</i> is watered down to advice to merely go out <i>once in a while.</i> In that light, the situation looks like less of a big deal. People still leave the house, a lot. It's only a change of emphasis, not, I think, a real problem.