LyndsySimon

This is definitely not true at the state level, and not exactly true at the federal level either.

Every state to which I regularly travel is now "constitutional carry" - i.e., no permit needed at all. None of them were ten years ago.

Pretty much all gun control in the US is racist in its origins and usually in its modern implementation. "May issue" is a shining example of this.

  Location: Arkansas 
  Remote: Yes
  Willing to relocate: No
  Technologies: Python(Flask|Django|Pyramid), Ruby, SQL, various ORMs and backend web stacks
  CV: https://linkedin.com/in/lyndsysimon
  Email: [email protected]

Why? Are the data that the FDA relied upon for this determination public?

There is a great deal of internal politics at play within the federal government. I see this as the grain of truth behind the "deep state" allegations. Without knowing more about the FDA's justification, it seems completely reasonable to suspect that they may have acted out of their own personal and institutional biases.

I was interested in hydroxychloroquine long before Trump started talking about it. It was being administered both as a treatment and prophylaxis in Italy, and was showing promising results - it didn't look like it was going to be a panacea, but it seemed likely that it would be a good first-line treatment until something better came along. It also had the added benefit of an existing production capability that was already in place and easily scaled further.

Then Trump started talking about it, and it became effectively impossible to sort out reliable information about its use. Papers started coming out either strongly in favor or strongly opposed to its use, where before there was cautious optimism.

> If the FDA hadn't done that and the treatment continued to prove effective, I think we would all generally be on board with it.

That's an interesting statement. I read that as "because the FDA retracted their authorization, the effectiveness of the treatment is not relevant". The only other way I can wrap my head around it is a more charitable reading of "it's unlikely/impossible to be proven effective because the FDA retracted their authorization" - that reasoning is so at odds with my worldview that I'm not confident that others would consider it reasonable.

They have been conservative in their statements. I don’t recall them ever saying “it doesn’t spread person-to-person” - I do recall them saying “there is no conclusive evidence of person-to-person transmission”. At the time, given the evidence they had, that was true. From their perspective saying that it did in fact spread person-to-person and later concluding it didn’t would have been much worse; I assume they take this approach to protect their reputation of being certain before making a public statement.

The problem seems to be that lay people seem to expect WHO to be on the bleeding edge and providing comprehensive information on the latest investigation and data. That’s not what they do. They report the findings, and that’s very different.

I’m 36. It’s striking to me how much has changed in my professional lifetime already - we’ve gone from rumors of data-based marketing causing issues for other companies to it being embedded in everything we do. A/B testing is fundamental to feature development at every successful company I’ve experienced in the past decade.

While the election of 1960 was before my time, it seems like fairly recent history to me. To realize that it’s closer to the Wright brothers’ first flight at Kitty Hawk than to the present day is disconcerting. I can’t begin to imagine what the future holds sixty years from now. Subjectively, it seems like the velocity of the societal impact of technology continues to increase. I’ve seen the rise of social media (MySpace, Facebook, Google+, and countless others that have failed). Sitting here today I see the only survivor of that - Facebook - increasingly as a legacy network that appears strong on its surface, but precariously so. I fully expect something new to hit the scene that steals the limelight and turns Facebook into a ghost town. Each time that has happened in the past the new platform has fundamentally changed the way we interact with others, both virtually and in person.

We look at the current state of technology with different eyes than our predecessors. The “People Machine” described in the article is almost certainly possible today. It exists in various forms at Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon, the NSA... We see each of those implementations as limited because we have perspective on how they could be made to be more powerful and a better understanding of how models are limited by the purpose for which they are created. Our dystopian fiction today takes the dystopian fiction of the 1960s as a starting condition.

Perhaps they aren't crashing on accident, but are shot down?

I'm not saying I believe that, of course, but "crash" != "accident".