stvswn

Well, he's 88.

It's begging the question to claim they were proven right. Sure, they were proven right in some respect, but if the research itself caused it (and let's be real, it did) then they were proven right in a manner that doesn't really speak well of their record. And yes, they were influential in arguing for continued grant money to study coronaviruses. They were also influential in arguing against the Obama administrations restrictions on gain of function research and seem to have sought ways around the restrictions (we know from comments on the DEFUSE paper). They didn't publicly disclose the DEFUSE paper, a whistleblower in the DoD had to leak it. It is relevant because it suggested adding a FCS to natural coronaviruses to make it more virulent to humans. It seems like as soon as a virus with FCS appeared on the scene, their first reaction should have been "oh no, did someone do that research we proposed somewhere? We have to tell someone!" -- but, alas, no. Let's keep crying that they're being demonized, though.

It's pretty wild to me that a good portion of commenters here seem to think that only one side can politicize Covid's origins when the cited article itself says that the conclusion predates the new administration.

The natural origin bitter-clingers are still citing papers that claim to lean towards natural origin with the thinnest possible evidence. I admit I'm not a virologist, but I am a bit skeptical that this community would be completely forthright with us.

I can't shake the feeling like there might be fire where there's smoke: the Chinese government has not provided access to the WIV's data, for instance. The Chinese government deleted the virus's genome sequence from GenBank before later releasing it publicly. The closest relative to Covid-19 in known databases is RatG13, a virus from bats that was discovered in caves thousands of miles away, a complex that the researchers at WIV had used to collect samples. Peter Dasnak of EcoHealth alliance had previously submitted a plan to the DoD to introduce furin cleavage sites to existing coronaviruses to do gain-of-function research (or some euphemism for GOF to evade restrictions), a proposal that was declined, but within which there are still comments extant where they discuss outsourcing the riskiest research to China. Peter Dasnak led the delegation from WHO to China but never publicly disclosed that he had, only several years earlier, been interested in research that would have produced a virus that very specifically resembled Covid. A small group of influential scientists and bureaucrats were discussing via email that it certainly appeared to be a lab leak to them until they met in person to speak with Dr. Fauci in February 2020, after which they abruptly stopped discussing the possibility of lab-leak and worked to submit the Proximal Origin letter to Nature that claimed a consensus among scientists that it must be natural origin -- based on the airtight logic that if a lab wanted to make a coronavirus it probably would have done it differently. Those authors did not disclose the influence of Peter Dasnak and Dr Fauci in drafting the letter. Subsequently, the US government used the existence of the letter as authoritative evidence of a natural origin in order to lean on social media companies to censor speech about the potential of a lab leak. Meanwhile, the fact remains that in order for Covid to have made a jump from an animal species, it would have to be extant in the population of an animal species -- or a variant clearly one mutation away would need to be. It's been 5 years and we haven't found an animal with Covid.

Of course we'll never get the smoking gun because the data you'd need -- the experimental data from WIV -- is likely gone forever. Why would that be? Why wouldn't a leading research center on coronavirus virology -- perhaps the foremost in the world -- hide its records when the big event that represents its entire reason for existence -- a coronovirus pandemic -- has shown up in the world, conveniently on its doorstep? Shouldn't that be their time to shine? Are you going to blame that on Trump's rhetoric? Why hasn't all of Baric's data from UNC been released to the public yet, then?

It is really pretty amazing to me that many people will likely go to their grave thinking "oh, no, no scientists released a paper that says the natural origin is still a live theory, I don't have to listen to any of this conspiracy nonsense" simply because they can't live in a world where Trump was right.

I don't think so, because the sweeping motion of minute hand is effectively continuous rather than discrete, so there's no truncation. At 4:53:30 the minute hand will be correctly in between 4:53 and 4:54, if one (like the author) cares about such precision.

One town over from my own hometown is Westfield, NJ where Charles Addams is from, and there's a house on Elm Street that looks a lot like the Addams Family house -- especially the one he drew in New Yorker cartoons. The town has a festival in his honor every year around Halloween and the house in particular features proudly as _the_ Addams Family house.

I agree with the idea that there's something dramatic about evil things happening in an old house where one might find a mysterious aristocrat behaving badly, but I think the theme goes back to Regency era Britain an, when the industrial revolution was upending society and old aristocrats were going broke while new industrialists were getting rich -- causing the old manor house in disrepair trope to be something you might find in England. One person who inherited such a manor house, but not the wealth to maintain it, was Lord Byron. His manor, Newstead Abbey, is out of haunted-house central casting and, as a romantic, he plays to all those tropes. He had also visited the Balkans and was aware of Vampire myths, so when it's time to participate in the famous scary-story-contest in 1816 (where Mary Shelley submitted _Frankenstein_), Byron tells a story of a vampire who seems a lot like himself. This story is ripped off by Byron's physician who published his own story (The Vampyre) where the main character is absolutely Byronic. Bram Stoker's Dracula ends up with a similarly Byronic idea of Dracula, and now we have a deeply embedded cultural heritage of creepy stuff happening in run-down manor houses -- maybe just because Lord Byron himself haunted such a setting.

Or, that _could_ be Alexander the Great.

It is incorrect, but widespread among left-leaning pundits, that this ruling will force Congress to micromanage everything that would normally be left to the agencies. Agencies can still make rules. If Congress would like to be out of the details business, they can even write statutes that explicitly delegate rule making to the agencies. What this does is prevent agencies from acting in ways that are easily interpreted as _not_ conforming with law. The Chevron test told judges that they have to defer to the agencies _even when_ they conclude that the agencies are misreading the laws, as long as the agencies aren't being manifestly unreasonable. This has led to agencies very savilly expanding their power without any new statutory authority simply because they have good lawyers who know how to craft it in a way that survives a Chevron test. The SC just said something I find completely reasonable: from now on, judges have to interpret the law as its written and decide cases based on whether or not the agency is complying with the law. They cannot abrogate their duties to be the experts on legal analysis simply out of a desire to defer to the agency's interpretation. I think it's correctly decided because Chevron is an illogical mess -- why is it that in one situation and one situation only, our legal system treated one of the parties in a suit as inherently having more authority to intepret the law than a court itself? It is not persuasive to me that we should say "well, because the courts can't be experts," as this is not an argument that works in any other situation where a court must make legal rulings in the face of experts -- such as bankruptcy proceedings, antitrust cases, etc.

Simply because you're not a fan of the outcomes doesn't mean that the appointments of justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett were illegitimate. Chevron deference started under the Stevens court and the deference it entailed related to the Reagan administration. That this has become a conservative hobby horse since then has nothing to do with policy preferences that only cut one way in a partisan way, and has everything to do with a deeper disagreement over the separation of powers and the role of the judiciary. Chevron deference isn't "the system" it's simply one precedent that has been faltering for years. There's no reason for any "side" to see this as the sky falling unless you really, really want to preserve some federal regulation that is TOO IMPORTANT to allow statutes to clarify.

But what if I inherited it?

The argument that "no one really needs more than $X" is always a flawed one, in my opinion. I don't make $1 M a year, but if I did, I'm absolutely certain I'd prefer $2M a year. I can imagine all sorts of things I'd want -- vacation homes, fancy private schools for children, whatever. At $1 M a year I'd end up doing things that put me in contact with people who make more than me, and I'd think "oh, that's pretty cool, that stuff they have."

OK, OK, before you comment that "I don't need that," well, who said I did? I said I'd prefer it, therefore it would be an easy decision to switch jobs for it, all other things being equal.

So if you disagree, why is the amount _you_ make the defensible amount? Do you need it? Maybe 100k should be the max -- that's twice the median U.S. income, after all? Why do you need more than the median U.S. income, how greedy are you? Etc. etc.

I think different things can work for different people, but here's what has worked for me:

First, what didn't work. I switched to a dumbphone last year with the plans to stick with it for Lent (6.5 weeks). I succeeded but quickly fired up my smartphone, because there were many problems with the plan. I wanted to stop feeling addicted, but I didn't really want to give up on access to Uber, or Venmo, or other things that people expect I can help out with.

So, this year, I did it differently. I keep my smartphone on DND and in my backpack at work or in my desk at home. I took out the SIM and put the SIM in my dumbphone, w/ my dumbphone capable of tethering, so I can (if I need)_ tether my smartphone to my dumbphone. There aren't any social media apps on the smartphone.

If I care enough about Googling something, I just find my laptop. If I need my phone for a task (like Uber), I know where to find it. I am about 2 weeks into it and I still have a bunch of moments where I feel like I should take my phone out of my pocket for no reason at all, but it isn't there, so I don't.

Group texts are the worst part. I would love a dumbphone that can do MMS, but I can't find one. Group texting is pretty essential for practical reasons (groups of parents will use it to organize children's events, for example). I can't retrain everyone else to fit my eccentricity (in their view), so I am left replying back to group MMS with individual replies, it's inconvenient. If I can solve this I will likely never return to everyday smartphone usage.

I don't think there are many ways in which SF is similar to a "very right wing" city. First of all, "right wing" politicians do not control any city governments in any real way, but if you were to compare SF with say, Houston -- which has radically different policies along these lines -- you wouldn't find that the results are the same.

In the American context, an extreme right-wing city government would theoretically provide very few public services, allow all property to transact in open marketplaces with very little red tape, allow for any use of property to meet market demand. In other words, you could build a gigantic high rise in Noe Valley but the city wouldn't pay for public toilets in any case (but someone could feel free to make pay toilets if they own or lease the land). Left wingers imagine that this sort of arrangement would lead to worse or similar outcomes for the poor than SF currently, but... I don't know, honestly.

No, I think the comment was meant to mean "this is not left-wing, this is late-stage capitalism, the problem is that we have too many right wingers in SF that are cosplaying progressivism"