Who, SPECIFICALLY PLEASE, at the CDC "branded the lab-leak hypothesis a conspiracy theory and quickly dismissed it"?
Not the press, not some rando on twitter, not some anonymous and probably made up "source", not "people are saying"-- which actual CDC employee or appointee did this?
I keep asking, and people keep making up bullshit.
Fauci was relatively quick to dismiss the idea of the virus being human-modified, in a press briefing on April 17, 2020 [0]:
> Q Mr. President, I wanted to ask Dr. Fauci: Could you address these suggestions or concerns that this virus was somehow manmade, possibly came out of a laboratory in China?
> THE PRESIDENT: Want to go?
> Q You studied this virus. What are the prospects of that?
> DR. FAUCI: There was a study recently that we can make available to you, where a group of highly qualified evolutionary virologists looked at the sequences there and the sequences in bats as they evolve. And the mutations that it took to get to the point where it is now is totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.
(The study he refers to is "The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2" [1], published March 17.) It seems that much was made of this particular remark. It doesn't rule out the idea of an unmodified virus leaked from the lab, but the widespread theories have always been aimed at the gain-of-function research occuring there.
The original commenter got flagged for his response, so I'd like to ask you more politely. Dr. Fauci did not in fact work for the CDC, and as you acknowledge this statement does not even say that the lab leak hypothesis is untrue. Are you trying to argue in favor of the original commenter's assertion that "they branded the lab-leak hypothesis a conspiracy theory", or just trying to explain what comments people are interpreting in bad faith to support that assertion?
My apologies, I was actually under the belief that Fauci was affiliated with the CDC at the time, given how often they appeared together in headlines (e.g., [0]; most of those are clumping them together in critisism, but I also saw them clumped together in praise). I'll keep that in mind.
In any case, the assertion made me curious about what was actually said by government officials and affiliates regarding lab-leak theories, and drilling down into some of the blog posts led to that particular statement and the paper associated with it.
People do often specifically mean a human-modified virus when they talk about "the lab-leak hypothesis", especially given the GoF research conducted there, so I'd say it's true that Fauci wanted to cast water on that particular version of the hypothesis. (If there's anything that annoys me, it's when people equivocate over what is and isn't a lab leak. But if you must know, I personally find the stronger forms uncompelling.)
Of course, many have put far stronger language into the mouths of politicians and officials (most of whom in 2020 were quite careful with their words), and the tales can easily grow in the retelling, but it doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to focus on the kernel of truth about what actually occurred. "It wasn't the CDC, it was Fauci/others, and they were only talking about a manmade virus, against which the evidence is still strong" would have been much clearer than "it's all BS".
How is this quickly dismissing the idea that it was a lab leak as a conspiracy? The research showed (and still shows) that it's extremely plausible for the virus to have gone from animal -> human. I think currently there is a "missing" jump where the animal which was involved in transmission still isn't know but to say that Fauci citing the current research is "dismissal of lab leak as a conspiracy theory" is a bit absurd.
I don't think you'd easily catch him put it in precisely the terms of a "conspiracy theory". He wouldn't have had such a long career if he weren't careful with his words on air.
But he did consider that research to adequately "address" the concerns of a "manmade" virus, and I don't think it would be uncharitable to interpret that as a dismissal of those concerns. After all, he always could have ended his statement with a noncommittal "but this is just one study, and we need more evidence to really know for sure".
And a lot of people do specifically mean a virus that was genetically modified or otherwise selected for human transmissibility when they talk about a "lab leak", so at least he was trying to talk down that version of a lab leak theory.
(Personally, I do think a lot of the theories of an genetically-modified virus are overblown, both then and now, I just wanted to give some perspective for what he actually said.)
Fauci has not worked at the CDC a single day in his entire life.
You wrote, and I quote in full: "The CDC burned 50+ years of carefully built up credibility to the ground during COVID. Remember how they branded the lab-leak hypothesis a conspiracy theory and quickly dismissed it?"
Please, for once in your life, stop making up bullshit and then deflecting when called out on your bullshit.
Please don't attack other users like this, no matter how wrong anyone is or you feel they are. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
That's a good point about the word harangue! I've replaced it with a different verb above.
Could you please stop breaking the site guidelines, and also please stop creating accounts to do that with? You're welcome here as long as you respect the same rules that apply to all commenters.
NIH officials involved in writing a paper in 2020 about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 actively suppressed consideration of a lab leak hypothesis and exaggerated the evidence for a natural origin. Some of their communications have been released and others involved have testified to that under oath.
But your second link contradicts this story entirely! It's about a claim from the CDC director that other officials in other agencies froze him out because he wanted to consider the lab leak hypothesis.
Sorry I should have been more clear. From a US federal government perspective, the fault for the sloppy science in the 2020 paper lies with the NIH and not the CDC. Will edit my comment above.
>Western powers embraced an ideology of peace and safety that stalled technological growth
Does Thiel have a hose running from his rectum to his nose so he can get high off the smell of his own farts?
More technological growth has occurred from Woodstock to today than at any similar-length span of time in human history.
He is rich because of that technological advancement and the fortune he amassed due to that technological advancement means he has the ability to pollute the media with his moronic worldview, and bribe politicians in order to make it a reality for the rest of us.
>You're asking a lot from law enforcement if you're giving away something for free and then demand that law enforcement make sure that people use the thing exactly as you have mandated.
I don't think the Free Software Foundation is asking a lot when it uses the rule of law to control who uses their content and how.
I don't understand why the Vatican is considered a country, besides as a quirk of history.
It is smaller than high school campus nearest my house, is not a UN member, and seems to exist solely as a tax haven.
It also has no native citizens. No person has been born in Vatican City in a century and even if you pop out a baby in Vatican City and are you yourself a Vatican City resident and citizen, the baby is not a citizen until made so by legal decree, citizenship which ends the second your employment ends, of course, because citizenship is tied to employment.
It doesn't make sense.
It isn't a country.
It is a tax dodge.
My perspective may be skewed. I value "quirky quirks of quirktastic history" very little.
>I don't understand why the Vatican is considered a country
It isn't a country and nobody says that it is. The Holy See is sovereign entity with unique status under international law; the status of the Vatican City is derived from the status of the Holy See. It enjoys that status because practically all countries believe that it should do so.
All relevant parties believe that the Vatican City should be treated as if it's a state, therefore it enjoys the rights and responsibilities of a state, even though it technically isn't one. That is fundamentally how international law works - it's a system of agreements between countries and practice established by historical precedent. The status of the Holy See and the Vatican City is quirky, but that doesn't make it illegitimate.
> The Holy See is sovereign entity with unique status under international law; the status of the Vatican City is derived from the status of the Holy See. It enjoys that status because practically all countries believe that it should do so.
I am only an amateur international lawyer, ask a real one for a more confident answer: but my own understanding is this-the subjects of international law are (1) sovereign states, (2) international organisations established by treaty, (3) sui generis entities; Vatican City is technically an instance of (1) and the Holy See is an instance of (3), and they are technically two distinct subjects of international law, despite having a common sovereign - at least, that’s what I’m pretty sure the Vatican’s own international lawyers will argue… as subjects of international law, both are capable of being parties to treaties, but (generally speaking) the Holy See joins treaties of global interest, Vatican City joins treaties regarding matters of local concern to its own territory. As to where they get this status from, the answer is-customary international law
> I don't understand why the Vatican is considered a country, besides as a quirk of history.
It is considered an independent state because some time after the Papal States (a much larger set of holdings that were ruled by the Pope) were annexed by Italy, the Vatican was subsequently granted independence (recognized in a treaty between the Holy See and Italy). Which is pretty typical of why independent states are considered independent states.
Who are the people of the Vatican? The only persons who live there are temporary government employees and not even all of them are citizens because that is optional.
You cannot own property, vote for your government, start your own business, go to school, buy anything except what is stocked in the small canteen, or go to the hospital if you are a Vatican citizen and odds are pretty good you live in Italy anyways.
Imagine if a bank drew a boundary around its Manhattan skyscraper headquarters and declared itself a country called Bankistan whose only residents were janitors, financial analysts, and management-- and most of its citizens live in Brooklyn. Except for the C-suite and senior vice presidents who live in penthouses and the janitors who live in tiny rooms in the basement.
Also the second the bank fires you or you quit or retire, you're no longer a citizen of Bankistan.
At a minimum, a capital-see (heh) Country is something that belongs to you if but in a very, insignificantly, small part.
So my definition of "country" is ill-defined but does not include the Vatican.
Your definition ignores international recognition.
Ultimately, whether you get to act like a country (go to the UN, engage in diplomacy, hold territory) is in large part based on whether other countries recognize you as such. I don't know that it defines country-hood but it's part of the puzzle.
The Vatican is a fascinating example since it's clearly a very different sort of entity than the rest of the countries, yet is still recognized by most of the world's nations.
As johnecheck points out, in a certain level of abstraction, the main way of defining a country is whether other countries consider you a country or not. Even when other countries do consider you a country, what the borders are exactly might not be clearly recognized.
Since countries are political divisions, I'd also argue that this is the main and most important definition.
BTW, even "continents" suffer from this where in the US, Europe and Asia they are defined differently.
US government spending is (for now) easy to track, and you can get totals for spending by corporate entity.
In total across the entire US federal government, $518.8 million was paid to Microsoft for products and services in 2024. That is approximately 0.21% of their total annual revenue.
I assert that the threshold for "state sponsored" is well in excess of 0.21% of annual revenue.
How much money have states and local governments spent on Microsoft products and services? How much money has Microsoft collected from companies that are providing products and services to US governmental agencies?
Government spending is not easy to track. This doesn't even begin to touch on non-monetary benefits Microsoft receives with government influence.
I'm mostly adding context to the statistic that Microsoft makes 0.21% of its revenue from the federal government, and arguing against the sub-claim that government spending is easy to track.
> Why, given that the foam strike had occurred at a force massively out of test conditions had NASA proceeded with re-entry?
What was the alternative?
Columbia could not have made it to ISS.
Columbia could not have repaired the damage in orbit.
Columbia could not have lasted, after two weeks in space, long enough to launch a rescue mission.
I know the "In Flight Options Assessment" said they could launch at an accelerated pace but the assessment assumes that it's ok to launch another vehicle with the same problem, no fix, and no completed analysis of the cause.
Yeah, they suspected the external tank bipod foam, but WHY did the foam come off? Was it a fluke? Had some unknown factor not present in previous external tank bipod foam applications but now present in all external tank bipod foam applications manifested?
>Two major assumptions, apart from the already stated assumption that the damage had to be visible, have to be recognized – the first is that there were no problems during the preparation and rollout of Atlantis, and the second is the question of whether NASA and the government would have deemed it acceptable to launch Atlantis with exposure to the same events that had damaged Columbia. At this point, at least two of the last three flights (STS-112 and STS-107) had bipod ramp foam problems, and the flight in-between these two, STS-113, was a night launch without adequate imaging of the External Tank during ascent.
This is from a pre-flight safety report for STS-113
>“More than 100 External Tanks have flown with only 3 documented instances of significant foam loss on a bipod ramp”
STS-1 through STS-111, April 1981 - June 2002: three "significant" bipod foam losses
STS-112, October 2002: significant foam loss
STS-113, November 2002: night time, but they saw 112 and went "oh shit" and wrote a report
STS-107, January 2003: yet another, fatal, significant foam loss
If two of the last three flights had foam problems and the one that didn't only didn't because you couldn't see if it did, and over 100 of the preceding flights only had three, you don't risk four more lives.
Apollo 13 probably seemed pretty hopeless. They didn't just say "sorry fellas, maybe you'll get lucky and make it, good luck."
The late great Bob Hoover said, "If you’re faced with a forced landing, fly the thing as far into the crash as possible." You keep trying until you can't anymore.
Saying "well, maybe they'll survive," and not even telling them, is not the move when you have nearly a month to figure something out.
> Lounges used to feel special, a perk reserved for business travelers. Now they’re overcrowded, uninspired, yet somehow more coveted than ever—thanks to social media flexes and pricey credit card perks.
I think one of the author's main issues is that they want to feel special, and that feeling can only come through external validation like the exclusion of others.
Also, they seem to take the easy and lazy way out by seething instead of acting.
Also, they lie a lot. Nobody has hassled people with clipboards to save the whales for 26 years.
> The only thing still alive is the endless, humiliating upsell and self-service. The drugstore, the bank, the dentist
Yeah.
Lazy way out.
When I had a bad experience at a chain pharmacy 10-ish years ago I spent less than an hour, googled "independent pharmacies" and found the National Community Pharmacists Association. They have a locator for locally-owned independent pharmacies and I switched to one of those. Now I know my pharmacist's name (not the tech, the actual pharmacist, though I know the techs too) and I don't even have any pressing or complicated medical issues. The only thing they've ever tried to upsell me is a self-published book on local lore and history written by a woman who lives in my neighborhood that was in a stack next to the register.
Yes I bought it. I'm a hoe for that shit.
Same with shoes. My feet are large and weird and shoe buying sucked, not to mention the clueless staff. Often a store would have one pair in my size so I would have to take what I could get. So I took a little time, did some research, and found that specialty running shoe stores exist, staffed by experts, locally owned and operated.
You can do this with many things. Banks (though I prefer credit unions, mine is so small that nearly every member can fit in a large ballroom for our annual meeting and we have an App and digital wallet and everything), doctors, dentists, clothing retailers, anything.
But instead of acting, the author chooses to seethe.
And before you say "there's no other option" you're wrong, unless you live in a deep rural area where the nearest store is 20 minutes away and is a Dollar General, you are wrong.
You just don't care enough to do anything about it, which is a goal with most businesses: plotting the pain/rejection envelope and operating as close to it as possible, to appease the shareholders. You may have to travel a little farther or spend a little more but like I said: pain/rejection envelope-- "how shitty can we be because we're in the main shopping center and the independent guy is on the edge of town?"
An easy way to avoid the race to the bottom is to exit the race.
> When I had a bad experience at a chain pharmacy 10-ish years ago I spent less than an hour, googled "independent pharmacies" and found the National Community Pharmacists Association. They have a locator for locally-owned independent pharmacies and I switched to one of those.
The sole local thing I've been missing around here is a pharmacy that's not fucking CVS, which is awful (and Walgreens isn't better). I hadn't been able to find one using Maps.
Just tried this tool, very hopeful. There are six CVSs closer than the nearest independent pharmacy, literally a dozen towns closer to me than any of these independent pharmacies, and not a one with a non-megachain pharmacy in it :-/ Not driving 25ish minutes each way when we have to go two or three times a month (kids with regular prescriptions). Bummer. I really, really hate CVS.
> And before you say "there's no other option" you're wrong, unless you live in a deep rural area where the nearest store is 20 minutes away and is a Dollar General, you are wrong.
This varies greatly regionally. From what I can tell the places with the healthiest local business options are ones where not just some neighborhoods or a town or two are (relatively) rich, but the whole area is rich, and at least somewhat densely populated. Which makes sense, but is sad for all the small towns out there with people really ideologically dedicated to "local business"—there's a reason those struggle and often fail within a year or two, in those places, and it's because there's no money in the area.
> Which makes sense, but is sad for all the small towns out there with people really ideologically dedicated to "local business"
Pretty much everyone (excepting accelerationist communists, who would see near-monopolies as a failure mode of capitalism and thus desireable, as it would tend to hasten the collapse of the system) agrees that it's preferable to have more small businesses, vs near-monopolies; _that_ isn't really an ideological question. The disagreement is on what makes a good environment for small businesses. The US right would have you believe that it's all about low tax and low regulation, but the evidence doesn't seem to be on their side.
It's interesting to note that the US actually has rather few SMEs per capita for an advanced developed country; pretty much all countries in high-regulation high-tax Western Europe have more. Sweden has about five times more.
(Personal theory is that a big part of it is healthcare and other social safety nets; it must be really, really scary to leave your secure job to start a business in the US, unless you have a big pile of cash to fall back on.)
Hypercard died because in 1997 Apple was 3-4 weeks away from bankruptcy and 1998 wasn't that great either.
Before that, Hypercard was so valuable to Apple that they kicked it out the door to Claris and only took it back when Claris turned into a disaster (due to the Apple disaster) and everyone quit to write software for BeOS (lol).
"A friend of a friend of a friend posted to macrumors that jobs killed it because he didn't like it" has as much evidentiary weight behind it as "An elite Knights Templar strike force broke into Apple HQ and stole the source code and threatened Jobs with death if he ever released another version because if you typed 'evilmagic' into the message box, a portal to hell opened up in your room and evil sexy demons were coming out and seducing all of the wholesome pure and innocent computer nerds learning hypercarding."
Nissan, Chevrolet, Fiat, and Hyundai/Kia all make small, lightweight, low range, low power EVs.
With a 0-60 of 9 seconds, the Fiat 500e may be too low power. A 1993 Honda Civic is quicker than that and if you optioned a Civic coupe up to what comes standard (AC, power doors and windows, cruise) on the 500e, it was $14,700 in 1993[1], which is ~$32k today, which almost the same exact price of a 500e.
I honestly thought both the Leaf and 500e were no longer on sale in the US, since I don't see new ones in the Bay Area, and they used to be everywhere. That's my bad.
The Bolt is also a great example, although it's pretty quick. In fact, a quick chatgpt search says both the Bolt and Leaf SV are over 200hp, so not a lot less than my 258hp Model 3 that's undoubtedly heavier.
The Kona EV completely slipped my mind; my sister has the hybrid version though. Although, the EV is a >$30k crossover but they _do_ sell a 138hp version so it's hardly a muscle car. There are no small cheap Hyundai EVs in the US.
Something like the Honda E is something I'd love to see in the US, although it's definitely a premium-priced product for a small car.
Not the press, not some rando on twitter, not some anonymous and probably made up "source", not "people are saying"-- which actual CDC employee or appointee did this?
I keep asking, and people keep making up bullshit.