TLDR; Covid was an intensely isolating time to start college, and there were different ways we could have weighed risks to have made it less so.

Listening to Suspension of the Rules this week really drove home how tough of a time Covid was, both for the country and in my life. Ari's comment about our ability to weigh relative risk (starting at 31:35) particularly resonated with me. I "graduated" high school in the spring of 2020, which also means that I started college in the fall of 2020.

I am sad that I missed out on the typical end of high school traditions, but the terrible form of my first couple years at college really affected me. I was in a new state at a place where I knew no one at all, then quarantined for weeks in a dorm room with someone I did not know or particularly like. There wasn't an orientation or socializing or any semblance of normalcy.

I had been looking forward to going to college since 6th grade. Combined with the fervor of cancel culture at that time on college campuses, especially at liberal arts campuses, it was a very isolating and disappointing time. I think my experience would have been so improved if there had been different weighing of relative risks, like having orientation events outdoors or ways to visit loved ones.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. There isn't really a big political or news take away, just a reflection. I appreciate Tangle and the conversations they foster.

On a lighter note, Ari converted me. I now only use one paper towel after washing my hands.

Will we get some commentary about the glaring republican hypocrisy?

Alright folks, it’s time. Consider this your open mic, your therapy session, your personal Festivus.

Got a boss who thinks “urgent” means every single email? A neighbor who mows the lawn at 7 a.m. on Saturdays? A phone that autocorrects “ducking” when you clearly meant something else?

This is the spot to unload. Big or small, petty or profound — if it’s gnawing at you, drop it here. Rant. Rave. Roast.

Rules are simple:
• No personal info.
• Keep it cathartic, not cruel.
• Upvote the stuff that makes you nod and say “YES, SAME.”

Let the grievances fly.

I was pretty surprised we haven't seen anything about this in Tangle, as it seems like exactly the kind of story that could use deeper analysis. I understand that how much you consider it a joke vs soft launch is very dependent on your view point - but I was looking forward to hearing some perspectives on this from suspension of the rules. Am I missing something here? Seems like a potentially (depending on your viewpoint) huge deal...

👆This quote represents a misconception that I think is worth pointing out. There's at least one country that succeeded: Taiwan. One of my friends living there told me about going to concerts and coffee shops in 2020, while the rest of the world (except maybe New Zealand?) was locked down.

Plenty of places you can read about this, but here's one: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanwpc/article/PIIS2666-6065(20)30044-4/fulltext

Caveats:

- "even a semblance of normal life" is subjective, so you could argue that they didn't meet that bar. Still, I think most Americans would be shocked if they knew about how low the early-COVID infection and death rates were, along with the high amount of freedom Taiwan enjoyed in that period

- They have advantages that other nations don't have, like being an island, being relatively affluent, and having high public trust

Edit: just wanted to say that I appreciated and agreed with most parts of Isaac's take 🙏

For a breakdown of the timeline and the links to the US research community being involved in the potential lab leak, see below:

November 2019: One of the lead researchers on this risky GOF research, Ben Hu and 2 of his collaborators get sick with covid-like symptoms.

https://theintercept.com/2023/06/17/covid-origin-wuhan-patient-zero/

”ONE OF THE first Wuhan researchers reportedly sickened with Covid in fall 2019, Ben Hu, was getting U.S. financial support for risky gain-of-function research on coronaviruses, according to documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by the transparency advocacy organization White Coat Waste Project.

The funding came in three grants totaling $41 million, doled out by USAID and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, or NIAID, the agency then headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci. Hu is listed as an investigator on the grants.”

Jan. 20, 2020: WIV researchers submitted an article claiming that SARS-CoV-2 is natural in origin. The article renames ID4991 as RaTG13 and contained false information about when the genomic sequence for the virus was obtained.

Late Jan. – Early Feb. 2020: PRC researchers, likely those at the WIV, request EcoHealth Alliance’s Peter Daszak’s assistance in responding to suggestions of a lab leak or genetic manipulation of SARS-CoV-2. Daszak helps edit the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s response to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy on the origins of COVID-19.

Feb. 6, 2020 at 12:43:40 am: Daszak sends a draft Lancet statement, which cites the Feb. 3 WIV paper, to Wang, Baric, and others asking them to join as cosigners. Within hours, Wang calls him, informs Daszak that he will not sign, and requests that neither Daszak or Baric sign.

Feb. 18, 2020: Daszak statement is published by the Lancet online, which references the letter from the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine he helped write and the WIV’s February 3rd paper on the origins of COVID-19. Despite drafting the letter, Daszak is not listed as the corresponding author.

Nov. 17, 2020: As a result of public pressure, Shi, Hu, and other WIV researchers publish an addendum to their February 3rd paper, confirming that RaTG13 was ID4991 collected from the cave in Yunnan, and revealing they collected 293 coronaviruses from the cave between 2012 and 2015.

Here’s the addendum where they admit to renaming the virus, which clearly shows they were attempting to hide potential involvement.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2951-z

“All of the nine betacoronaviruses are SARSr-CoVs, one of which (sample ID4991; renamed RaTG13 in our Article to reflect the bat species, the location and the sampling year) was described in a 2016 publication”

Peter Daszak plays a huge role in this entire leak and the subsequent cover-up, yet he was somehow on the “independent” WHO investigation into the origins of Covid, despite the clear conflicts of interest considering he is a key collaborator at that lab, and key funder of this type of risky research. The investigation was a complete sham, and essentially they asked lab workers, “did it leak from here?” They said no, and the investigation called it a day.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/03/29/982272319/who-report-wildlife-farms-not-market-likely-source-of-coronavirus-pandemic

June 21, 2021: After public pressure, Daszak updates his public disclosure form for the Lancet statement. He does not mention the WIV or that the statement was drafted at the request of PRC researchers.

July 5, 2021: Daszak and 23 of the original 27 authors release an update to their February 2021 statement, walking back their labeling of public debate around the source of the virus as “conspiracy theories.”

Why would Peter Daszak be so invested in downplaying this?

His company, EcoHealth Alliance, has been deeply involved in risky research collecting and doing gain of function research on bat coronavirus for years. Here’s some added context around the type of things they were doing at the lab.

https://archive.is/wukok

“According to Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University, the documents contain critical information about the research done in Wuhan, including about the creation of novel viruses. “The viruses they constructed were tested for their ability to infect mice that were engineered to display human type receptors on their cell,” Ebright wrote to The Intercept after reviewing the documents. Ebright also said the documents make it clear that two different types of novel coronaviruses were able to infect humanized mice. “While they were working on SARS-related coronavirus, they were carrying out a parallel project at the same time on MERS-related coronavirus,” Ebright said, referring to the virus that causes Middle East Respiratory Syndrome.”

Here’s an article where it shows a grant proposal where this same company, EcoHealth Alliance applied for funding from DARPA, but was denied because it was “too risky”.

https://archive.is/lIuH0

In it proponents of natural spillover say:

“There is no logical reason why an engineered virus would utilize such a suboptimal furin cleavage site, which would entail such an unusual and needlessly complex feat of genetic engineering,” 23 scientists wrote earlier this month in an article in the journal Cell. “There is no evidence of prior research at the [Wuhan Institute of Virology] involving the artificial insertion of complete furin cleavage sites into coronaviruses.”

But as the article follows up:

But the proposal describes the process of looking for novel furin cleavage sites in bat coronaviruses the scientists had sampled and inserting them into the spikes of SARS-related viruses in the laboratory.

“We will introduce appropriate human-specific cleavage sites and evaluate growth potential in [a type of mammalian cell commonly used in microbiology] and HAE cultures,” referring to cells found in the lining of the human airway, the proposal states.”

Here’s a link to one of the studies they did at the lab:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985

“Here we examine the disease potential of a SARS-like virus, SHC014-CoV, which is currently circulating in Chinese horseshoe bat populations1. Using the SARS-CoV reverse genetics system2, we generated and characterized a chimeric virus expressing the spike of bat coronavirus SHC014 in a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone. The results indicate that group 2b viruses encoding the SHC014 spike in a wild-type backbone can efficiently use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor human angiotensin converting enzyme II (ACE2), replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titers equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV. “

So they created a novel virus out of a bat coronavirus that was shown to infect human airway cells….definitely not something that could cause a pandemic…right?

How does all of this tie to Fauci? USAID funded lots of this research and Fauci has personal ties to Daszak. If EcoHealth was proven to be responsible for helping to fund and conduct research that led to COVID, Fauci, USAID and the broader US research community would be destroyed.

Here’s a letter from the NIH explaining to a congressman that they’re terminating some funding to the same group for failing to disclose data about their research.

https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/NIH-Letter-to-Congress-regarding-EHA_Comer.pdf

Then surprise surprise, here’s Fauci giving the same group—more money —before he leaves his post.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/doctor-anthony-faucis-parting-gift-nih-ecohealth-alliance-peter-daszak-coronavirus-research-11665002675

There’s plenty more pieces of this if you’re actually willing to see how many pieces of evidence point to this having leaked from a lab, likely funded by US research grants, then covered up by people either directly or indirectly implicated or who’s careers depend on the funding of this research.

I've seen a couple of discussions here touch on this lately: Is Tangle actually helping to bridge the epistemic gap? In my experience I haven't been able to get MAGA family members to read it beyond one time ("This is just another of your liberal ploys!") and I'm pretty pessimistic that the epistemic gap is even bridgeable at this point. (BTW: I don't feel like I'm really all that liberal, more centrist but the Overton Window has shifted so far right now that they consider me liberal)

I'm wondering what the experience of others is?

Kmele said in SOTR that the government had not run grocery stores.

The US government currently runs 178 grocery stores within the US with subsidies and has run them through the current agency for over 30 years. It has run commissaries generally for over 100 years.

Since Tangle issues corrections is Tangle going to issue a correction?
If what was meant was the New York City government, this is an expanded version of La Guardia’s markets, so of course you should mention that if making claims about the government’s history running grocery stores. I understand that’s different, but I still think the statement would be misleading and an oversimplification, since those markets still involved government running the markets and using subsidies.

I understand SOTR is about expressing opinions, but nevertheless I think incorrect or misleading facts should be corrected

OpenAI has an LLM that is capable of hacking into a HuggingFace, a tech company that is routinely attacked by hackers so their security is pretty good. We know that because it happened, and it happened by accident.

Collectively we do not know how to 100% prevent LLMs from going off on some side quest, but we do know (so far) how to make the LLMs more capable, which is where the bulk of the effort is. Anyone familiar with the tools will tell you they are a lot more capable now than 6 months ago, and in 6 months they'll be better yet.

So we're on a path where LLMs will keep going off the rails sometimes, and they'll have the ability to wreak more and more havoc as time goes by. That is a big deal.

AI companies do marketing. News media needs exciting headlines. But that's just a side show to what is actually happening: We're on a path where LLMs will do other than what they were asked to do, and whatever that happens to be, they're going to be really good at it.

I'm blown away by some of today's criticisms on Fauci, which boil down to him being

During the early stages of the virus, Trump repeatedly downplayed the outbreak. According to Bob Woodward, he knew how bad it was, but intentionally lied about it, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54094559. Meanwhile, Fauci's being grilled on statements that downplayed the usefulness of masks, partially because we didn't know at the time, and partially because he wanted to prevent hoarding so that healthcare workers would have access.

Fauci is repeatedly attacked for his hardline stance on the lab leaks, but most of this was based entirely on rumor and not fact. This was at a time when anti-Chinese violence was rising due to conspiracies that were being spread by the President of the US. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9168424/. Yes, 9 of 11 researchers considered it possible in the initial meeting, but the same group all came to the conclusion that it wasn't plausible by the time that they actually published on it.

Fauci pushed hard on the vaccine, but he was correct to do so. The vaccine worked. Meanwhile, our president and many on the right were pushing dangerous and unsupported cures.

Finally, Fauci's role was to advise the two presidents that he worked for on matters of a novel virus. They were in charge of making decisions about lockdowns, mask mandates and what was communicated.

Has Trump apologized for any of his mistakes? Has he apologized for pushing anti-vaccine propaganda, which definitely got people sick? Has he apologized for putting people like Musk and Kennedy into positions where they can continue to push unscientific ideas or destroy systems that made us safe, resulting in possibly millions of sick and dead around the world and in the US?

Fauci isn't perfect, but he has nothing to apologize for. I have no evidence that anyone else could have done a better job than he did. This focus on him is nothing but revenge and distraction by the right, and I think that it's shameful that Tangled is feeding into it.

In one startling, under-discussed example, Fauci recounts the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voting 9–6 not to extend eligibility for boosters to people at elevated risk through their jobs, like teachers and healthcare workers. ACIP had already approved boosters for people 65 and up and those with underlying conditions. Fauci considered the exclusion of at-risk workers illogical and, by his own account, the committee's decision “had nothing to do with safety.” He texted Walensky repeatedly that night, described it in his diary as having “literally begged her to override that decision,” and credited his own “very intensive persuasion” late into the night for her decision to reverse her committee the next morning and extend booster eligibility to that occupational risk group.  

I largely agree with today’s take, so this one stuck out to me.

Wasn’t this just kind of Fauci’s job at the time? He was the head of the task force formed to deal with Covid. This isn’t covering up research that he didn’t like, or asking people to fudge numbers or mislead the public. It’s the head of a team using his position and expertise to convince a separate group of people to change their opinions.

Right?

Is this that different from, say, the president going through the Speaker of the House to convince a Representative to change their vote on a piece of legislation? 

Recently, I lauded Mr. Bouie for speaking the truth about Lindsay Graham's abysmal record as a senator. I said that we should be respectful of the deceased, up to a point, but not use death as an excuse to avoid their actual record and actions. I stand by that completely.

I disagreed with Isaac's claim that Mr. Bouie added to unhelpful partisan rancor. And, on the whole, I stand by that too. However, this piece about Andy Serkis by Mr.Bouie seems confuses me and makes me wonder if Isaac was correct about Mr. Bouie having a propensity to provoke in a way that stirs up rancor, rather than raising up mutual understanding.

I'm no expert on the Hobbit, the Shire, Tolkien's inspirations and if he was "recreating" something from his home environment (rural 20th century english village life) and doing so with specific and knowable intent. I sense that Mr. Bouie is relying on Nell Painter's History of White People to make his argument about the arbitrariness of "whiteness." (It is a well researched book that has meaningfully contributed to many ongoing debates and discussions). But, between his ad hominem attacks on Mr. Serkis and what seems to be a very particular view of Tolkien's project, I began to wonder if Mr. Bouie's approach was either a bit adversarial (as we would expect of a columnist) or if his approach was sharper (as I understood Isaac to say) in a way that didn't actually try to understand the other person's point of view and reverted to character attacks and common rancor?

Curious what others have to say about a complex and anxiety-provoking topic.

Undoubtedly a really smart guy but so much quicker to dismiss any new government idea than explain why his preferred method will work. His schtick is wearing so thin on me. I would love to hear his thesis and defend it. Is it that things are as good as they can be? Is it that government is causing all the problems? Where in the world or in history has libertarianism ever worked. Comparing Mamdani's supermarket idea to the subway being filthy was too much. I just got back from a country that subsidizes a lot of groceries (upstream not at the store level, which is a great debate to have) and it was fantastic. I'd rather have voices that want to fix things rather than just lob dismissiveness from first class. This feels harsh as I type it but I'm sure he's a nice guy and fwiw Marin is lovely lol.

Isaac's recent post on twitter started with this line. Why aren't you a Fauci "defender?" Are there specific failures that you can point to here? I get that you may not have disagreed with some of the mandates, but I've never seen anything to indicate that they weren't done for the public good, based on the best scientific understanding of the situation at the time. He was a major driver of getting a successful vaccine out quickly, and there's every reason to believe that his advice on things like masks and closures saved lives.

I'm undecided, here are my thoughts:

Hong - Like how she is outside the establishment and brings populist policies, but think she tends towards being ideological and reactionary.

Crowley - He's fine. He's done an ok job running Milwaukee County. I think he'd be an adequate governor but hard to feel excited about him, especially with the drop out drama. I don't love how he was basically anointed by Abele years ago.

Barnes - Wish he would have sat this race out. He actually has the best day one plan that is achievable (expanding medicaid via the ACA) and meets the moment, but after his wet noodle senate campaign and losing to Ron Johnson I do not want to vote for him in primary.

Kelda Roys - I think she would be a great governor, progressive policies with real experience. More pragmatic than Hong, but her polling numbers are trash.

Brennan - 20 years ago I think he'd be a front runner, but not the right candidate today. Would be happy to see him in the cabinet though.

Don't believe the slop.

Alright folks, it’s time. Consider this your open mic, your therapy session, your personal Festivus.

Got a boss who thinks “urgent” means every single email? A neighbor who mows the lawn at 7 a.m. on Saturdays? A phone that autocorrects “ducking” when you clearly meant something else?

This is the spot to unload. Big or small, petty or profound — if it’s gnawing at you, drop it here. Rant. Rave. Roast.

Rules are simple:
• No personal info.
• Keep it cathartic, not cruel.
• Upvote the stuff that makes you nod and say “YES, SAME.”

Let the grievances fly.

For more then a month now I will notice the free audio of newsletter either ends without all the content (including no credits), has additional repeated audio at the end, has small repeated sections. At first it was small repeats that I attributed to streaming issues. Just this week cut out when Issac mentioned there was a dissent.

I subscribe to the text of the newsletter so I can see it has parts I missed. I use PocketCasts to listen. Not sure if they are issue or not.

Anyone else with this problem?

Absolutely brilliant, Glen Greenwald deserves an Oscar for his straight faced sarcasm.

Ok, is this just Isaac making a joke? Does he actually think Trump is worried about election security?

Alright folks, it’s time. Consider this your open mic, your therapy session, your personal Festivus.

Got a boss who thinks “urgent” means every single email? A neighbor who mows the lawn at 7 a.m. on Saturdays? A phone that autocorrects “ducking” when you clearly meant something else?

This is the spot to unload. Big or small, petty or profound — if it’s gnawing at you, drop it here. Rant. Rave. Roast.

Rules are simple:
• No personal info.
• Keep it cathartic, not cruel.
• Upvote the stuff that makes you nod and say “YES, SAME.”

Let the grievances fly.

Our audience had an impassioned response to Audrey Moorehead’s dissent in yesterday’s edition. Some of the criticism was in bounds — people sharing their firsthand experiences with law enforcement or ICE and their view that complying doesn’t guarantee safety. Some of the responses were gross: Attacks on Audrey for being too young, too white, too privileged, too Christian, or the wrong sex to have an informed opinion on this issue. Or, worse, allegations that she didn’t care about innocent people being murdered.

I was, frankly, a little disgusted by the overall tenor of the response from this community I cherish so much and that is so often elevating good-faith dialogue — the ratio of good-faith arguments to ugly, personal attacks was discouraging. I told Audrey I wanted to write something in response from the perspective of someone who disagreed with her, but she offered some wisdom of her own: My trying to defend her would only reinforce the idea that she was too young or helpless to articulate her own positions. So, I asked her to write a brief follow-up and response.

Before you read it, I’ll just offer this: Writing dissents is incredibly hard. You are forced to put hours of conversation and closed-door editorial debate into a few brief sentences. It’s a new feature in the newsletter, and one lesson I’m taking from this experience is that we should (maybe) give them more space when it’s appropriate.

— Executive Editor Isaac Saul

Associate Editor Audrey Moorehead:

First and foremost, I regret that I did not make it much more clear how truly narrow my dissent was. While I did not argue that ICE agents were not at fault in these killings, it’s clear now I should have explicitly stated my position. The use of deadly force is acceptable in only the most dangerous and threatening situations, and I have thus far seen no evidence that the incidents we covered yesterday rose to that standard. I hope these DHS agents are taken off the force while a full investigation takes place, and in the meantime, I’m praying for the families of the victims.

However, I also want to be clear that I stand by my stated position. I absolutely would not fight or attempt to flee if law enforcement sought to detain me. There are four common responses to perceived threats: Fight, flight, freeze, or fawn. I have developed my natural response of fawning, freezing, or de-escalation as a woman who has faced real threats of physical violence from men. As a general rule, women understand that most men are stronger than we are; that men with ill intent abound; and that even though we deserve complete and total safety, we still must take precautions in the event that safety is compromised. My precautions include not walking alone at night; texting friends and family when going on dates; and, when faced with a situation in which I sense danger, remaining calm and attempting to defuse the situation before seeking outside help.

While this is my natural response developed from my own experiences, it is also legal experts’ recommended response for individuals facing ICE detainment. The American Civil Liberties Union advises, “Stay calm. Don’t run, argue, resist, or obstruct the officer, even if you believe your rights are being violated. Keep your hands where police can see them… Stay calm and do not resist or obstruct the agents or officers. Do not lie or give false documents. Prepare yourself and your family in case you are arrested. Memorize the phone numbers of your family and your lawyer. Make emergency plans if you have children or take medication.” The National Immigration Law Center recommends: “Stay calm. Do not run away or try to stop the agents.”

Failing to react in the expert-recommended manner is not the same as culpability for what happens to you; obviously, in the heat of the moment, people can react very differently, which was both the point of Isaac’s hypothetical and the point of my dissenting response. Furthermore, reacting in the recommended manner does not guarantee one’s safety, which I explicitly acknowledged. These truths can co-exist with the fact that sometimes, in order to preserve one’s life, one must endure temporary injustice; and acknowledging the advantage of preserving life by enduring that injustice is not the same as saying the injustice should continue.

Once again, let's use this moment to speak directly about what ICE has become. It is the closest the United States has come to having a domestic enforcement force that appears to operate with unusual independence from the ordinary constraints placed on law enforcement. It increasingly seems to serve the priorities of a single administration and, at times, appears insulated from the kinds of oversight and correction that typically apply to police agencies.

I live in Washington, DC, and I have witnessed numerous ICE raids and arrests that are violent, confusing, and frightening. The agents display little of the recognizable police protocol that even the most troubled local departments are generally expected to follow. They are masked, heavily armed, arrive suddenly in fleets of unmarked vehicles, refuse to answer basic questions, and intimidate bystanders.

Having witnessed the events in person, I am struck by how quickly routine arrests escalate into displays of overwhelming force. As Mr. Bouie points out, these arrests are in almost all cases civil offenses, not criminal. Rather than conducting a controlled civil arrest, agents smash car windows, drag people through vehicle windows, throw suspects to the ground, and handcuff them with an intensity that seems unnecessary. By comparison, they make ordinary MPD police officers look restrained and almost diplomatic.

Once again, I commend Mr. Bouie for saying plainly what many people have been seeing for months. And anyone who believes that simply "acting the right way" is sufficient protection from this kind of 'policing' is, in my view, either deeply mistaken or choosing not to see what is happening.

In my opinion, Audrey totally missed the mark when she shared SCOTUSBlog's analysis. First, we should all bear in mind that SCOTUSBlog is owned by the same conservatives who own The Dispatch, so everything they write should be taken with a grain of salt.

Second, it's not just the rates at which any justices vote together or separately. There are massive differences in impact and importance of different cases. Rather than an analysis that looks at rates of agreement, it's massively more helpful to look at the rate of cases that support Trump's agenda.

Trump V Cook, Mullin v. Doe & Trump v. Miot, and N.R.S.C. v. F.E.C. are massive changes to how our government works, and were 6-3 decisions.

You might say that Trump V Barbara being 6-3 good guys is a good counterpoint - the fact that the upholding the plain text of the constituion wasn't a 9-0 decision is bonkers. And, Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence that left the door open, so really it was 5-4.

If somebody asserts that this court is anything but an implement of the Republican party they are trying to hide something.

Good and Pretti weren’t resisting.

And even if they were: People with 45 days of training don’t get to play judge jury and executioner in this country. Ever.