Every single person in the Biden administration who concealed that the President was unable to discharge his duties should be expelled from the party. (I know there's not really an expulsion mechanism; figure one out). They should never work in Democratic politics again.
The party will not consider for Presidential or Vice Presidential nominees any candidate from a state that is shrinking. If the people voted with their feet against your rule, then fix your own shit before you seek national office. We can call this the Go Away Gavin rule.
Every part of every American city should pass the toddler test: you feel safe walking through it with two toddlers who will try to eat cigarette butts and needles if there are any around to be eaten. If you have to use the subway, the elevators work and fit the stroller.
Americans disagree, profoundly, on all kinds of things, for which we have the marvelous social technologies of freedom, federalism, and minding your own fucking business. No bullying Masterwork Cake Shop, no Presidential intervention on city congestion pricing, cut it out.
We should make acquiring ID documents free and incredibly easy and straightforward and then impose voter ID laws, paper ballots and ballot security improvements along with an expansion of polling places so everyone participates but we lay the 'was it a fair election' qs to rest.
Schools should offer students the opportunity to excel; our falling test scores should be a halt and catch fire moment; middle schools should offer algebra; every kid should be taught to read by 2nd grade. Tracking is good. Dangerous or out of control classrooms are unacceptable.
End the imperial presidency. Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of expanding the president's remit when in power and then being upset when out of power. Grow an ounce of foresight. Only Congress should set tariffs. The president should not have a line item veto of $$.
If you want to be a technocracy, you have to be a technocracy with accountability. When you fuck up, you cannot just brush it under the table. If you want to be the party of scientists, you have to hold science to high standards. Make intentional faking of scientific data a crime
Every government process that a normal person might have to interact with, including permitting, licensing, zoning, applying for benefits, and paying taxes, must pass the grandma test: you can explain it to a grandma on the phone and she can do it in under 30 minutes.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
PEPFAR is one of the most popular, bipartisan US foreign aid programs. The State Department says it has saved 25million lives, but there isn't much public, independent verification. Last week I invited some friends to a weekend hackatjon to see if PEPFAR's numbers held up.
What we found was that, yeah, there's a pretty strong case for PEPFAR. Even using conservative assumptions and ignoring many of its positive impacts, our best guess is that the program indeed saved 19million lives by 2018.
We also got an appreciation for why PEPFAR is considered such a star program. Real funding for PEPFAR has been decreasing since 2009, but the program has been doing more over time, because costs have been in freefall. When it started each patient cost $1000/month. Now? $5/mo.
Going to get this in before the SB 1047 decision is made, so that it doesn't just come across as commentary on the decision: this was the California legislative process I've reported on most closely and it actually made me feel notably more proud of California democracy.
The state politicians I talked to all seemed pretty smart, they'd talked to a lot of different people and could articulate several different perspectives, they did a good job of having their eye on the ball and seeing what the most important questions and disagreements were.
There was a fairly astonishing amount of mudslinging and lying but no one I talked to in state politics was really all that fooled by it. I got the sense that lying worked as a strategy less well than I would cynically have predicted.
A bunch of people learned about Don Poldermans' use of fictitious data in the DECREASE trial series that informed European surgical guidelines from my newsletter last Friday. I got a bunch of questions, in particular about the estimated fatalities (🧵)
And I wanted to talk a bit more baout whether Poldermans really killed 800,000 people. Here's what I wrote in the newsletter:
The 800,000 number comes from cardiologists Graham Cole and Darrel Francis, who are also two of the authors of the meta-analysis that found a 27% increase in deaths if beta-blockers are given before surgery.
Okay I'm sorry but I absolutely despise the 'elite hypocrisy' line here. No society has ever done more than ours to require poor people to live like the elite do, and this is often really bad for them. We ban cheap housing because it's better for people to live in nicer housing.
We ban (as child neglect, for which the punishment is stochastic 'never seeing your child again') having your upper elementary school aged children walk home from school, let themselves in, and work on their homework until their parents get home. Hire a babysitter!
We waste enormous amounts of money and state power making sure everyone's hairdressers are regulated and their daycare workers all have college degrees. Why? The elites send their kids to fancy preschools, and so they consider it a matter of justice to ban any other kind.
I think "there was a deal and it has broken down" is an incredibly powerful and pervasive sentiment in tech, not just among Trump supporters but among committed and sincere liberals too.
What was the deal? Hard to pin down exactly but something like - we will build ambitious things and pay high taxes and donate lots of money and mostly not play politics and you will treat us as valued pillars of our community, make our cities livable, stay mostly out of the way.
The abrupt tilt towards intensely negative coverage of tech felt like a breakdown of the deal. The attacks on tech shuttle buses? Breakdown of the deal. The state of San Francisco? Breakdown of the deal.
I was surprised by this, as the last official count I'd heard was around 35,000, so I clicked through to see what happened. What happened is that they argue that for every direct death in conflict there are often > 4 indirect deaths. So they multiplied the death toll by 4.
I am worried this is not a very good methodology for estimating civilian deaths in Gaza. I had some trouble figuring out what they're citing for the rate of direct to indirect deaths in conflict zones, because the Lancet editorial links an unrelated UN pdf about the drug trade..
...which contains no mentions of conflict death, armed conflict, direct or indirect deaths in conflict zones, or other search words I tried. But my understanding is that it's broadly true that far more people die of disease and famine in conflict zones than die of being shot.