Do you think this is partly every company now trying to get in on grifting? Just pumping stock with "we're going to mars, we'll have AGI, cold fusion is almost here" kind of stuff?
It's unreal how people think tech leaders are geniuses when they keep doing this stuff. Oops we overhired but I take "100% responsibility" however the staff will take 100% of the punishment by being laid off. All while spending $32 billion on legless VR worlds that nobody wants or driving social media giants into the ground. It's Gell-Mann amnesia. Remember how dumb their last decisions were, by their own admission.
They were called out on this for not living up to their "data driven culture" when they went to 3 days back and the response was basically "Uh well... Eat shit I guess."
It's now been years and they still haven't said what it hauls. Just that cargo and semi combined are at the limit for gross vehicle weight. Should be very easy to say the semi weighs X and it hauls Y.
That they're not saying it after years is really suspicious. Give us all the numbers.
> unless you want to blame the judges Trump appointed.
I mean, yes. That was the point of Mitch McConnell withholding Obama's SCOTUS seat nomination because it was too close to the end of his term, only to ram through Trump's pick in record time when RBG died. This was the plan, to get the court.
"Under Biden" is completely disingenuous, the cases were not brought by the Biden administration, and were ruled on largely by Trump and Bush appointees.
That could easily be a Mitch McConnell problem though. The president's job in that case is to make an appointment, Congress's job is to review and approve those in a timely manner. People may not like who Trump appointed, I don't personally know enough about them beyond news articles to have a strong opinion, but Mitch is the one who held up the appointment for nearly a year if I remember right.
> "Under Biden" is completely disingenuous, the cases were not brought by the Biden administration, and were ruled on largely by Trump and Bush appointees.
I don't think it's any less disingenuous than blaming it on whomever appointed the judges. Blame the judges if you want, but now you want to pull in Bush as though he would have known so long ago thdt Roe would finally get challenged and that Congress would continue to sit on its hands rather than codify Roe into law?
The White House is often quick to take credit for anything they like that comes out of the supreme court on their watch. Shouldn't they then also get blamed for what they don't like that happens under their watch? Or do they get the good without the bad?
The president is supposed to govern for all Americans. In the past, the Democrats have appointed what many would call centrists. Merrick Garland for example, is not a left winger, and that would have been Obama's choice. The GOP has made no secret of stacking the courts with judges who are strict originalists when it suits them, and nakedly ideological when it doesn't.
Overturning Roe has been the GOP goal for a long time. Their plan involved capturing SCOTUS and they pulled it off. You could blame the GOP and also the system at it is being set up for abuse, but Roe and Chevron specifically were GOP end goals. GOP judges and private citizens or corporations bringing cases (sometimes hypothetical cases now!) to SCOTUS.
One this is for certain, saying "under Biden" and assigning him blame is disingenuous.
I am not aware of the White House claiming credit for SCOTUS decisions, but they do praise them if they agree with it. Media and others may erroneously assign credit but that's a different problem. At any rate, what other people do has no bearing on the truth of the matter and does not justify assigning blame.
> The president is supposed to govern for all Americans.
What does that really mean in practice though? A president could never goverm in a way that helps everyone. Any intervention will help some and hurt others. At best a President is going to frequently make decisions that serves the best interests of most Americans. That's a judgement call though, and is very hard to every really score.
> Overturning Roe has been the GOP goal for a long time.
I don't disagree here at all. The flip side of the coin, though, is that Roe was never law and was only legal precedent. The Republicans may have succeeded at a goal of overturning Roe, but the Democrats also failed to codify abortion rights into law.
Case law is fragile, Roe and Chevron are great examples. Anyone seeing a single court ruling as a victory and failing to build on that to pass bills solidifying the ruling into law need to realize that it only takes one court ruling to undo it.
Legislators need to legislate. Let's just say the RNC finally succeeded in a decades long effort to strike down Roe by packing the bench. Isn't the real failure there in Congress, who failed miserably at actually legislating when so many Americans agreed with some level of protections for abortion rights?
Everyone is up in arms about the Gemini image generator, forgetting that it is not a search engine. It is generative AI, creating something new and random, every time. It is generally an input to a creative endeavor, not basic research. Unfortunately if you really want to know what a Viking looked like you're going to have to do some actual research. It's wild to me that people expect something that can generate an image of a penguin roller-skating on a loaf of bread shredding on a guitar to generate a historically accurate image of a Viking or whatever. These two problems are very different.
The text interface, also not a search engine. And it is definitely not a *truth engine*, which is what people like Musk expect Grok to be. It's not capable of that level of reason or understanding.
Other commenters have brought up that asking it any type of question like is X worse than Hitler, whether that X is Biden or Trump or anybody else, it's going to respond "it's hard to say." It's being tuned to not pass value judgements at all, because that is not what LLMs are for. It's never going to be your truth engine.
If you think these things are thinking, or that they have values, you've been duped.
As a side note, I think all the big companies are making the same mistake of trying to get a generalized model for all queries, or with the layer that directs them to a specific tuned model. I want sharp detail and lack of hallucinations when it generates code. I want it loose when I'm generating creative text. But in no case to do I want it to talk to me about values.
Like I said, try asking it if various historical figures are worse than Hitler. It is instructed not to judge.
BTW, here's ChatGPT on Hitler vs Musk.
> Who had a more negative impact, Elon Musk or Adolf Hitler?
Comparing Elon Musk and Adolf Hitler in terms of their impact is challenging due to the vast differences in their actions, intentions, and historical contexts...
The key complication is "once you've opened the door, you may no longer touch a switch." It gets this. There are many examples of it written out on the web. When I give it a variation and say "you can open the door to look at the bulbs and use the switches all you want" and it is absolutely unable to understand this. To a human it's simple: look at the bulbs and flick the switches. It kept giving me answers about using a special lens to examine the bulbs, using something to detect heat. I explained it in many ways and tried several times. I was paying for GPT-4 at the time as well.
I would not consider this thinking. It's unable to make this simple abstraction from its training data. I think 4 looks better than 3 simply because it's got more data, but we're reaching diminishing returns on that, as has been stated.
GPT-4 on platform.openai.com says this on the first try:
Switch on the first switch and leave it on for a few minutes. Then, switch it off and switch on the second switch. Leave the third switch off. Now, walk into the room.
The bulb that is on corresponds to the second switch. The bulb that is off and still warm corresponds to the first switch because it had time to heat up. The bulb that is off and cool corresponds to the third switch, the one you never turned on.
GPT-4-0314:
1. Turn on the first switch and leave it on for about 5 minutes.
2. After 5 minutes, turn off the first switch and turn on the second switch.
3. Open the door and enter the room.
Now observe the lights:
- The bulb that is on is connected to the second switch (which is currently on).
- The bulb that is off but warm to the touch is connected to the first switch (it was on long enough to heat up the bulb).
- The bulb that is off and cool to the touch is connected to the third switch (it was never turned on).
----
But– It's also trained on the internet. GPT-4 paper 'sparks of AGI' had a logical puzzle it most likely never encountered in the training data that it could solve.
Also– I encourage you to ask these types of logical puzzles on the street to rando's. They're not easy to solve.
My question to you would be: What would convince you that it actually can 'think' logically?
I think your comment misunderstands the comment you're responding to.
The point is that while LLMs can solve the puzzle when the constraints are unchanged -- as you said, there are loads of examples of people asking and answering variations of this puzzle on the internet -- but when you change the constraints slightly ("you can open the door to look at the bulbs and use the switches all you want") it is unable to break out of the mold and keeps giving complicated answers, while a human would understand that under the new constraints, you could simply flip each switch and observe the changes in turn.
A similar example that language models used to get stuck on is this: "Which is heavier, a pound of feathers or two pounds of bricks?"
"Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here. However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.
More scientific data could swing the balance of evidence to favor one hypothesis over another."
Pretty standard scientific writing. I think the lesson is don't trust journalists and the general public to not blow what you're saying out of proportion and assign it more certainty than you intended.
Lab leak is possible, sure. But keep in mind every horrible disease humanity has faced up until the early part of the 20th century came about before microbiology labs even existed. Historically, a zoonitic origin is extremely likely.
Imagine if polio or smallpox or leprosy popped up today, you'd have every Joe internet theorizing how it came from a lab in whatever country it appeared in first. I guess back in the day they used to say it was punishment from God. The Spanish flu, God out there smiting the Spaniards.
> Historically, there have been far, far more documented lab leaks of SARS-CoV than there have been animal-human jumps
No. First of all, there were many jumps of SARS from animals into humans, over a period of months in which the markets containing infected animals were open. Second, while there were a few leaks of SARS-CoV after it had been discovered and was being grown in large quantities (these leaks were recognized immediately, too), there is no precedent for a previously unknown coronavirus leaking.
> It is very possible that the virus was both zoonotic in origin, and leaked from the lab.
Not really. If the virus is natural in origin (which is a certainty now) and completely unknown before the initial outbreak (also a virtual certainty now), the chance that it somehow entered a lab, unknown, and then exited again are basically zero, compared to the chance that it spilled over in any one of the many millions of daily interactions between humans and wild or farmed animals.
They were selling farmed wild animals that we know can carry SARS-CoV-2 at the Huanan market, and that's where the initial outbreak was centered. In contrast, there's zero evidence for a lab leak, and not for lack of searching. There's simply no evidence that anyone at the Wuhan Institute of Virology had or knew about this virus before the outbreak, and we have a very good idea of what the WIV was researching.
> First of all, there were many jumps of SARS from animals into humans, over a period of months in which the markets containing infected animals were open.
Can you point me to one or two cases you are talking about, please?
They may be referring to the study below [0]. This showed that several genetic variants (lineages) of SARS-CoV2 were identified in infected people associated with the market, indicating 1) that the virus was already circulating among people before the epidemic took off, and 2) that there was more than one transmission event.
Note that no comparable data associates SARS-CoV2 with the lab in Wuhan.
>we inferred separate introductions of SARS-CoV-2 lineages A and B into humans from likely infected animals at the Huanan market (38). We estimated the first COVID-19 case to have occurred in November 2019, with few human cases and hospitalizations occurring through mid-December. [...] the evidence presented here that lineage A, like lineage B, may have originated at the Huanan market and then spread from this epicenter into the neighborhoods surrounding the market and beyond.
>We show that SARS-CoV-2 genomic diversity before February 2020 likely comprised only two distinct viral lineages, denoted “A” and “B.” Phylodynamic rooting methods, coupled with epidemic simulations, reveal that these lineages were the result of at least two separate cross-species transmission events into humans. The first zoonotic transmission likely involved lineage B viruses around 18 November 2019 (23 October to 8 December), and the separate introduction of lineage A likely occurred within weeks of this event.
For the rec, comment I'm replying to highlights two simultaneously released papers that both include 4 of the 5 authors of the 2020 paper, Proximal Origins, that is in question by the Nate Silver piece that headlines this HN post. (The 5th author, Lipkin's "view has changed":
"The revelation that the WIV was working with SARS-like viruses in subpar safety conditions has led some people to reassess the chance that SARS-CoV-2 could have emerged from some type of laboratory incident. “That’s screwed up,” the Columbia University virologist Ian Lipkin, who coauthored the seminal paper arguing that covid must have had a natural origin, told the journalist Donald McNeil Jr. “It shouldn’t have happened. People should not be looking at bat viruses in BSL-2 labs. My view has changed.”
SARS repeatedly spilled over into humans during 2002-2003, until the markets were shut down and the infected animal populations were culled. A review on SARS [0] describes how many independent clusters of SARS popped up over a period of months, spread across different markets in the Pearl River Delta:
> Between November 2002 and February 2003, the first cases or clusters of SARS appeared in several independent geographic locations in the Pearl River Delta region in southern Guangdong, and suggested multiple introductions of a virus or similar viruses from a common source. Several of the early cases were reportedly associated with occupations that involved contact with wildlife, including handling, killing and selling wild animals as well as preparing and serving wildlife animal meat in restaurants (Xu et al. 2004). Moreover, a study of early SARS cases (i.e. those with disease onset prior to January 2003) compared to those identified later in the outbreak found that 39% of early-onset cases were food handlers, whereas only 2%–10% of cases between February and April 2003 were associated with this occupation.
The review goes on:
> It was observed that early cases of SARS occurred independently in at least five different well-separated municipalities in Guangdong Province. The study also found that early patients were more likely than later patients to report living near a produce market, but not near a farm, and nine of 23 (or 39%) early patients were food handlers with probable animal contact.
The review also discusses how many SARS spillover events were not recognized at the time:
> Several studies revealed a higher than normal seroprevalence of SARS-CoV antibodies among wild animal traders. Guan et al. (2003) found that eight of 20 (40%) wild animal traders sampled from a market in Shenzhen, Guandong, in 2004 had anti-SARS-CoV antibodies in comparison to 1 from 20 (5%) vegetable traders from the same market. Yu et al. (2003) analysed serum samples taken on May 4, 2003 from animal traders in three different live animal markets in Guangzhou. Out of 508 animal traders surveyed, 13% had antibodies to SARSCoV; 72% of traders of masked palm civets ( Paguma larvata ) were seropositive. Interestingly, none of the animal traders had SARS or atypical pneumonia diagnosed during the SARS outbreak in Guangdong, suggesting asymptomatic infection by SARS-CoV or a closely related SARS-like coronavirus.
SARS probably spilled over countless times into humans during 2002-2003, because there was a large population of farmed animals that had it, and very little was done to cut off the spillover source for months.
This is a key difference from SARS-CoV-2. This outbreak was detected much more quickly (because of China's experience with SARS), and the very first thing the authorities did was to close the Huanan market and crack down on farms that raise the types of animals that are most likely to be involved in the spillover.
There were countless spillover events for the original SARS. To this day, it's not known precisely how many SARS spillover events there were, because they were so numerous and tracing was so poor back then. In a different comment in this thread, I cited a review article that goes over the evidence for widespread spillover events of SARS in 2002-2003.[0]
The gist of it is that SARS popped up independently at numerous markets, dotted across the Pearl River Delta. SARS infection was very common among palm civet traders in the region (it's even possible that most of them became infected).
The lab leaks came later, after huge interest emerged in the new virus and it started to be cultured in large quantities in many labs. Those leaks were extremely rare compared to the spillover events, they were immediately detected, and they led to much stricter lab security practices. But the relative probability of a novel virus that nobody even knows they have initially leaking from a lab vs. spilling over from large animal populations that host the virus is basically nil.
You're mixing up animal > human transmission, and zoonotic events. They are not equivalent. Human SARS spike protein RBD could bind palm civet ACE2, but not vice versa. Palm civets (and other animals) could act as reservoirs for human SARS, (as well as non-human SARS, which contributed to the zoonotic event), but that's not the same as a new virus jumping species. It's more like getting rabies from a raccoon.
It's possible that the original SARS jumped 3 times total, based on the genetic evidence, but the later two we don't really know because of the hinam -> animal route. Still, with the number of laboratory acquired infections of SARS-CoV-2, it doesn't really tip the scales.
If rabies were a novel virus that had never infected humans before, you could make the comparison. SARS was a novel virus, which spilled over into humans in a very similar manner to SARS-CoV-2 (wild animal markets in a major Chinese city).
> It's possible that the original SARS jumped 3 times total, based on the genetic evidence
As the review I cited explains, the epidemiological and serological evidence makes clear that SARS independently jumped over to humans at many different locations, over the course of months.
> It's possible that the original SARS jumped 3 times total, based on the genetic evidence
You're saying animal -> human transmission of a human virus is equivalent to animal -> human transmission of a new virus. Those are two *extremely* different things. The palm civet SARS spike protein RBD did not gain the ability to bind human ACE2 many times. In fact, the evidence for that seems to only be a single time. The remaining two suggested origin events show mutation of the existing virus, followed be retransmission across species barriers.
Those are two completely different types of events.
> You're saying animal -> human transmission of a human virus is equivalent to animal -> human transmission of a new virus.
You're making up an entirely arbitrary distinction.
> The palm civet SARS spike protein RBD did not gain the ability to bind human ACE2 many times.
You have no idea if this is the case. Most of these small outbreaks were not analyzed in detail (or even known about until well after the fact). The evidence shows that the virus was able to jump from animals to humans numerous times, and possibly spread in small clusters.
No, they're two very different things, because one involves an adaptation. Once adapted, the rules of the game for cross-species transmission events are completely different.
Or do you maintain that a combination cross-species transmission and adaptation to the new host is as common as cross-species transmission of already-adapted viruses?
I see that you're trying to imply that SARS-CoV-2 was pre-adapted to humans, while SARS wasn't, so this is going in a conspiracy-theory direction.
I guess the Wuhan Institute of Virology also produced a special deer-adapted version which they released into the wilds of North America, and a mink-adapted version they released on farms in Denmark, and a hamster-adapted version, and a cat-adapted version, and on and on. Both SARS and SARS-CoV-2 have shown an ability to infect a range of different species.
You haven't made a coherent point yet. You're trying to draw a distinction between zoonosis and animal-to-human transmission. The former literally means the latter.
And then claiming that the numerous independent clusters of SARS that popped up in wild animal markets across the Pearl River Delta aren't examples of zoonosis?
There are numerous cornaviruses that infect humans as well as bats and birds, and have done so for thousands of years at least. Animal-to-human transfer of novel viruses is by far the most common cause of novel epidemics.
>Many human coronaviruses have their origin in bats.[75] The human coronavirus NL63 shared a common ancestor with a bat coronavirus (ARCoV.2) between 1190 and 1449 CE.[76] The human coronavirus 229E shared a common ancestor with a bat coronavirus (GhanaGrp1 Bt CoV) between 1686 and 1800 CE.
My point is that we don't have any documented anything for the first couple hundred thousand of years of humanity's existence, and we encountered the most horrific viral and bacterial infections, many of which caused unthinkable mass deaths. They were so awful we attributed them to God(s) as punishment for our bad behavior. None of them have documented microbiological origins. Some would have some from spontaneous mutation in humans and many would have come from animals. They are de facto not lab leaks, so the fact that we have some lab leaks documented in the last few decades isn't really convincing. There is nothing there that makes a zoonotic origin less likely.
Here's a scientist who said we couldn't dismiss the lab leak, and asked for more research, which he did.
The early cases are clustered around the market. I know the market and the lab are "close" on a global scale, but the details matter. They are 30km apart, about a 45 minute drive in traffic. Looks about as clear as John Snow's map of cholera outbreaks in London.
That article is from 2021, but he stands by it in 2023:
"What is the chance that a big Chinese city like Wuhan would have a lab doing the kind of research that has come under suspicion? The answer is, the vast majority of the biggest cities in China have labs involved in such research. If COVID had emerged in, say, Beijing, there would be no fewer than four such labs facing suspicion."
Edit:
2 things.
It's important to rule out that the idea that this could only be engineered, which would imply a definite lab origin. That is why engineered viruses come up. A non-lab leak is certainly plausible, and a lab leak is not ruled out.
There are labs all over China, there are markets all over China. The overlap of cities having both is significant. Viruses appear in larger, denser population centers. The "next thing" was very likely to appear in a city with a lab. The thing is, it's not very close to the lab. There's a large cluster around the market.
Lab theory doesn't have much going for it. It's not actually that close to the epicenter. There are labs everywhere. SARS is widely studies.
Sure some viruses have long incubation periods, but that would show as far less of a tight cluster around the market. Your hypothesis seems to be that it spread from lab distantly because of incubation time, then stopped spreading distantly once it reached the market? That does not make sense.
>Your hypothesis seems to be that it spread from lab distantly because of incubation time, then stopped spreading distantly once it reached the market? That does not make sense.
It's not my hypothesis, I'm just pointing out the evidence is circumstantial and the language used by virologists is precisely engineered to lump together strong evidence that proves one thing (that the virus was zoonotic in origin) with weak evidence they want to claim proves another thing (that it couldn't have been a lab leak). It's dishonest language and it drives me nuts, because people aren't sheep or idiots, can find the inconsistencies, and will further have their trust in institutions eroded.
This whole debacle reeks even more when you look at the timeline. These claims were coming out before even that circumstantial evidence was available, when this really truly was just a best guess because it's how we think the last SARS operated.
My personal opinion is that:
1) We'll never have any better evidence than what we have now (so we'll never have any good evidence, short of the Chinese govt being hacked)
2) It doesn't really matter because both are plausible and so our safety models should include both
3) The thing of real importance here isn't what is being debated, but rather how the debate itself was performed, and what it says about authority, institutions, honesty, and elitism in the scientific community.
> 3) The thing of real importance here isn't what is being debated, but rather how the debate itself was performed, and what it says about authority, institutions, honesty, and elitism in the scientific community.
This! This is the point of Silver's piece. Whether or not the virus escaped a Wuhan lab, the summary dismissal of the hypothesis as an conspiracy of cranks, without engaging on the facts, _reinforces the legitimacy of crank-fueled conspiracies_.
I'm being very precise to avoid conflating lab leak and natural origin. There is a possibility those are the same thing. The virus could have been discovered in nature, brought to a lab, and leaked. I personally find this whole debate pretty boring, but it really worries me how frequently people mix this up. These two things are not exclusive. Argument in favor of one does not invalidate the other.
Re: a few specific points.
>The early cases are clustered around the market. I know the market and the lab are "close" on a global scale, but the details matter. They are 30km apart, about a 45 minute drive in traffic. Looks about as clear as John Snow's map of cholera outbreaks in London.
This is a bit of a trap. From that article:
>What about cases near the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which is more than 10 miles from the market? "There are no cases around the WIV," Worobey says. "If the outbreak did start in the lab, the bottom line is, it would be odd for it not to be spreading from there rather than from elsewhere."
The thing here to consider is that, lets say someone gets an accidental exposure. There's an incubation period, in which you are not shedding. Then you move around. Epidemiological data only shows where the first human-to-human transmission happened, not where the animal-human jump happened. Since you aren't immediately infectious after contracting the virus.
Re:
>"What is the chance that a big Chinese city like Wuhan would have a lab doing the kind of research that has come under suspicion? The answer is, the vast majority of the biggest cities in China have labs involved in such research. If COVID had emerged in, say, Beijing, there would be no fewer than four such labs facing suspicion."
SARS-CoV (the original) notoriously escaped a Beijing lab, not once, but twice.
SARS-CoV also has the added advantage of being much easier to track, because the symptoms are so severe. With SARS-CoV-2, the symptoms are so mild, it's unlikely most people would think it was anything but a cold. Whether someone that worked at a virology institute would think that is a matter of some debate, but people have died from laboratory exposures before because they thought they had a benign illness, so it certainly has happened.
The problem is, people aren't having a genuine discussion. The communication goes something like this: someone says something about lab leak, and gets shut down by saying "the science says animal origin was more likely". The scientists are saying "the data says this was likely an animal to human transmission". But if you dig in on either of those points, things get shakier and shakier. The data that the virus evolved in animals, strong. The data that the virus evolved in any one specific species - less strong. The data that the virus evolved in an animal species that was in the wet market, even weaker. The data that the virus evolved in an animal species at the wet market, and then jumped from animals to humans at the wet market? Basically non-existent - circumstantial at best.
The only piece of data in that tree that would directly contradict the lab leak hypothesis is that last little bit of data. But it all gets wrapped up and packaged into the wordplay of "the data says the virus jumped to humans from animals", probably unintentionally by some, intentionally by others. The wet market hypothesis began because SARS had been found to transfer at a wet market in the past. But, that data has never been super convincing to begin with (this type of data never is, it was a full year after SARS-CoV 1 that antibodies were detected in civets), and there was no direct evidence of the wet market with SARS-CoV-2, so the hypothesis started out as pattern matching with an n=1 (SARS-CoV the original). Whereas, pattern matching with n=4 (or more) for lab leak works just as well.
Also frustrating is that not being able prove one hypothesis doesn't de facto validate the other. The hypotheses aren't even totally orthogonal! Only in very specific cases are they orthogonal, and those cases contain the weakest evidence of all the evidence in all categories.
The featured article is talking more about the conversation, and the nuances of the conversation, than it is the absolute truth of the matter. There will never be an answer, other than that "both are possible".
Re: the "spirit" of your point, if you will, which I interpret at something like "there are many more species than just humans, therefore most viruses evolve in other species and jump to humans", I certainly agree, but then we went and tipped the scales pretty badly by rounding up these viruses and putting them in close proximity to humans. And while we've been recording data, there have been far more lab leaks than there have been zoonotic events. So that argues that in the 20th and 21st centuries, we have, artificially, changed that calculation.
>The Democrats are generally pushing for the same policies as the Republicans, except in matters that split their bases; we're still living in Reagan's world.
I don't think this is true anymore. See what Lina Khan was appointed to do and is doing with the FTC. It's the first step in a long road of undoing decades of Reaganism.
I'm curious how this view works out when trouble comes up. If you have a friend going through a rough time for a few months or years, do you just say I'm not going to get caught up in the sunk cost fallacy and cut ties? Even when I've had friends with difficult times and we spend less time together. I still feel for them and my heart hurts, even if I can't be around them as much to protect myself if they're spiralling.
Similarly what would you do if a friend was dying? Sorry I just don't see the ROI here, don't think I can get much out of your last few months?
