there needs to be a rating method for how many times those in the commentariat actually get things right. people who act like authorities and yet… their track record is just so wrong.
there would be something to writing in a way that’s thought provoking without claiming that correctness - though i have yet to see many pundits try that tact
WTF? The Arab Springs were bottom-up (real) populist movements. Even sweeping reforms (ha, as if!) from the top would be something completely different.
At best, using that term is sloppy and lazy.
I’m sorry, did someone say “Thomas Friedman”?
Thirty years late; trillion dollars short.
From an organization DEI presentation, great stuff.
Mysterious indeed.
This bot is an amazing public service, because you can watch the dissembly in real time. The start of the thread:
And the end:
With a whole lot of bullshit in between.
Missed it by that much!
Weren’t the vaccines already near enought to phase two when they wrote that? The BionTech was initially formulated a couple of weeks after the gene was sequences. So beginning of March I think.
At this time last year we were looking at autumn this year as a return to normal for the rich North.
Kirk: “Scotty, how long to create a vaccine to counter this Klingon virus?”
Scott: “I can have something ready for ye in 13 years.”
Kirk: “You have 13 months.”
The table lists several vaccines candidates:
Right, now, the choices in the US are
and in other countries, a few otherss are avaialable. What happened to the rest?
(also, I just read the patient information for the dose of vaccine I’m reciving tomorrow:
WHAT IS THE PFIZER-BIONTECH COVID-19 VACCINE?
The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is an unapproved vaccine that may prevent COVID-19. There is no FDA-approved vaccine to prevent COVID-19.
The ten year timeframe is for an FDA approved vaccine.
The visual shows the distribution of a vaccine as November 2033 under normal circumstances. Since it’s an interactive visual you are able to manipulate all the shortcuts, and yet it still predicts 2024 as the earliest possible year for distribution.
(I think the Times believed, like most of us, that the Orange one would screw this up.)
Weird, it looks like they took down the article. I wonder why??? /s
From the snippets included in the twitter thread you linked, it looked like garbage, and even calling it an “article” or an “essay” was quite a stretch. Does calling out questions and printing the answers, unfiltered and un-inspected or put into any context constitute an article? I would argue not.
This tweet shows a screen shot of the NYT defense where they call it a “story.”
Behind the wall, but still seems to be there:
/peeks through the wall… WTF?
/replaces brick, adds more cement.
