CDC data are disappearing
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
> (d) With respect to information dissemination, each agency shall— (3) provide adequate notice when initiating, substantially modifying, or terminating significant information dissemination products; (4) not, except where specifically authorized by statute— (A) establish an exclusive, restricted, or other distribution arrangement that interferes with timely and equitable availability of public information to the public; (B) restrict or regulate the use, resale, or redissemination of public information by the public
If these datasets were actually permanently deleted then the incident should be investigated by NARA [1]. The people responsible could be charged with a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 2071: > (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
1. https://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/resources/unauthorized...
Assuming there is going to be a next one which isn’t wholly aligned with the current one. That’s far from a given.
In practice, the State AG's are one of the most respectable powers to sue for a federal law being broken, which would then go to federal court. Ideally the SCOTUS would step in itself and injunction all this stuff so it doesn't get to this point, but Trump sure is working them overtime.
If you go after any of the underlings who executed such order, they are likely getting auto-pardonned by Trump if he gave the order (otherwise it will make it harder to find people to execute his "illegal" orders next). There is no such thing as illegal for this administration. Wake up.
The US really needs to reign in the pardoning power. There are 3 areas in particular that need coverage (I'll cover pardons by the President, but the same might apply to Governors):
1) Most pardons come with a political cost, either for the president himself or his party. The main exception is just after an election, especially during the President's last term. This could be solved by outlawing pardons during the last 6 months of a term. At minimum, morally questionable pardons should come with such a cost.
2) All pardons should specificy specifically what actions and potential crimes they apply to. They do not specifically need to be admission of guilt (as they may be for gray zone behavior that could need protection against political prosecution by the next administration), but they do need to specify what actions or allegations they apply to.
3) Congress' ability to specifically contest pardons should be clarified. Specifically, congress should have the ability to contest a pardon, if the pardon is made from personal interest, seriously undermines the rule of law or national security.
Also, since the sitting president's party may controll the Speaker seat at the time, even the NEXT congress should have a chance to start proceedings. This requires that congress retains the right to do this even if the sitting president resigns before the term ends. (Since the new congress starts before the president's normal term ends).
Taken together, the above 3 points would ensure that IF a president is seen by the general public to abuse the pardon power, voters would get one chance at voting for representatives (and senators) that promise to "restore justice".
The time to introduce such a system would be now, while there's still outrage over Biden's pardons among Republicans. Democrats would also want to go along with this to prevent Trump from abusing the power in similar (or worse) ways near the end of his term. In fact, if they're sufficiently scared of this, they may even allow an opening to impeach Biden for potentially corrupt pardon's that were granted during the last weeks of his term.
This would allow Republicans to go after Fauci, Hunter, etc, in congress by impeaching Biden over those pardons, even now, even if they wouldn't actually be able to reach a guilty verdict in the Senate without significant Democrat support.
Still, being able to run this show may be so tempting to Trump and Republicans that they may be willing to make the new law effective immediately, while Democrats
I don't think even his packed SCOTUS would appreciate Trump overturning their judgment by pardoning recently convicted agents. They still are the people who are tasked with interpreting the constitution. Push the line too hard and they will push the line back to spite you.
It's Congress' role to step up and provide checks and balances for a president that goes off the rails.
As long as a president has support by their fellow party members in congress to be immune against impeachment, I doubt the SCOTUS would step in.
Unless, perhaps, the actions of the president were to be bad enough to introduce imminent risk to the whole system of government. Like pardoning people who (provably) organize large scale voting fraud, etc.
But yes, it's up to congress to actual impreach/convict. The SCOTUS can just keep slapping the president if he keeps overstepping his bounds.
>Unless, perhaps, the actions of the president were to be bad enough to introduce imminent risk to the whole system of government. Like pardoning people who (provably) organize large scale voting fraud, etc.
it would be a very interesting, constitutional crisis. I'm not sure if it has anything built in for that. Even Watergate was simply going to go through the impeachment process before Nixon stepped down.
But since then, congress has become more and more partisan, with less and less ability to act together in important issues. This was particularily obvious in all 3 impeachment processes that have happened since. In all 3 cases, impeachment was done without the proper bipartisan basis needed for a conviction, basically just to achieve short term political gain.
Like the boy who cried wolf, each repitition means the probability that people will take it seriously next time goes down.
And when the day comes where a president does something that really requires a bi-partisan conviction during an impeachment, congress may be so used to voting along party lines that this becomes impossible.
And maybe worse: presidents may even begin to consider such a conviction an impossibility, and act with fewer inhibitions.
Well that's the part to challenge, no? As we've seen much too often, just because one ruling happens doesn't mean that later cases can't overturn that precedent.
I'd rather encourage and cheer on these powers because it's not like you and me are doing anything.
He's fired 30+ AUSA's just *this week*, because they had previously prosecuted Trump allies.
If he's gonna try to privatize everything with "state's rights", we gotta use those state's powers against him. Using the rulebook he's bound by.
[1] https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4920827-60-minutes-tru...
But yet people believe these things, and will believe a source that supports them. What's obvious to you is not obvious to others.
The nominee, Robert F Kennedy Jr, has been very outspoken in his opinions, some of which are:
Wi-Fi causes cancer and "leaky brain"
Chemicals in the water supply could turn children transgender
Antidepressants are to blame for school shootings
AIDS is not be caused by HIV
the Covid is designed to target white and black people but not Ashkenazi Jews
Almost nothing on the RFO appointment is rooted in facts.
No, RFKJr will be approved because he was nominated by Donald Trump and Donald Trump has a total control of the Republican Party. That's all there is to it.
But yes, a lot of policy for R's will ba passed. We'll see how much insanity they Will tolerate when it comes to Trump destroying the economy. Rich people kinda need that.
Of course, you're right that I'm not an American, it may be that I'm missing something that would have been clear to me. Not meaning to pretend to know it all, just hoping that an outside perspective (from a place where, from my POV, it works better even if far from perfect) might be helpful
Them denying nature's truth doesn't allieve them from nature's forces.
Go watch some flat earther videos on YouTube. Lots of people are very committed to a particular conclusion and have developed elaborate processes for disregarding evidence that would persuade a rational person.
The US political system right now is built on believing easily disprovable lies. Unfortunately, their bad choices affect everyone.
No I do not:
>They are not a reasonable audience to debate with logos at that point.
but if people insist on arguing, that's your approach.
I just don't debate on Youtube. The people who matter aren't there anyway. Those people have to go through a slower process but one that doesn't care about the feelings of youtube comments complaining about Hilary emails (iroinc, isn't it?)
The people who matter are the ones who vote.
But sure, if anyone feels they can change minds in 2 years before midterm, go for it. That is not where I am useful.
I've got two data points to offer!
For one, some research from last year showed that
> Over three rounds of back-and-forth interaction, [a tuned version of GPT-4 Turbo], also known as DebunkBot, was able to significantly reduce individuals’ beliefs in the particular theory the believer articulated, as well as lessen their conspiratorial mindset more generally — a result that proved durable for at least two months.
https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/mit-study-ai-c...
It's not like the chatbot gave them a beating or something, so it must be appeals to reason and evidence that did something? At least, that's my takeaway
Second data point is an anecdote. I somehow ended up on this flat earther youtube video where they had gotten their viewers to fund them an expedition to the south pole (wtf is a south pole if the earth is flat? Where did they fly out to? Idk, they seemed to have an alternative hypothesis in case the earth really was flat, such that this "experiment" mattered) to, and I shit you not, observe that the sun does not set during summer. Why they didn't just ask someone living beyond the (ant)arctic circle, I don't know, but so they're stood there watching the sun, waiting for it to set. It didn't, and after another glance at a wristwatch that it really is midnight, they now said they believed that the earth is in fact round because their alternative hypothesis had been disproven
Whether many of the viewers on youtube believed it, I have no idea. Also conspicuously missing from the video was any sort of remark hinting at "gee, what everyone outside of our little community said turned out to be right, I wonder if maybe this could mean that there isn't some big conspiracy going on", so perhaps they'll go on to believe the next useless thing now and it was all for naught? I'm not deep enough into conspiracy theory, but it does seem to me that: if you get them to work it all out (whatever that means for them) to a point where there is an experiment you can sensibly do, or evidence they can obtain or so, they'll actually be swayed if given that evidence. Or at least some of them are. (Or maybe these are just really good actors and getting a free holiday to the most exclusive continent by becoming famous was their long con all along, who's to say, but I'm inclined to apply occam's and hanlon's razors.)
Now, instead, we're simply getting rid of any attempt to decide what is factual, and instead let demagogues decide for us what is fact and what is not, without any evidence at all. Since evidence is now superfluous, why waste government money by providing it?
Facts are never really decided, things can always change if we learn something new or just consider what we know from a different angle.
The problem here is that anyone in charge can decide what they believe is fact and make very real, very impactful changes that they force on everyone else.
Sure, such is the nature of power. Thus has it always been.
What's novel is not that people in charge can broadcast their favored view of facts, but that anyone can broadcast their favored view of facts, which has to led to the current demoralization crisis: in the presence of conflicting authorities, no one believes any facts anymore.
Of course, some of the "facts" being broadcast are not, in fact, facts. The problem is that the flood of misinformation is so large, the force of echo chambers so strong, and the cynicism of consumers so great, that it is infeasible to produce persuasive evidence sufficient to make the truth more appealing than lies.
Some blame, if not a majority, belongs on whoever actually hears those views and facts though. Knowing someone's intent is extremely hard, it really shouldn't matter whether they intend to mislead or believe what they are saying. Just because someone shares what they may honestly believe to be a fact doesn't mean we have to take it as fact.
We lack critical thinking and somehow landed in a spot where we're highly skeptical of anyone in charge but completely believe what a random person writes online. It honestly doesn't matter what facts are being shared or whether they are accurate, without critical thinking and the ability to discern for ourselves how could this ever play out well?
I don't think that casting blame on individuals here is productive. I agree, lack of critical thinking skills is a major factor. Who is responsible for ensuring that a plurality of the population of a democracy learn critical thinking? We've gotten by without critical thinking for so long because we mostly don't need it: when you get all your news from Walter Cronkite, what good could come of further analysis?
So it's not an individual failure, but a societal one. Susceptibility to misinformation is like a plague, or a meteor strike, or some other natural catastrophe that we just haven't prepared for. Maybe we'll find a solution; maybe we won't, and the future of humanity belongs to those with the boldness to lie most effectively.
Society didn't force Walter Cronkite on us. People chose to listen to him and a small number of other trusted sources, and they began choosing to take what was said by those sources at face value. I'm not even saying that was a bad thing or wrong, at the time news did seem to be reported in better faith.
We choose our sources though, and we choose how deeply to consider what they say. I don't see how this could have started as a societal issue rather than individual choice first.
really? I'd say it's clearly a matter of education. Critical thinking and media analysis just isn't part of American public schooling. If anything, people are taught to believe authority figures.
Regardless of how it "started", blaming the individual isn't helpful, because that suggests there's nothing to be done. "Well," you say, "folks made a bad decision, c'est la vie." Instead, we should be looking for solutions to media illiteracy, and that solution is certainly social in nature.
I very much shy away from control, and that generally means trusting the individual to generally do what is best or at a minimum accept that the result of that will at least be more resilient than the result of a collectivist or top-down approach. Both have risks for sure and there are absolutely times where individualism are a bad idea in my opinion, this just doesn't meet that bar for me.
If group or societal solutions are the only viable option we might as well cut to the chase and go full socialist. I don't mean that derogatorily, if collectivism is the only solution when individual choices inevitably lead to bad outcomes why bother trying individual at all?
The challenge with individuals making choices that ultimately move in us a better direction is fear. That is really embracing uncertainty and trusting the average person to do what they think is best or "right." Its my opinion that we should absolutely embrace that uncertainty and trust people, but that doesn't land well for most people today.
A group or collectivist solution sounds much safer. As long as we have a good plan and trustworthy people in charge, we just need to empower them to do what they know we need. That can run into just as many, and just as dangerous, end points as an individualist model.
Both are risky. Both can work, and both can go horribly wrong. I just prefer the one where I get to trust myself and everyone around me to think for themselves and do what they think is best. I also personally prefer the bad result of reaping what we sow rather than it going wrong because the well intended leader was wrong or the ill intended leader was right (I.e. got what the evil end they wanted).
But I don't think I've ever seen that done actually. Usually, fact checkers are akin to Reddit moderators. Technically independent, but with one important twist. These are people that have a lot of free time and are willing to spend it doing unpaid (or underpaid) work. And that's a huge bias. Big enough to question impartiality, if you ask me.
If anything that is one of the big promises of AI systems. Maybe we can have adjudication that is both extremely intelligent and provably biased towards consistency, facts and evidence. SHA256sum-ed and torrented around for inspection. It'd be a game changer for fact checking instead of the highly falliable groups that we have right now.
Although true, this isn't a particularly useful observation either. It turns out we can define "true" very well for a lot of really useful stuff. We know the sky is blue. We know the sun rises. We know that two plus two equals four. And we know that anthropogenic climate change is a real thing that exists and is likely to have a large impact on our world.
There are some things that we're less confident about, such as different projections for exactly how large an impact we're likely to experience, what the most efficient way to limit that impact is, who bears the responsibility for implementing those changes, and so on. Reasonable people can quibble over some of those details, and there are multiple valid ways of interpreting those facts. But we can very definitely - and completely objectively - fact check statements like "anthropogenic climate change does not exist" and "fossil fuels do not have an impact on our climate and environment".
That sounds pedantic until people start disagreeing or implementing legal requirements that result in people needing to use the definitions. Eg, if there is a legal requirement to recognise that 2+2=4, is it ok to teach modular arithmetic? Especially if someone has a grudge against the teacher. Lawyers are more than happy to punish someone over a technicality.
We cannot even agree on the basics any more.
so i mean, it's hard to agree on the basics when the basics are changing, I guess.
But if you let one biased group decide what the majority is allowed to see, the public opinion will inevitably align with the interests of that group, and won't be necessary beneficial to the public.
Have you noticed how in the past decade or two we have totally abandoned the pursuit of happiness through self-reliance and independence? How being depressed and outraged is normal, and is all but encouraged. This is all coming from the media actively shaping what gets into one's attention span and it will only be causing more and more misery with no end in sight.
And this comes down to a very simple formula. Media likes people who will create content for free. People who are willing to do are often unhappy and have a mindset that causes unhappiness. Media broadcasting their content (to their own profit, of course) is popularizing that mindset and making more people miserable. Bingo!
No.
I'm asking because things things are getting harder every year and the media has a permanent blind eye on them.
If things are not getting harder then either they stay the same or get better. I would find it hard to argue for either of those positions, but I would welcome you to try to defend that "things are not getting harder". In just about every possible metric outside of maybe "few really, really wealthy individuals make more money" things are not getting better or are stable.
Are you maybe suggesting that what is good for an individual is not good for society?
I don't read any such suggestion into the person's post; to me, it seems to mean what it says. As to whether individual needs and societal needs always align, I would guess you probably know the answer is "no" -- but also far from "never"
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31010/w310...
What did happen in the last two years was there was a "vibecession" where everyone decided to pretend the economy was bad even though everything about it was objectively good. You can see this in surveys, because everyone answered them with "I'm personally doing well, but I know everyone else is doing badly because I heard it on the news".
First described here:
https://kyla.substack.com/p/the-vibecession-the-self-fulfill...
Note, this was written at the tail end of the inflation period and none of the predictions of bad things quoted in the article actually happened.
Of course, that's the story up to the end of 2024. All kinds of bad things can happen now - I can't tell you about the future, but the present is easier.
That said, temporarily ignoring the paper, income in absolute terms may have well increased, but from 2014 to 2024 we also had ~33% official CPI inflation ( edit: which is well above FED's goal ), which effectively eroded any gains average person may have managed to eke out. In other words, it is not a vibe whem that 100k+ is getting you ~33% less. It is simply what things are.
<< Of course, that's the story up to the end of 2024. All kinds of bad things can happen now - I can't tell you about the future, but the present is easier.
I am not hopeful, but I am willing to accept it as a possible outcome.
Apologies. Let me look at the link provided.
I am going through the paper now and the things that did jump at me that while you state that your post was inflation adjusted and I will admit that I am not sure it says what you claim to think it says. Lets go over relevant passages.
From quoted paper[1]:
"Wage compression was accompanied by rapid nominal wage growth and rising job-to-job separations—especially among young non-college (high school or less) workers. Comparing across states, post-pandemic labor market tightness became strongly predictive of real wage growth among low-wage workers (wage-Phillips curve), and aggregate wage compression."
In other words, higher absolute values were considered to be good predictors for wage-phillips curve ( which shows a relationship between the unemployment rate and wage growth ). I worry that you saw word real wage and made an assumption that it measures real wage. It doesn't. We can argue whether it is a good proxy, but from get go it is tougher sell. In other words, if methodology for attempting to derive real wage is off, the whole premise falls apart from where I sit.
"Moreover, despite substantial post-pandemic inflation–measured with the benchmark Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U)–real hourly earnings at the 10th percentile of the wage distribution rose by 7.8% between January 2020 and June 2023."
Ok. This is where it does get messy, because I genuinely do not want to get into the weeds here, but lets... for the sake of the argument assume all that including methodology is fine.
"Real US hourly wages rose by approximately 10 percentage points at all percentiles during the first quarter of the Covid-19 pandemic, from March through June of 2020. (As we show below, much of this spike reflected a change in composition of the workforce as low-wage workers disproportionately lost their jobs.) Thereafter, these quantiles diverged. The 10th wage percentile held its real value over the next three years, while the 50th and 90th real wage percentiles fell by around 6 and 8 percentage points, respectively. In net, the 90/10 ratio declined by about 8 percentage points over these three years "
In other words, for the period of time listed, assuming we accept the premise, methodology and so on, wages rose above inflation. And then, those same real wages fell on average of 8% between July 2000 and 2024. I don't know man, it sounds me, again if we accept premise, methodology and so, as if things got briefly better and got worse again. So my example of 100k became 92K..
FWIW, I am really curious of how you will defend it.
[1]https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31010/w310...
- Affordable Care Act - the entire Covid response - GDPR - the "TikTok Ban" act
To name a few, those are all examples of us having granted larger powers to the government in hopes that they will fix problems for us that we won't fix ourselves.
We forget that the US has been far, far more collectivist in the past, particularly from the 20's - last 70's. The shift towards hyper-individualism is, in my opinion, a wealth extraction mechanism masquerading as a strength. It is highly beneficial to every wealthy person to have low regulations and low requirements for care. The ACA is just common sense - the reason we didn't have it isn't because of individualism, but rather because by not having it you can make a lot more evil and consequently make a lot more money as an insurer.
Your siren's song to a new and better dark age, isn't as appealing as you think it is. Get psychological help.
Is that an assumption, or based on research?
Based on the last couple years of elections, I'd guess that exposing the public to every opinion ever makes people vote for the most catchy sound-bite. I don't follow american news enough to echo whatever people echo over there (perhaps "pro life"? Not sure that I have enough context on that one), but in the Netherlands one might recognize rhetorical statements like "do we want more or fewer muslims in this country?" from what is now the biggest party. We even have an organization that works out different parties' plans into expected economic impact per income group, but the resulting spreadsheet isn't very clickbaity and so I never heard anyone even be aware it exists. For a lot people it's simple: the foreigners use up all the benefits, jobs, and cause the high rent; if they would read reliable sources, however, they would see that the parties that don't try to stop immigration or leave the EU collaboration ("increase our independence" and fuck our tiny country's trade economy for decades) are the ones that yield the highest expected welfare across all income brackets
Of course, this (unfiltered opinions drowning out actual information) is also just my guess, I could very well be wrong. After all, I can't explain why we don't already live in a world where everything burns because such statements are the ones that get disproportionately echoed around. I'm just not sure that releasing the opinion floodgates further will make things better without indications thereof
Also, I don't think the main real reasons for such a question are the economical ones, even if that DOES matter to some.
It appears that the main concern for the populist right is that the people (ethnicity + culture) they identify with will become a minority or even disappear at some point.
One can always discuss if this is a realistic threat or if it is, if it's really such a bad thing.
But I think it's pretty obvious that for as long as Northern Europe has the kind of generous welfare states they currently have, there will be a LOT of people in the "Global South" that really would like to come, easily enough to overwhelm some of these countries, if there are no restrictions on immigration.
Which is what makes "do we want more or fewer muslims in this country?" a valid question to ask, as far as I can tell. Either that, or "What is the maximum number of <insert minority group> we want to have in our country?"
If even asking this question is a taboo, well then that's almost like deleting datasets that your political group doesn't like.
But there are. I'm not aware that even the most pro-"share the love" party thinks we can unilaterally make the decision to let just anybody into Schengen (the EU-related freedom of movement area), or that it would be a good thing if they could. The problem is that the fascist parties want to deny people entry, and evict people who built lives here, who can prove that they fear for their life in the country of origin (such as war refugees), which seems inhumane to me and the european convention on human rights iirc aligns with that as well. It's not something you can just stop doing under national or european law, but by framing it in the right way they create a boogeyman where it's not mainly war refugees but religious terrorists and gold diggers coming into the country
> "What is the maximum number of <insert minority group> we want to have in our country?" If even asking this question is a taboo
That is not taboo. This topic is discussed by every party, of course, and a topic of negotiations between European countries ("will you take this many then we will do this other thing"). The taboo is discrimination, verbal in this case. It harms minorities for no benefit and that's why that is illegal per (what I think is in English called) the constitution ("grondwet")
---
To me it feels like you're approaching this from a forced neural point of view. That feels very odd to say, because of course neutrality and objectivity is good; not sure I'm expressing this right. Maybe it's like... feels like searching for a way to frame it as neutral no matter how extreme (inhumane, uncommon) it really is to say that you would close the door on someone who shows up at your doorstep in mortal peril. No human would do that if personally faced with that choice. The inflammatory statement I gave as example is meant to rile people up against a minority group and gain votes, it's not aimed at starting a rational discussion because that has already been ongoing since time immemorial
Is there any evidence that most people are capable of this?
No, but it's close. It's similar to a courtroom where you have a plaintiff and a defendant. Each party plays a roll on each issue that is up to debate. They plead their side and ultimately the citizenry is the jury. Unfortunately, in the political arena there aren't any rules for speech like in a courtroom; perjury for example.
It's imperfect, but you won't ever find an impartial person or group, nor should you blindly take their word for it. It's an appeal to authority fallacy.
It's a fundamental problem of scale, you either become so bogged down in details and nuance that you get nothing done or you lose so much context that your statements are false without a massive list of caveats.
Your point is: politicians lie. Of course they do. They always have.
What's new in our era is not the lying, but the utter contempt for facts. A study in contrasts:
* A "traditional politician" will lie. If they are caught, with plain evidence that contradicts their claim, they will evade, or reframe, or apologize, or blame someone else.
* A "Trumpian politician" will lie. If he is caught, with plan evidence that contradicts their claim, he will flatly oppose the facts. He'll invoke a vague conspiracy of evildoers who concocted the alleged facts. People believe him because he is charismatic and he talks like a regular person. He gaslights: believe me, he says, not your common sense and lyin' eyes.
So we're in a conundrum where many people have lost their ability to believe in facts, and instead believe a con-man. The problem is not just dishonesty, it is demoralization (in the psychological warfare sense of the word[1]).
EDIT: I read somewhere that Trump's superpower is lack of shame. A weaker politician concedes to facts out of respect for his audience: to deny a plain truth would be embarrassing.
I'm not so sure many people really believe him very often. I live in a part of the country that heavily supported Trump, even diehard fans of his that I talk to consider him a shit talker and support him only because he throws a wrench in the system.
Even those I know who do seem to believe him cave pretty quickly when asked any slightly substantive question. They know tariffs raise prices for example, that we aren't going to buy Canada or take over Greenland, and that Trump in fact had no plan to end Russia's war on day one.
Interesting insight, thanks.
Well, if that's what they want, that's what they get. I guess I can't understand an attitude that leads you to want to destroy your own country.
The voters that call themselves "conservatives" these days will saw off their feet at the ankles, if it means that a member of a class they hate loses their legs.
“But there is still this argument” — No, there isn’t, it’s been studied in that other study.
You guys just always come back and cast doubt, but it’s only this: Doubt and finally, falsehoods.
If that's your attitude, maybe you're the one with the preconvieved biases.
I don't know what the solution is in today's climate, but I suspect it no longer matters. America is post-truth and he who controls the data and pathways to information (Murdoch, Meta, Google) directly influences a large percentage of the people.
Politicians and the media have always lied about big and small details. The difference is that social media has made it easier to dispute, and now we started noticing it more. Now that they can't gatekeep the information anymore they adopted the word "misinformation" to deal with the problem. "It may be true, but it's misinformation, trust us, we have your best interests in mind".
Remember the trusted news initiative from covid? That was an attempt to continue gatekeeping, anything from any other sources was considered false and unverified, and the global media all had the same talking points at the same time. It was terrifying to see how easy everyone conformed.
Interestingly increasing numbers of young people want this.
It will cost a bunch of money but we get something out of it.
IIRC, This is mostly what Facebook did after the 2016 election; put together a non affiliated board and made sure it was populated by all sides - Facebook itself had no/minimal control over what said board did/decided; but all decisions were public.
Zuck just gave in to 'community moderation' instead because "actual solutions" are considered a negative in today's political climate.
This is wrong IMO. Data can be missing, incomplete, biased, skewed, and even just plain wrong. Cherry-picked data can be worse than no data.
The ultimate fact check is a scientific process of collecting data, modeling it, scrutinizing it and its methodology and the entities involved, contextualizing it, cross-checking, replicating, etc.
What media likes to call "fact checking" to me feels more motivated by punchy headlines and chyrons.
All true of course. The solution for that is more data, not less.
I think what I'm arguing is that just having data isn't good enough, and it's dangerous to accept data at face value. It needs to be the right data, and interpreted correctly.
What you're talking about is more a question of scape, impact, and how accurate a prediction really needs to be. Of course we don't need to measure every atom to predict the weather - weather predictions are wrong all the time and rarely is that more than an inconvenience.
But I'm giving a best faith interpretation that the ones collecting the data are competent and have goals on what the data is collected for. We have too much talent flowing to assume the worst. We'll see how the next 4 years challenges my assumptions, though.
>What you're talking about is more a question of scape, impact, and how accurate a prediction really needs to be
Yes. That goal of data is to approximate the truth. More (good) data helps those who can interpret it to make better guesses. So the base truth of "we need more data then" is true. With a good faith interpretation.
True. It's a good thing media doesn't collect data on that case. Just interprets it to various levels of accuracy. Those who want a better interpretation can read the data itself and learn the mechanics behind it.
My hypothesis is Musk is following a South African playbook. That involves, in part, privatising the commons.
Hope to be proven wrong.
How do you fact check that?
Because almost everyone has a grandparent and has seen what it looks like. When push comes to shove and you lie about something everyone can see and has such a visceral reaction to, it's hard to move past it.
And even seeing clear as day for months it kept being denied. If you can't solve for that, there's no point.
You can fact check it. No one wants to for whatever reason.
Having the data is the first step towards a reasonable discussion. Otherwise, you have to resort to 'I feel ....' vs 'Based on this interpretation....'
I agree that the first kind of debate is already the dominant form today, however I think we can all agree that it's not been good for society overall.
This isn't a one party or one person problem. It sure seems like a problem more correlated with our government structure and/or climate, or authority structures themselves.
Bush Jr blatantly lied to the country and rallied us around a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people minimum. How do we weigh that with Trumps ridiculous lies?
Who was president in 2020?
But it is. Numbers can be twisted, but it they can easily be verified. Bias, bad sources and cherry picking can allow you to tell stories, but the data will allow you to verify those stories are indeed facts. Brain can’t really fact check things that don’t have any data.
Even if the numbers are accurate, nearly any situation has a nearly infinite number of potential data points, and deciding which ones are relevant isn't as straightforward as people act like it is.
This is easy to see play out; you can look at the same stories being reported on both Fox News and MSNBC. Usually both sources' raw facts will be basically "correct" in the sense that they're not saying anything explicitly false, but there can be bias in determining which facts are actually useful or how they're categorized.
You can see how the reporting of the January 6th stuff varied between news outlets.
Scientists: X number of people died of Covid in the US according to CDC data.
US Government: you can't prove that number. That data doesn't exist on government servers, the data in the copies is fake and can't be trusted.
It's a simple example, that's why it's relevant. All the facts are available for anyone to see, to process, to analyze. There is no disputed or hidden data. And yet nobody, including any AI, can produce a "true" answer to the question, because it's reliant on one's personal biases.
Even with Covid, did a 92-year old die because of Covid, or because of a multitude of existing conditions that Covid triggered? Probably impossible to know medically, and AI isn't going to tell you definitively one way or the other.
If the question was who scored the most points in the year, that can be answered factually by data.
If the NFL was deleting all their data at the end of the season with the goal of creating arguments and sowing disinformation, that would be a more relevant example.
That's the point of data. To get us closer to the truth. Gravity will keep making you cling to the earth no matter your opinion. Even though as we speak we are still trying to develop models to properly understand the particles or forces behind gravity.
- COVID-19 Death Overcount: In 2022, a coding error led the CDC to overcount 72,277 COVID-19 deaths across 26 states. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/24/cdc-coding-err...
- Maternal Mortality Data: Changes in death certificate reporting, particularly the addition of a pregnancy checkbox, resulted in overcounts of maternal deaths due to false positives. Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2024/08/materna...
- Lead Exposure Report: A 2004 CDC report underestimated the impact of lead-contaminated water in Washington, D.C., leading to criticism over its data accuracy. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morbidity_and_Mortality_Weekly...
- Property System Data: An audit revealed that the CDC's property system data was neither accurate nor complete, with an estimated $29.2 million of property at risk of being lost or misplaced. Source: https://oig.hhs.gov/reports/all/2016/centers-for-disease-con...
These instances highlight that data, even from reputable sources, can be subject to errors, misinterpretation, or manipulation, underscoring the need for critical analysis beyond face-value acceptance.
A more realistic example: we can theoretically predict the weather weeks in advance. In reality, it's pointless because there so much data needed to collect for that, and so many events to away the weather, that's its impractical past a few days in the future.
Numbers are extremely useful, but numbers alone mean absolutely nothing.
Barring said data being fabricated, deleting data seems to be a sign of bad faith.
Would you like me to see if there are some CS folks here to provide programming support to help with what you're doing?
I -hope- this is transient but I'm not holding my breath either.
(feel free to reach out at dga@cs.cmu.edu)
https://www.epicresearch.org/data-tracker/communicable-disea...
https://old.reddit.com/r/medicine/comments/1iepzln/cdc_has_r... ("CDC has removed the pages with STI treatment and contraceptive guidelines (self.medicine)")
No one who actually relies upon real raw data is just downloading a live snapshot from official government hosting on demand are they?
Proper data handling procedures is streaming updates, doing your own backups and archiving and sharing where possible and important. Not trusting the everlasting benevolence of whiplash politically controlled resources?
When was the last "whiplash" that did something this catastrophic?
Put blame where blame lies.
>People are going to die because this one website was taken down and there is no other place to possibly read about it?
Potentially yes. Doctors and scientists research these stats, find anamolies or patterns, and use that for research into better treatments or tobevem predict future outbreaks if the strain evolves.
We shouldn't be shocked that experts in a field can do a lot with a more complete dataset.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/02/01/us/trump-tariffs-new...
> Elon Musk staff has been caught installing hard drives inside the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Treasury Department, and the General Services Administration (GSA). His staff encountered resistance when demanding that Treasury officials grant access to systems managing the flow of more than $6 trillion annually to programs like Social Security and Medicare. Tensions escalated when Musk’s aides were discovered at OPM accessing systems, including a vast database known as the Enterprise Human Resources Integration (EHRI), which contains sensitive information such as dates of birth, Social Security numbers, performance appraisals, home addresses, pay grades, and length of service for government employees. In response to employees speaking out, Musk’s aides locked civil servants out of computer systems and offices, with reports of personal items being searched.
Government's already being sued over these actions this weekend. I just hope federal employees ignore all his actions. They don't work for him (and Trump can't fire most of them in retaliation)
https://archive.org/details/20250128-cdc-datasets
"""
An archive of all CDC datasets uploaded to https://data.cdc.gov/browse before January 28th, 2025. Excludes corrupt datasets and data not publicly accessible.
Most datasets are accompanied by an additional file ending in -meta that includes the metadata associated with the data. Attachments referenced in these files can be found in the attachments/ folder.
If you would like to seed this data to improve its redundancy please do not use the auto generated torrent, as it is incomplete. Instead use the torrent file labeled "full-20250128-cdc-datasets-USETHIS.torrent"
"""
If you had a real startup doing real things in healthcare, this is an intentional spoke in your wheels.
So, yes, your grandma relies on a data "supply chain" but, nevertheless, it benefits her.
Your grandma might have gotten free mammograms because of that data.
If the data is still in the possession of the government (e.g. in backups, on paper) then it is FOIA-able.
I had a gov agency temporarily throw all the materials into a trash can when I requested them and argued that since they were sitting in a trash can they were not available under FOIA.
Just curious, did they pull it out of the trash later on?
A lot of public bodies will play games like this. It's not even clear to me why they do it. It'll be documents that aren't even controversial that they will resist. Ask them what brand of coffee they buy for the break room and they'll immediately get defensive and find some random exemption to apply. Law enforcement bodies are by far the worst, I think because the public are seen as terminal nuisances all the way down through the bodies.
Why is the CDC taking down data when it's not required to do so?
https://www.texastribune.org/2024/12/06/texas-maternal-morta...
Murder is more common than self defense. By a factor of 10 to 1.
In all cases you are highly likely (>90%) to be on a first name basis with the person that kills you.
This is one issue where there is no pendulum. The pro-gun lobby has owned censorship of gun research for a generation and is likely to keep it from being an active and honest research area.
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2025-01-31/exclus...
Nasa took down their applied sciences page and is evidently scrubbing the data
https://www.reddit.com/r/gis/comments/1icqchv/why_is_the_nas...
(https://appliedsciences.nasa.gov/)
Lots of other data sets are disappearing too:
https://mashable.com/article/government-datasets-disappear-s...
There is active discussion of this at https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/
as well as at https://www.reddit.com/r/fednews/
Suddenly I feel out of the loop when it comes to US politics, how come Musk is suddenly seemingly seizing control of parts of the US government? I don't recall him being on any ballots or anything?
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/musk-aides-lock-government-...
Evidently set up an on-prem email server at the OPM to send out their emails asking disloyal employees to resign
https://gizmodo.com/federal-employees-sue-agency-over-new-em...
And is attempting to do the same at the US Treasury (edit: I meant to gain access to/control of, not the email server thing)
https://www.finance.senate.gov/chairmans-news/wyden-demands-...
The twitzkrieg seems to be working.
Hacker News isn't designed for this. The point at which it becomes mass censorship that computer hackers (in their capacity as The Internet) might take an active role in routing around, is more or less this point: you're quite correct that this is worrying, but up to this point it's been a deeply political conversation and only as it becomes mass censorship and control by technological means, does it become really on-message for Hacker News.
Hell, Captain Crunch didn't even use a computer.
I'm leaning very hard into an HN 'tone' with this because this is Hacker News. There's other places where I can be a lot more direct, but the HN tone is perfectly valid as a response: being able to think dispassionately is both tactically and strategically useful as long as it's not purely used to obfuscate.
I fear HN folks have been sheltered from a lot of the reality of what's happening and led down the garden path BY intentionally asserting that tone anytime things get too assertive, but the tone still has its uses.
edit: woof! Ok ok, this is fully HN business and always was. Right on. Sorry I even suggested it could ever be otherwise. I didn't give my fellow nerds enough credit :)
In an attempt to keep it non-political: perhaps they (DOGE) are trying to put a "freeze" on the records while they consider who to fire. That would imply DOGE does not trust the people who have access to the records not to alter them in their favor. (Irony, since DOGE is demanding trust themselves.) You might not agree with that reason, but it is a reason.
All of this is happening within the Executive Office of the President, which is essentially fancyspeak to mean the government employees working the Executive Branch of the federal government. Those government employees serve at the pleasure of the President; Congress only has very limited influence (namely budgetary influences from the House and certain positions that require Senate confirmation).
So Musk, being appointed as a part of the Executive Branch, derives authority vested in the President of which Trump has delegated some to Musk for the purposes of implementing and enforcing DOGE policies.
Musk for his part also serves at the pleasure of the President, so whatever he does is ostensibly what Trump wants regardless of who actually does it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendleton_Civil_Service_Refo...
So remember, when Trump talks about the "deep state," he means workers hired through a merit system.
People couldn't agree what merit was, and sued over it. Now it's not only [still] unclear what merit is, but it's also unclear how aligned federal hiring practices are with any platonic ideal of "merit".
Trump and Elon taking a blowtorch to a lot of agencies isn't better, or even good. It looks to me like a different kind of bad that can't be quantified at the moment. Some of the worst of this will be temporary, since various resources are offline so that federal agencies can be compliant with Trump's EOs while they figure out how to change the resources and their databases, or wait for lawsuits to clarify before changing much or putting it back online.
Hiring through a merit system does not imply that the employees' work is meritful.
Congress had over 140 years (1883 to 2024) to carefully balance the rights of civil service workers against the need for top-down executive authority to ensure agencies are effective, in a way that would survive judicial review. Unfortunately, Congress is inept at almost everything. The Pendleton Act, followed by the CSRA, don't seem to have very well addressed the original patronage-based exec-branch staffing issue; as the article describes it, they've only ensured that replacing high-level staff is delayed by a term. Have they also made it too difficult to dismiss lower-level staff if agencies are ever in need of scaling back?
A majority of U.S. voters chose this. After all that was already known about this admin, they aren't backing down, he's doing what he promised he would do.
It is going to be more catastrophic than I think anyone knows.
[1] https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/2024pres...
(yes, I'm aware of the irony of linking to federal agency data in this thread)
"The government of Columbia has agreed to all of President Trump's terms, including the unrestricted acceptance of all illegal aliens from Colombia returned from the United States, including on U.S. military aircraft, without limitation or delay. Based on this agreement, the fully drafted IEEPA tariffs and sanctions will be held in reserve, and not signed, unless Colombia fails to honor this agreement. The visa sanctions issued by the State Department, and enhanced inspections from Customs and Border Protection, will remain in effect until the first planeload of Colombian deportees is successfully returned. Today's events make clear to the world that America is respected again. President Trump will continue to fiercely protect our nation's sovereignty, and he expects all other nations of the world to fully cooperate in accepting the deportation of their citizens illegally present in the United States."At some point you're going to have to stop spouting the bullshit talking points and accept that this administration are actively worse on most metrics that they campaigned on improving.
What is common sense about sewing chaos in the federal government, inhibiting it's ability to function? In removing datasets that help us keep track of how effective our actions are?
I think this is just a symptom of the amount of power the office of the president has accumulated over the years. Musk has no authority on his own; he's acting on the authority of the president.
Due to the number of things Congress has delegated to the executive branch over the years, that's quite a lot of unchecked power indeed. But it's not Musk's power, it's the president's.
Did anyone elect Anthony Blinken? Janet Yellen? Lloyd Austin?
None of these people were elected yet have substantial power delegated through the President.
And while these people were approved by Senate vote, plenty of people in the Biden circle weren’t - Chief of Staff, members of the National Security Council, etc.
in this case the de-facto US nobility (rank-and-file career politicians) are being usurped by the bourgeouise (billionaires like Musk) at the advent of AI and tech by promising the working class a combination of culture war policy and relief from the very capitalist excess they themselves endorse. by reducing congress and senate to a simple debate team (conversely similar to the German National Asssembly) the tech-elite are able to seize power once reserved for the crown.
the question will be, after four years, will they abdicate their power or concentrate it?
You honestly think that's a question?
Power corrupts. You saw Trump, who in 2016 said he'd get everything done so he'd see no need to run again, he'd have Made America Great Again. He then tried to rig the 2020 election so he could stay in power, despite saying "if I lose the election you'll never hear from me again", and 4 years later, here we are.
These people are here to entrench themselves permanently.
At least some of these were covered by BBC [3, 4].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Raffensperger_ph...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pence#Vote_counting_and_s...
Why would they? Once they come for the judges and replace them with “real Americans”, there’s no bottom.
A lot can happen in 4 years though. Maybe self-inflicted catastrophic wounds will drive down support for Trump enough where it becomes possible for R pols and oligarchs to abandon him. Or maybe they'll choose the dark path, and go farther into repressive authoritarianism to stay in power.
The problem for Musk et al is that they are concentrating power directly to Trump, not themselves. They're shackling themselves to the leopard and betting it will never eat their face.
They will blame women, minorites and especially trans people for all of that.
And when dust settles, those who supported Trump and Musk will see themselves as primary victims - and will blame minorites, women, democracts and trans people for consequences of their own actions.
Yeah, no. This is a coup and they are all in. They would not be this blatant about taking control illegally and fast if they expected to leave any institutions to still enforce the law against them.
Historically, they are just a bunch of rich morons that got lucky, got power, and decided to stage a coup. This is not some enlightened movement trying to replace the social norms. It's just your run of the mill personal power switch, and the only notable things about it are it's on a country that has been extremely stable before, and those people are stupid enough to willfully destroy it.
The US is a known bad design, nation builders working for the United States stopped trying to use this design for new countries in the 20th century, it doesn't work. It's inherently unstable and you previously got very lucky, although you have had a civil war and numerous close calls.
It's like oh, why don't we make coal-powered cars. Well because it's a known bad idea. We actually did try that, it's a bad idea, don't do it again.
I'd love to read about the new designs.
The latter inevitably slide towards autocracy. Too much power is concentrated in one person, who is almost impossible to legally remove before their term is up, and who will happily punish dissenters within the party.
In parliamentary republics, every PM is one internal party vote away from being deposed. You tend to see less of the tail wagging the dog in them.
The US has proper separation of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. The legislative has a per-state and popular representation. Which part of this is "inherently unstable"?
The only part lacking a proper proportional representation (as in a parliament).
Also, the per-state representation doesn't seem to lead to good results at all. As you said, the popular representation isn't proportional, what is a more relevant flaw than anything before this point on this comment.
And that is before you get into the details that are actually bad. It's incredible that they managed to stay stable with that electoral system, for example.
That said, looks like they will have an almost perfect opportunity to fix some of those in a few years...
I found it shameful that we hold so much a power hungry war while however as Memento Mori teach us, the only certainty is death, and that power is simply gone.
They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”
― George Orwell, 1984Musk, Thiel, and their friends clearly intend to consolidate power, and the people they associate with openly advocate for the creation of independent corporate fiefdoms with authoritarian control over society. There is no doubt at this point. These are not good people. They are oligarchs. They are the bitter nerds that just want power for themselves so they can be the bullies.
It’s all obvious corruption.
Of course, carbon offsets are still a huge cash cow for Tesla, so Musk won't be eager to touch those.
And Tesla?
Source: personal experience, as well as https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/manufacturers-and-mod...
Your statement might give somebody the impression that somebody in the previous administration singled out Tesla. This is obviously not correct. EV credits were available to all car makers. But there was a limit and Tesla reached their limit first. And later GM did as well.
What individual(s)? You just mentioned a family and not an individual. Forbes lists Elon's net worth at $419 billion.
Also, any king or dictator effectively owns their nation’s entire treasury, including all real estate. Maduro, for example, is wealthier than Musk.
Tho in the Maduro sense, which is a dictator that just make sense while he is in power, it's not actually own by him.
Even the most aggressive speculative estimates from opposition figures, investigative journalists, or geopolitical analysts do not approach that figure.
No credible leaks (like the Panama Papers or Pandora Papers) have hinted at such vast assets tied to Maduro.
No intelligence reports or financial investigations from entities like the U.S. Treasury, the EU, or independent watchdogs have ever approached figures remotely close to hundreds of billions.
The social support system in the US is being dismantled and when people can no longer afford to eat, the ensuing riots will provide the necessary trigger to declare martial law and suspend democracy completely.
[1] DARK GOTHIC MAGA: How Tech Billionaires Plan to Destroy America https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RpPTRcz1no
In the US, you can fly multiple planes into skyscrapers, rape three whole kindergartens, and lynch an entire race to extermination. As long as you then win the next election before you get convicted, you're in the clear.
This is the United States of America.
Vulgar examples? The bare minimum necessary to make people remotely feel the severity in their bones. Problem is that no one dares to say them out loud in fear of their reputation, despite it being a good thing to do.
This clearly states the person's feelings (curiosity) about some observations (seeing comments of a particular sort).
Fortunately we have depository libraries, so some key stuff won’t be destroyed by these barbarians. https://www.gpo.gov/how-to-work-with-us/agency/services-for-...
Are you saying something like, "You know I hate everything Musk stands for, everything he does publicly — but he might be an okay guy as a person"?
It's literally to detach the person from the projects, of course times changes and the elected project can not be achieved by an X factor, tho we should have checks and balances in that too.
Today we follow X or Y politician/party but in this polarization we lost the focus that in the end a politician is elected to execute goal/project and not to hold power and then maybe do it.
My understanding of your original comment was similar to how 'JkCalhoun understood it, but this comment reads more like "the country show follow through on decided changes" regardless of who is in power. That I agree more with, with exceptions of course. (One example is maybe Obamas connection with "Obamacare" that is still a thing even though he is not in power.) Perhaps another way to put it is to detach the project from the person, but the person will still be linked (in some way) to the project.
Especially when it comes to international policies. For one, international relations and agreements are (normally) much slower moving and longer lasting than internal ones, and if countries can't depend on agreements lasting longer than the current leadership then such countries will see themselves not taken very seriously.
Kind of like if a president signs a trade deal with his country's closest neighbors and then a few years later instigate a trade war against the same countries.
It's more a way for people to start see politics in the medium long term.
A lot of "woke" people warned it but several ignored as being "political speech" now we pay the consequences.
Where are the CDC people growing a spine to stand up to this? This is obviously bad.
The reason why bullies only understand 1 language (force) is exactly why counter-bullies who also speak that language are needed. And these are (usually) men (and some smaller percentage of women). (I'm seriously not trying to genderize this. I'm speaking of "fighting/disobeying/confronting energy" instead of "nurturing/complying/keeping-copacetic energy". Anyone who's good at that, should exercise it.)
If you have to take good science to the darknet, then fucking do so. That's what it's there for.
"The [Dark]Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore.
Alternately, move the data hosting to Switzerland, Iceland, or the Netherlands as a data-haven. Hetzner might be OK too, since very-left-wing Germany (while it has an agreement to comply with legal MLAT requests) might savor the opportunity to snub Trumpian requests or stall them indefinitely due to lack of obvious national-security importance.
But your argument is inherently flawed. Part of the point of government is to regulate and direct the use of force. We have mechanisms that are supposed to apply force to "bullies". The problem is that the "bullies" have co-opted that system to use it for their own ends. This happened gradually so it didn't become obvious until the most recent "bully" decided he didn't even want to pretend that he wasn't in control.
Individuals who directly stand up to this administration will be hammered down with the full force of the government. The best we can hope for is a passive resistance and malicious compliance. That combined with grassroots efforts to fill the media with protests of objectionable policies is probably the best we can do for now.
The only other option is to apply force outside of the system to correct it, but things are not nearly to the point where revolution is the better option.
The funny thing is that people have always said this exact thing except paraphrased in various ways (perhaps the term was less "bully" and something more conventionally a universal term of disparagement like "fascist"). I definitely didn't want Obama going after whistleblowers, increasing domestic surveillance and not closing Guantanamo when I voted him in... and I liked his healthcare plan, until it died...
I suspect that everyone says this when the person they didn't want in charge, now is, and starts doing things that their biased media always depicts only the negative side of.
Archivists work to save disappearing data.gov datasets - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42881367 - Jan 2025 (56 comments)
Entirely predictable. And well deserved. I say this as someone living and suffering in America.
There is no one else to blame but ourselves. The future is bleak.
This is not a joke. What will sting Elon, Trump and crooks the most is losing their wealth. The rest of the world does not need to suffer for these crooks.
What is hard is desinvesting from the US treasure. You have to sell those somewhere, and if everybody tries, their value will quickly go to 0. But if the US is successful in making their trade-balance positive, this will solve itself without a lot of hardship, it's just a matter of the rest of the world helping them here.
Macroeconomics is not what will show you problems here. The US is inserted itself into every supply chain on the world, but you will only notice this if you look at the details. Maybe we should start with an intellectual property reform...
If you don't mind the tsunami that ensues, sure.
That would take a lot of legwork to confirm, but while the US$ is certainly the most used intermediate currency, it would surprise me if it was even used on the majority of the transactions.
Losing half of their import market and half of their export market would be the worst financial calamity they’ve ever faced.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/d...
This is a very US-style approach; nobody calls their "representatives" in Europe, unluckily.
Average IQ Americans freebase propaganda and Joe Rogan for thoughts. The Kremlin and the Republican propaganda empire have been paving the way for a Project 2025 Neo Nazi hostile takeover for decades.
John Doe from Florida doesn’t stand much of a chance when every TV, cell phone, and Facebook bot in his state is beaming the world’s largest psy-ops laser-beam at his head for half of his life.
I tend to blame the Fascists. But yea, the future is bleak. We’re cooked in America, at least.
You might think I'm being sarcastic, or patronising or somehow trying to belittle the US. I'm not. That's where the country is now. It's failing in a way we've seen others fail many, many times before. The future is predictable, and it doesn't seem like anybody wants to change it.
This ping ponging from one admin to the next on doesn't actually change the science. "The great thing about science is that it doesn't need you to believe it for it to be true." To me, the thinking that the hiding of data is going to make it go away is just one of those things that shows how unintelligent the person with that notion truly is.
Can any one point me to a group of organized and motivated individuals?
It just started and I already feel tired
Trump won the election by a very slim margin and his popularity will only go down from here. Don't be discouraged by the online stuff. Twitter in particular is just an information weapon now.
We weren't able to save our economy from monopolies and tyranny, and now you want us to go stand up against the people with tanks and machine guns!?
At this rate I expect you'll tell me to stop importing iPhones and Perrier...
Yes, because what's the alternative? To give up and watch? I won't be easy, but if you're not even trying, no one can save you.
> At this rate I expect you'll tell me to stop importing iPhones and Perrier...
No, I won't. I don't tell you what to do at all. It's just my view on the path the US currently is. And I'm hoping, yes, because what happens in/to the US affects the world a great deal.
Go to the ACIP page (https://www.cdc.gov/acip/) and click on the "Vaccine-specific recommendations".
Other affected topics are HIV prevention, birth control/contraception, domestic violence and probably many more.
The page I used to look for mask efficiency disappeared too (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106e1.htm ) but the CDC website still discusses masks so it does not seem to be intentional: https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/prevention/masks.htm...
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/index.html
Looks to have been an uninterrupted weekly streak since 1982...
the (still up) archives: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_wk/wk_pvol.html
Vaccines and healthcare in general are intended as a safeguard against pandemics and mass death. If the goal IS mass death, it makes practical sense to try and delete all health and vaccine information in hopes it's lost forever and the society that uses it is rendered helpless against such events or weapons.
I'm interested to note that HN's commentariat hasn't mentioned the extent to which all scientific research of this nature was immediately defunded: my social media had indirect exposure to a lot of healthcare researchers who were freaking out, many days ago. Did you notice that part or is this the first sign of it that's made its way over here?
I'd note that defunding medicine isn't strictly HN-type content, though mass deletion of data certainly seems to be HN-adjacent. I would think hackers and entrepreneurs would take that sort of thing personally, as it more or less attacks them by starving them of information that could be useful.
https://www.cdc.gov/acip-recs/hcp/vaccine-specific/index.htm...
"The books targeted for burning were those viewed as being subversive or as representing ideologies opposed to Nazism. These included books written by Jewish, half-Jewish, communist, socialist, anarchist, liberal, pacifist, and sexologist authors among others."
Data is a perfectly valid uncountable noun these days. In fact, it's the de facto standard for amorphous collections of digital data, used by most writers, data analysts and laypeople alike. The uncountable form is awkward and out of place in all but the most specific contexts.
Language is fluid. Used outdated forms is distracting.
So far it seems to be working, unfortunately.
The government information crisis is bigger than you think it is - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42895331
> The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is the national public health agency of the United States.
edit: It is about this CDC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centers_for_Disease_Control_an...
"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is the national public health agency of the United States. It is a United States federal agency under the Department of Health and Human Services, and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
The agency's main goal is the protection of public health and safety through the control and prevention of disease, injury, and disability in the US and worldwide."
"Data is stored on a computer's hard drive." "The data for the experiment are stored on the computer's hard drive."
And the other half? They seem to welcome this as well, but with crossed arms. Where are the protests? Seems most people end up writing upset messages on Twitter/Bluesky, but also seems there are no grassroots movements to actually protest the borderline coup that is happening?
If they have instilled this much cowardliness in you they have won. Imagine you’re kid looking at what you wrote twenty years from now and think of how he/she would think of you. Courageous or coward?
Good for your grandfather though.
Most rights that workers have today have been earned through protesting (and sometimes the bloody consequence of protesting while the state is resisting wanted changes). Protests only "doesn't do anything" when you don't do it enough or give up. Maybe I'm too European to understand, but the "pacifist" approach of the US working class seems to not be working out great.
The pitchforks aren’t just for show!!
And I’ve lived in Europe for over a decade now and frankly much of Europe is painfully naive about how much people in power care about protestors waving clever signs.
I guess the same goes the other way, Americans seems painfully unaware how effective the public's will can be, when you act together. But I think that's to be expected, the US is still relatively new and young, compared to other countries, so lessons others have learned still need to be learned by the Americans themselves. I guess this is what we're witnessing right now.
I'd urge you to look up changes brought by protesting and riots, but I think we both know you're not interested in learning, since you already stated twice you think it's pointless.
Ideally, of course, you have a functioning democracy, but I don't really think that describes much of the US at this point (the people who'd protest are mostly in blue states anyway where their votes, even if correctly tabulated, count less). Other examples might be Ghandi, who promoted nonviolence but really only got India's freedom when the British empire was in terminal decline, or the civil rights movement, which happened when the US was a much healthier democracy and swaying public opinion was enough to remove people through elections. You might cite the velvet revolution too, but that also was targeting an empire in decline.
I argue that elections in the US _will not matter_ (Trump's cryptic comments about how Elon knows all about these voting machines and they won Pennsylvania thanks to him are telling....) and in that context protest doesn't do anything because the people in power have nothing to fear if they ignore the protestors.
Normally, in a democracy, when you get a lot of people together complaining about something, it is already an implicit threat of removing politicians from power.
But if you manipulate the electoral system enough, it stops being. The fact that this mostly doesn't work nowadays is loudly telling people all they need to know.
I was trying to adopt to your own tone, not sure why you'd feel that it is condescending or dismissive.
> I am curious to hear more about peaceful protests working
Some starting points: 2024 protests in Serbia leading to the resignation of the Prime Minister. 15-M protests in Spain leading to the formation of new political parties and reforms. Velvet Revolution (I know you already mentioned this) leading to the overthrowing of the communist government. The Singing Revolution leading to the independence of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Euromaidan/Revolution of Dignity leading to the ousting of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine. These are just recent examples, I could go on...
Honest question: Have you attempted to lookup examples yourself, and you didn't find a single example?
They immediately got what they wanted.
https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-...
Government workers going on strike means they're doing what we want them to do, which is nothing. As a Trump voter, I want these federal government workers to stop working so the astronomical waste of our time/money and disturbing of peace stops.
The best work the US government does is when it's doing nothing, because it's hardly working properly unless it's forced to (ICE is an example of government actually working again).
Whether the workers resign, strike/protest, or get back to work implementing MAGA policies in the office, we win.
So when your glorious day comes, and your State asserts their rights and levies your bank account to pay for your parents medical bills as your filial responsibility, (or whatever your personal tragedy ends up being) you’ll have the feels, and will flip to the next cult of personality.
But perhaps they're advocating a return-to-the-Earth philosophy with every person (or family) aiming for self sufficiency in a frontier-style economy. I doubt it (when I try to point out that their truck requires a lot more gas than they can refine as a hobby I get pushback), but maybe.
Indeed. Not quite as far back in time as you sarcastically suggested, but down-to-Earth enough that Congress stops enjoying absolutely abysmal approval ratings and President Reagan's infamous line of "I am from the government and I am here to help." stops resonating so strongly as a prime criticism.
If we also have to destroy ostensibly useful institutions like NASA to achieve it, well then so be it. As I mentioned in a sibling comment, the chances for more amicable processes have come and gone.
People slowly figure it out. On HN 2-3 years ago, any critique of Elon would bring out the brigades of simps babbling about autistic genius. That’s mostly gone now.
What happens next?
Protests get the word out and create comrades.
Starting a trade war has consequences. That mortgage of yours is pegged to 10 year treasury rates. Bend the demand curve for foreign investors seeking safety in US government debt and stuff happens, like real estate bubbles deflating. What happens when foreign investors start dumping loans for vacant NYC buildings on the market because of their governments restrictions?
Look at the the classic Bogglehead investment - VTI. 30% of that portfolio is 10 companies, half of which are extremely vulnerable to foreign action. What happens to Apple stock when there’s a 30% tariff on iPhones?
You have reckless idiots turning knobs and people are going to get hurt. Then they get angry. LARPing right wing morons love to talk revolutions on their podcasts, they may get their wish.
This is too pessimistic. Consider successful grass-roots movements: civil rights and maybe anti-war (Vietnam).
> and is overwhelmingly unlikely to get us out.
In the sense that nothing is likely to get us out? Sure. At some point you need to stand up for what you believe is right, though.
I can talk to people about it, but the difficult part is not talking but getting people to truly listen.
So yes, ordinary people are limited in their power and capacity even if these adds up.
Now comes the part where we see if the administration abides by those legal decisions or not, and how the final legal decisions here turn out once these cases inevitably land in front of the Supreme Court.
At the point where the administration ignores the courts and laws and continues on with their illegal impoundment, that's the point where you have to protest.
He was declared immune for all actions he and he alone declares as official.
He will die in office, in his mid 90s. Democracy has been cancelled.
Money - the folks doing this already have a ton of money, and used it in large part to get to this point.
Violence - necessary for change, but against who exactly? anyone trying to be violent against the folks running this will be disavowed by 90% of the rest of the population, and galvanize an outsized violent crackdown against anyone and everyone who even somewhat looks like them.
It’s going to have to get a lot worse before there is appetite to do the things that will actually make it better. people aren’t bleeding enough yet.
So anyone actually trying to fight back will be destroyed by their own side. Where the folks doing this, won’t be.
There are at least as many ways to respond to repression as there are avenues of repression: https://commonslibrary.org/198-methods-of-nonviolent-action/
- In Nazi-occupied Europe, during World War II, various groups wielded nonviolent resistance (such as hiding Jews) against the Nazi regime and managed to hamper the regime's efforts, and in some cases saved lives. Not ineffectual.
- In Germany, in 1923, the German population wielded nonviolent non-cooperation and strikes (the Ruhrkampf) against the French and Belgian occupation and managed to gain international sympathy and hinder the occupiers. Not ineffectual.
- In Nazi-occupied countries--Denmark (Engaging in public protest and social boycotting, along with acts of noncooperation and striking), Holland (Developing an underground press network, social boycotting, noncooperation, striking, and hiding and facilitating escapes), Norway (Sending letters of protest, maintaining social boycotts, engaging in cultural resistance, noncooperation and creating alternative institutions such as unofficial sports leagues), France (Stalling and obstruction the forced relocation of Jews, noncooperating, developing clandestine media, and demonstrating open defiance, eg wearing the yellow star in solidarity), and Belgium (Hiding and facilitating escapes, noncooperating, and obstructing authorities protected the lives of Jews, made it harder for the Nazis to enforce their policies, and weakened their ability to maintain order)--during World War II, various populations wielded nonviolent resistance against the German occupiers and managed to present a unique challenge to the Nazi regime, which was more equipped for violent conflict. Not ineffectual.
- In East Germany, in 1953, workers and other citizens wielded strikes and demonstrations against the Communist regime, revealing the extent of public dissatisfaction with the working conditions, inspiring groups such as the Volkseigener Betrieb Industriebau's Block 40 section and the Zeiss factory at Jena to make bolder collective demands such as the release of a fellow worker who had been arbitrarily arrested and even inspiring sympathy from Russian/Polish soviet soldiers. Not ineffectual.
- In Russia, in February 1917, striking workers and other citizens wielded massive strikes and peaceful demonstrations against the Tsarist regime and managed to lead to its disintegration. When troops did fire on demonstrators, as occurred in Znamensky and Kazansky Squares, it backfired. The soldiers who obeyed these orders later felt remorse and questioned why they had shot at the crowds. This resulted in mutinies, such as that of the Volynsky Regiment. These troops then went into the streets to proclaim their support for the people. Not ineffectual.
- In the United States, during the mid-20th century, civil rights activists wielded sit-ins, marches, and boycotts against segregationist authorities and systems and managed to dismantle racial segregation, voter disenfranchisement, and discriminatory employment practices. Not ineffectual.
- In India, during the early to mid-20th century, Gandhi and his followers wielded civil disobedience, boycotts, and strikes against British colonial rule and managed to challenge that rule, demonstrating the power of non-cooperation and willingness to suffer for a cause. They won independence. Not ineffectual.
So, now the burden lies on you, really, to demonstrate that our opponent in this moment is somehow more fascist, more cruel, and also more independent of the consent of the governed than any other fascist administration in history against whom nonviolence prevailed or, at least, mitigated.
But in order for me to even read your response, you would have to open by convincing me that you will do something other than sit on your ass and pull in a SE salary until the next election. Because even if nonviolence were ineffectual--and, again, it's not--you could, at the very least, opt out of participation in the socioeconomic systems from which the fascists draw power.
Because "nothing but violence will work," is a total cop-out from someone who also isn't already training with their local Antifa regiment.
Or all the examples from non-facist regimes, where those regimes were less murderous? Or from pre-Nazi Germany, where it was clearly ineffective at stopping the abuses or the rise of the Nazi regime.
Stalin and the USSR were a huge, murderous problem (Holodomir being just one example), but they also weren’t Nazi germany, yes? And while murderously authoritarian, they were also fundamentally different in many key ways from facists. Notably, they tended to target and destroy ‘their own’ through terrorizing different (and shifting) internal factions, rather than having a more consistent set of ‘out groups’ they were targeting. And for all the problems in the USSR, they were generally pro-labor. It was the intellectuals and property owners they tended to target.
Unlike Nazi germany, where it was more ethnic identity, and willingness to bend a knee to them ideologically. [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-night-...].
I don’t think we are at that point. Yet.
But striking against Nazi Germany later in the process was clearly a bad idea. [https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/general-strike-amste...]. A common theme in concentration camps was people being forced to work, often to the death. [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-camp-...]
Nazi Germany was very good for business (at first), as the State actively supported and provided cheap labor to business, among many other kinds of support. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany]
A key differentiator between Nazi Germany and the USSR was essentially that Nazi Germany was pro-big-business (as long as you’re ‘one of us’), and the USSR was pro-worker (as long as you do/believe what we say).
The biggest danger in Nazi Germany was being one of the ‘others’ - if they found you. And it was often a death sentence for anyone trying to hide one of the ‘others’ too. Hiding people, while it did work for a small number of people, was completely ineffective at stopping the larger holocaust. [https://www.npr.org/2019/01/29/689272533/the-invisibles-reve...]
In fact, the holocaust continued up until Hitlers suicide and subsequent German surrender, after the allies had totally obliterated Germany in a war of annihilation they had been forced into, and were literally within shooting distance of his bunker.
Ok, that's somewhat goalpost-shifting, because you said "ineffectual," and I showed effect. It satisfies me enough to extrapolate from there.
Edit: Are we to believe, then, that you are taking up arms? Or just waiting to see if it gets so bad that you must? Or, don't you think an ounce of civil disobedience might be worth a pound of civil war?
I did everything I could do in the US without getting arrested. I got large portions of my life destroyed in the process. Talking to people, even people that should know better, was basically just pissing in the wind.
I found out years ago that a distant relative of mine (Jewish) left Germany in the mid ‘20’s to immigrate to the US, leaving his entire life behind. At the time, I wondered how he knew, or what could have happened for him to take such a drastic step.
Now I know. I’ve been taking similar steps for years. At least I can provide a Plan B for myself and others.
Maybe that makes me a coward. I don’t know. But I won’t help evil, and I won’t be a pointless martyr for someone else’s idiocy either.
If I had thought taking up arms at the time (or even now) would have accomplished anything except making them more powerful while getting thrown under the bus by anyone that it in theory would be helping, I would have.
But that isn’t the situation is it? Because I’d be a ‘lone wolf’ because there aren’t enough others would can or would stand with me. Yet. Maybe there never will be. Maybe I’m wrong and everything will be fine, yeah?
We’ll find out. At this point, I just want to give double middle fingers to US society and tell everyone to fuck off.
Productive? Probably not. But I’m only human.
You're right that Nazi Germany fell to the tanks of Liberalism and Bolshevism.
There are so many strange and, to be, baseless assertions in your replies that fear we're simply not going to discover common ground in this venue.
Godspeed.
A bunch of Americans have been taught that protests only "count" if they don't inconvenience anyone. Laws have been changed to make effective protest impossible. It's legal to ram protesters with your car in Florida, for instance. The cops use force to suppress protests and the media tells everyone your protest was invalid because it broke the law.
If we press the point more aggressively, we'll probably start another civil war. The right holds Rittenhouse up as a hero, and that's not an isolated thing. For decades, average, rank-and-file GOP voters have made jokes and jabs about shooting liberals. It used to be a few tasteless blowhards, but it's commonplace now. See also comments from Kevin Roberts about how the "second American Revolution" will be "bloodless if the left allows it."
There are resistance movements extant and forming, but it's a wicked problem. The size and population of the US requires more resources and participants to make an impact. The speed at which the situation is changing makes it hard to find purchase to do so.
It is quickly being organized for 2/5/2025 at each state capital.
But at the end of the day a lot of people didn’t listen and voted for this direction instead.
So the people who protested and tried everything for a decade are done. Now we are just waiting for the 70 million people who still support this direction to finally burn themselves on the stove and discover it is in fact hot, just like we’ve been saying. The next protests have to be Republicans and Democrats or there’s no point.
In fact there is an active community of very Trumpy libertarians on this very website who pop up in the handful of political threads that make the front page. They seem to be silent here, one hopes maybe they've been given pause.
Well, yeah. There’s OAN and Newsmax and the evangelical Christian radio stations when Fox gets too liberal for them.
Trump: 77,168,458 votes (49.9%)
https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELECTION/RESULTS/zjpqne...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/president-re...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/11/05/us/elections/...
More people voted for Trump, but it wasn't half the country. There were a lot of people that did not vote at all. The most accurate would be to say that nearly half of the votes cast went for Trump. That is not half the country
If anything it was the 1.6% of votes that went to other candidates that could be seen as a spoiler. You'd have to say that all of that 1.6% would have gone to Harris for it to have been a spoiler though, and I doubt that's the case.
you are now part of the problem
For example, President Truman ordered the US military to be (re)integrated. Through malicious compliance, racist officers put their own spin on the orders.
"Well, he didn't say that black officers would get equal access to the officers club, so we won't let them in."
It too a former 5 star general (President Eisenhower) to stamp out the malicious compliance and make it stick.
There was already a case of malicious compliance with the DEI EO on the part of certain US air force personnel taking down material about the Tuskugee Airmen. The new sec def stomped that out within 4 hours.
You can read the EO here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defe...
Beyond a few specific documents, nothing in there requires the CDC to pull down all this data immediately. There is even a section about "progress updates by 120 days".
The CDC is still run by the same people as under Biden. They are the ones that immediately pulled down the data, not Trump hires.
Their goal could be obedience such that
A) the Musk cronies don't come through and truly delete the data (vs, just taking it offline)
B) they don't get fired and can take a stand when "bigger" issues happen. I.e another pandemic.
Or y'know,
C) they want to keep their jobs and decided to just obey.
I can’t find a single article about this because it was considered normal—they were simply upgrading their system. The level of dishonesty here is astounding.
Let’s wait three weeks. If Atlas Plus is still down, I’ll post an update here.
It sounds like you are conflating a planned information removal with some unspecified amount of upgrade time? Those aren’t equivalent to me.
The data is not disappearing. The data and the related tools have been temporarily removed to be cleaned and brought into compliance with Trump’s executive order (basically removing “gender” or replacing it with “sex”)
That should be the intellectually honest title and that is what is happening.
So lets check in 3 weeks. If data and tools are not back then we can say and complain about data disappearing.
There's no Gender or Sex component to the CDC's SVI methodology why was that dataset removed?
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/community-stress-resource-center/p...
It's you who is being intellectually dishonest.
I completely agree that SVI becomes less useful if you strip out the “Racial and Ethnic Minority Status” variable. Just wanted to provide an intellectually honest answer about why this page was taken down.
Let us hope this is just a temporary thing.
Let us hope the disappearing data will resurface again at some point.
Let us hope this isn't driven by ideological motivations.
Sigh.
I’m not sure how this isn’t sinking in yet.
The EO in question doesn't require that all mentions of more than two genders be taken down (beyond a few specific policies).
The CDC immediately pulls down data that went beyond the requirements of the EO.
And now Democrats are saying "this is so scary, data is disappearing!!"
But it was Democrats that took the data down without being required to do so?
Sure, they might be "scared", but being scared isn't an excuse for going overboard and doing things that aren't required.
They could have just left the data up and complied with the EO through the Director by saying "we are currently reviewing the data and how to comply with the EO, but will leave the existing data up until such time it can be replaced with the updated data".
But they score way more political points by yanking it all down and getting the media to fan the flames.
Second, as of last week Trump hasn’t appointed a new Director for the CDC yet.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cdc-who-is-in-charge-trump-admi...
Third, I’m pretty sure Directors don’t manage the department’s website, the employees do.
While the Directors may change, everyone else there is the same as before Trump got elected. They are employed by the Federal government, not appointed.
Update: the message on the website now says the website is down temporarily and will be put back up soon.
Is that maybe to prevent (for example china) from getting the data for AI models, but giving it to the "nice" Stargate?
I also wonder how many of these data sets were required by law.
It is becoming very difficult to distinguish justice from crooks in the U.S.
The CDC had lost all credibility anyway, dismantling it wouldn't be a bad idea, maybe not all of it, so that's what we are (not) seeing there.