The Pandemic has got me thinking. On TV, people of the future are always very comfortable with data. They collect it. They analyze it. They adjust their strategies in real time. Not in days or hours or minutes but often literally in SECONDS.🧵👇

They run simulations of different outcomes. The simulations aren't always right but they seem to put them in the ballpark of what's reasonable. People take the simulations and data seriously. They factor them into their planning.
Even when the future government is evil, it's still smart. Even when the future government is rigid and uncreative in how it responds to stuff, it's responses are still logically related to the assumptions it has made, the data it has collected and the analyses it has performed.
Unfortunately, our civilization is NOT THAT. We collect data but usually haphazardly and in ways that make it hard to draw any conclusions. It often takes a long time for us to make sense of data. Politicians often throw out the numbers completely.
We don't seem to care what the probability of various outcomes are. We don't seem to use probabilities when making decisions. Perhaps, you're thinking about the election predictions and about how they were close but not quite right.
On TV, future people know the probabilities are just ESTIMATES. They know that the computer is just doing a straightforward extrapolation from the data. They don't hold it against the computer that it can't see the curveballs.
We are approximately a year into the pandemic and I can't say "ALEXA, what is my probability of being infected today?" She has no estimates.
Just before I enter a bad spot, wouldn't it be great if Alexa could chime in and say "WARNING KAREEM. I estimate a 96% chance of infection if you enter this building."
Personally, I walk around taking MAXIMUM precautions at all time and that hypervigilance has been costing me psychologically. So, it would be nice to have a little computer buddy looking out for me and letting me know when I have to be extra careful.
Why don't I know immediately how many people around me are infected? Anonymized of course. It could just be a single number indicating threat level. It doesn't have to say who it is.
Shouldn't the US government have a state by state, county by county simulation of the spread of the disease? Shouldn't we all be able to access it?
Forget hover boards, trips to mars and self-driving cars. This doesn't require new discoveries, it's just numbers and code. It's weird because even though WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY, WE DON'T SEEM TO HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY. Why is that?

More from For later read

Humans inherently like the act of solidarity. We are social beings. We like to huddle up and be together.
They used this against us.
They convinced us that it was an act of solidarity to flatten the curve, to wear a mask for others, to take the vaccines for others,


and to reach #covidzero for others. They convinced us that this was for the greater good of society.
In reality, this couldn't be further away from the truth. They have divided us and broken the core structure of our society. They have dehumanized us with their masks.

They set us against each other into clans on opposite sides of a spectrum. They have turned us into aggressive beings fighting for our survival. Some of us fear harm from the virus, others fear harm from the vaccine, and yet others fear harm from the attack on our civilization.

We are all on a flight or fight mode. We are all operating under the influence of fear. We must collect ourselves and reflect on what has happened over the last year.
How is this for the greater good of society?

They used a tactical warfare strategy against us.
'Divide and conquer'.
We fell for it.
Now we must become aware of it and fight back.
We must reunite. We must find true solidarity to save our world. To free ourselves. To regain our autonomy.
I’ve asked Byers to clarify, but as I read this tweet, it seems that Bret Stephens included an unredacted use of the n-word in his column this week to make a point, and the column got spiked—maybe as a result?


Four times. The column used the n-word (in the context of a quote) four times. https://t.co/14vPhQZktB


For context: In 2019, a Times reporter was reprimanded for several incidents of racial insensitivity on a trip with high school students, including one in which he used the n-word in a discussion of racial slurs.

That incident became public late last month, and late last week, after 150 Times employees complained about how it had been handled, the reporter in question resigned.

In the course of all that, the Times' executive editor said that the paper does not "tolerate racist language regardless of intent.” This was the quote that Bret Stephens was pushing back against in his column. (Which, again, was deep-sixed by the paper.)

You May Also Like