@JJD_Aqua @peternsunnyvale @MikeMitchNH @Noahpinion Another one to look at (I haven't) is the NASA budget, which is allegedly pork-ridden across all 50 states. By all reasonable logic, a space program should be concentrated in a few centers of expertise and proximity to launch sites. But it isn't.

@JJD\u Aqua@peternsunnyvale@MikeMitchNH@Noahpinion另一个需要关注的（我还没有）是美国宇航局的预算，据称这一预算在所有50个州都很庞大。按照所有合理的逻辑，太空计划应该集中在几个专业中心，并靠近发射场。但事实并非如此。

@JJD_Aqua @peternsunnyvale @MikeMitchNH @Noahpinion Also, while not rural, those are still relatively low population states, so disproportionate influence in the Senate. (ex DC, again obvious outlier).

@JJD\U Aqua@peternsunnyvale@MikeMitchNH@Noahpinion虽然不是农村，但这些州的人口仍然相对较少，因此在参议院的影响力不成比例。（除DC外，还是明显的异常值）。

@JJD_Aqua @peternsunnyvale @MikeMitchNH @Noahpinion The reason those are outliers is obvious. There are other reasonable outliers like AK/HI due to geography. It is not clear at all why Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky,
Missouri, Arizona, etc. should be anywhere near the top, other than disproportionate access to pork.

@JJD\u Aqua@peternsunnyvale@MikeMitchNH@Noahpinion这些是异常值的原因是显而易见的。由于地理原因，还有其他合理的异常值，如AK/HI。为什么阿拉巴马州、密西西比州、肯塔基州，
密苏里州、亚利桑那州等地应该在接近顶部的任何地方，而不是过度获取猪肉。

@JJD_Aqua @peternsunnyvale @MikeMitchNH @Noahpinion Applies to military spending too
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/r... https://t.co/Wsuqr6Wpwn

@JJD\u Aqua@peternsunnyvale@MikeMitchNH@Noahpinion也适用于军事开支
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/r...https://t.co/Wsuqr6Wpwn

@JJD_Aqua @peternsunnyvale @MikeMitchNH @Noahpinion Federal spending per capita is very lopsided to low pop states, and most of it isn't spent cutting weeds on federal lands.

@JJD\U Aqua@peternsunnyvale@MikeMitchNH@Noahpinion联邦人均支出与低流行性州非常不平衡，而且大部分支出都没有用于在联邦土地上除草。

@Noahpinion It's sort of land, but in an odd and mostly arbitrary way. Texas and California (and Alaska) would have more votes if it were actually land, and the northeast would have fewer. Not sure how that would shake out.

@这是一种土地，但以一种奇怪的、最武断的方式。如果德克萨斯州和加利福尼亚州（以及阿拉斯加州）实际上是陆地，那么得票率会更高，而东北部的得票率会更低。不知道那会怎样。

@dankellytweets @AaaaAnderson12 @medrivaUS @medriva I just did a google search and could not find a single instance of Zients ever mentioning it. Walensky has never mentioned it on twitter, though not sure in general (didn't look, but I'm sure it if she did it hasn't been much).

@dankellytweets@AaaaAnderson12@medrivaUS@medriva我刚在谷歌上搜索了一下，找不到任何一个Zients提到它的例子。瓦伦斯基从来没有在推特上提到过这件事，虽然总体上不确定（没有看，但我相信如果她这么做了，也不会太多）。

@dankellytweets @AaaaAnderson12 @medrivaUS @medriva Discussed in public that is. In private, who knows. There should be digging to find out, that's for sure.

@dankellytweets@AaaaAnderson12@medrivaUS@medriva公开讨论过这一点。私下里，谁知道呢。这是肯定的，应该挖掘才能找到答案。

@dankellytweets @AaaaAnderson12 @medrivaUS @medriva Among those in a position of prominence and authority, it hasn't been discussed much. I'm not sure Jeff Zients ever said the word, neither Ashish Jha nor Rochelle Walensky has said it all that much much (the latter being in official office much longer, of course).

@dankellytweets@AaaaAnderson12@medrivaUS@medriva在那些具有显赫地位和权威的人中，这一点没有被讨论太多。我不确定Jeff Zients是否说过这个词，Ashish Jha和Rochelle Walensky都没有说那么多（当然，后者在官方任职的时间要长得多）。

@AbraarKaran The accountability should lie with those experts who pushed (and/or accepted) the notion that "what we care about is hospitalizations and deaths". You know who they are. Call them out.
Policy makers (and likewise the public) are not experts and can only rely on experts.

@AbraarKaran责任应该在于那些推动（和/或接受）“我们关心的是住院和死亡”这一概念的专家。你知道他们是谁。叫他们出来。
决策者（以及公众）不是专家，只能依靠专家。

@dankellytweets @AaaaAnderson12 @medrivaUS @medriva Lagging indicator AND not considering the impact of long covid
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/0...

@dankellytweets@AaaaAnderson12@medrivaUS@medriva滞后指标，未考虑长冠状病毒的影响
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/0...

@mattyglesias @albrgr Probably contributed but also against a background of declining overall car deaths for decades (in all cases of absolute, per-capita, and per-distance-driven).

@mattyglesias@albrgr可能有贡献，但也是在几十年来总体汽车死亡人数不断下降的背景下（在绝对、人均和每行驶距离的所有情况下）。

@ryanashank @Austen @JoshSabol It's only not taxable if the borrower is insolvent/bankrupt. Might be true in some cases, often not.

@ryanashank@Austen@JoshSabol只有在借款人无力偿债/破产的情况下才不征税。在某些情况下可能是真的，但通常不是。

@coryklippsten At least DOGE and BNB did. There are probably others. The number is not zero.

@coryklippsten至少DOGE和BNB做到了。可能还有其他人。数字不是零。

@EnemyInAState It was racism in early 2020 and it is racism now. Only a problem in Asia because they eat bats -> only a problem in Africa because they eat monkeys.

@EnemyInAState在2020年初是种族主义，现在是种族主义。这在亚洲是个问题，因为他们吃蝙蝠->；只有非洲才有问题，因为它们吃猴子。

@aaronstrauss @jeffhauser That's reasonable. And more votes against the initiative than for Trump.

@aaronstrauss@jeffhauser这很合理。反对该倡议的票数超过了支持特朗普的票数。

@aaronstrauss @jeffhauser Looks behind to me? I guess not clear because of third party votes?

@aaronstrauss@jeffhauser回头看我？我想不清楚是因为第三方投票？

@Amiright @ArtValley818_ @MalcolmNance You're making an argument about conflicts between rights and between rights and public safety. It is a reasonable one, but it's also a different one from redefining common rifles as exotic.
Also, that "leading cause of death" is mostly handguns, unaffected by your proposal.

@Amiright@ArtValley818\uu@MalcolmNance你在争论权利之间以及权利与公共安全之间的冲突。这是一个合理的定义，但它也不同于将普通步枪重新定义为异国情调。
此外，“主要死因”大多是手枪，不受你的提议影响。

@Amiright @ArtValley818_ @MalcolmNance Nobody actually reads it as a limit on technology or the first amendment wouldn't apply to any sort of modern media, fourth amendment wouldn't apply to thermal imaging, etc.

@Amiright@ArtValley818\uu@MalcolmNance没有人真正将其理解为对技术的限制，或者第一修正案不适用于任何类型的现代媒体，第四修正案不适用于热成像等。

@JohnnyNieves12 @Amiright @ArtValley818_ @MalcolmNance Approximately 0.00% of AR style rifles out there are ever modified to be fully automatic. In fact to my recollection none of the famous school shootings did so. Again, these are the most common, widely-available and affordable rifles.

@JohnnyNieves12@Amiright@ArtValley818\uu@MalcolmNance大约有0.00%的AR型步枪曾经被改装为全自动。事实上，在我的记忆中，没有一次著名的校园枪击案是这样的。同样，这些步枪是最常见、最普遍、最实惠的。