@simon_gordon_ @MartianPontiac @ShurmerRoland @Grutzmac @Griffith17431 @fitterhappierAJ "Less often" suggests a rate. I agree it's not the clearest way to word the statement.

@simon_gordon_uu@MartianPontiac@ShurmerRoland@Grutzmac@Griffith17431@fitterhappierAJ“不太经常”表明有一个比率。我同意这不是最清晰的表达方式。

@Charlescann6 @flowermusickids @joeyfox85 She also reported that some of the bulbs are fake (just purple bulbs, but little to no UVC output)

@CharleScan6@flowermusickids@Joey Fox85她还报告说，有些球茎是假的（只有紫色球茎，但几乎没有UVC输出）

@ShurmerRoland @simon_gordon_ @Grutzmac @MartianPontiac @Griffith17431 @fitterhappierAJ Most of the population and especially most of the high risk population is vaccinated and boosted. The raw numbers don't tell you anything here.

@ShurmerRoland@simon_gordon_uzmac@Martian Pontiac@Griffith17431@fitterhappierAJ大多数人口，尤其是大多数高危人群都接种了疫苗，并得到了加强。这里的原始数据并不能告诉你任何事情。

@lainemartin1 @sfchronicle @AbraarKaran He said this a while back
https://twitter.com/AbraarKara...

@lainemartin1@sfchronicle@AbraarKaran他刚才说过
https://twitter.com/AbraarKara...

@WuBlockchain "Reward rate is variable"
Meaning what?

@WuBlockchain“回报率是可变的”
什么意思？

@ryan_landay How do we know this has anything to do with covid at all?

@ryan_landay我们怎么知道这和新冠病毒有关？

@radioramin @justthefacts85 @Gab_H_R It's a double pendulum.

@radioramin@justthefact85@Gab_H_R这是一个双摆。

@drensber @Bob_Wachter @dr_kkjetelina 1. Fair, although not necessarily the best way to measure. If air travel decreased by 99%, clearly the environment would benefit; travelers and airlines would not.
2. Of course, and middle seats aren't blocked. If they were prices would be higher and bookings lower.

@drensber@Bob_Wachter@dr_kjetelina 1。公平，虽然不一定是最好的衡量方式。如果航空旅行减少99%，显然环境会受益；旅行者和航空公司不会这么做。
2.当然，中间的座位没有被堵住。如果是这样的话，价格会更高，预订量会更低。

@WillBrockman2 @wsbgnl There was no reason to do the latter. NYC didn't, and LA is bringing them back.

@WillBrockman2@wsbgnl没有理由这样做。纽约没有，洛杉矶正在把他们带回来。

@drensber @Bob_Wachter @dr_kkjetelina Different question, but actually not true if air travel declined by 1/3.

@drensber@Bob_Wachter@dr_kkjetelina提出了不同的问题，但如果航空旅行减少了1/3，事实上就不是这样了。

@flowermusickids @joeyfox85 Looking for one magic bullet is deeply ingrained.
https://www.theatlantic.com/he... https://t.co/G9UROM4NKO

@flowermusickids@Joey Fox85寻找一颗神奇的子弹是根深蒂固的。
https://www.theatlantic.com/he... https://t.co/G9UROM4NKO

@justthefacts85 @Gab_H_R Pendulum swinging over to the "Find Out" side?

@仅仅是摆在“发现”一边的85@Gab_H_R摆？

@flowermusickids @joeyfox85 I don't know whether I agree or disagree. It depends how much reduction can be achieved. If not enough, then you are definitely right.
I was mostly pointing out the implied premise.
If EVERYTHING had outdoor-level risk, could even SC-2 continue to spread? I don't know.

@flowermusickids@Joey Fox85我不知道我是否同意。这取决于能实现多少减排。如果还不够，那你肯定是对的。
我主要是指隐含的前提。
如果一切都有户外风险，那么SC-2还会继续传播吗？我不知道。

@RadCentrism Yes, agree.

@是的，同意。

@RadCentrism The clumsy March 2020 stimulus was excusable in an "oh shit button" sense, but later rounds were just as poorly designed if not more so.

@RadCentrism 2020年3月笨拙的刺激计划在“哦，该死的按钮”的意义上是可以原谅的，但后来的几轮计划即使不是更糟糕，也是同样糟糕。

@RadCentrism Agree with this old reply. Stimulus, foolishly, went to a lot of people who didn't need it and fueled wealth effect and discretionary spending, mostly on goods, which both directly fueled inflation and snarled supply chains.
https://twitter.com/GainOfDyst...

@Radcentralism同意这个古老的回答。刺激政策愚蠢地流向了许多不需要它的人，刺激了财富效应和可自由支配的支出，主要是在商品上，这两者都直接助长了通货膨胀和混乱的供应链。
https://twitter.com/GainOfDyst...

@furioursus @salesforce Old page visible on wayback machine
https://web.archive.org/web/*/...

@furioursus@salesforce旧页面在wayback机器上可见
https://web.archive.org/web/*/...

@Noahpinion Not free speech.

@无耻不是言论自由。

@Noahpinion STFU is free speech.

@Noahpinion STFU是言论自由。

@Noahpinion It was funded by retail investors. VCs cashed out at a profit.

@Noahpinion It由散户投资者提供资金。风投公司获利套现。