@mskathleenquinn @AndrewNoymer @RadCentrism That is true.

@mskathleenquinn @AndrewNoymer @RadCentrism 这是真的。

@itsthelee @SteveMock1961 @IDoTheThinking @pickover In general people are pretty cognitively biased by "$1 million" because "millionaire" used to be this truly elite thing outside of normalcy, and that still pervades culture to a degree.
These days people with a circle of professionals likely knows many "millionaires".

@itsthelee @SteveMock1961 @IDoTheThinking @pickover 总的来说，人们对“100 万美元”的认知有很大的偏见，因为“百万富翁”曾经是常态之外的真正精英事物，并且在一定程度上仍然渗透到文化中。
如今，拥有专业人士圈子的人可能认识许多“百万富翁”。

@itsthelee @SteveMock1961 @IDoTheThinking @pickover It's life changing but $50 million a LOT more life changing. If this were $10m vs $50m, the simplistic EV calculation doesn't really change but the life impact decision changes enormously.

@itsthelee @SteveMock1961 @IDoTheThinking @pickover 这改变了生活，但 5000 万美元改变了生活。如果这是 1000 万美元对 5000 万美元，简单的 EV 计算并没有真正改变，但生活影响决定发生了巨大变化。

@AndrewNoymer @RadCentrism There are labs and such which are specifically in Atlanta (and not remote) but I'm not sure that matters much to director level leadership, and probably even less so when it comes to leading national public health.

@AndrewNoymer @RadCentrism 有专门在亚特兰大（而不是偏远地区）的实验室等，但我不确定这对主任级别的领导有多大影响，在领导国家公共卫生方面可能更不重要。

@AndrewNoymer @RadCentrism I'd offer a couple of counterpoints:
1. Much of CDC also remote worked a lot. Being in Atlanta would often mean zooming from Altanta rather than Newton
2. A lot of work is interfacing between Atlanta and DC. Also not clear being it Atlanta much better than Newton for that.

@AndrewNoymer @RadCentrism 我会提出几个反对意见：
1. 很多 CDC 也远程工作了很多。在亚特兰大通常意味着从 Altanta 而不是 Newton
2. 亚特兰大和华盛顿之间有很多工作要做。也不清楚亚特兰大是否比牛顿好得多。

@RadCentrism @AndrewNoymer I mean she's terrible but I don't quite understand this criticism. Remote work didn't make her tell vaxed people not to mask on the honor system, that breakthroughs were rare, discourage N95s, etc., etc.

@RadCentrism @AndrewNoymer 我的意思是她很糟糕，但我不太理解这种批评。远程工作并没有让她告诉虚弱的人不要在荣誉系统上蒙面，突破很少见，不鼓励 N95 等等，等等。

@danaparish @NIH @WHO @US_FDA @POTUS Cite on medtwitter shills
https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@danaparish @NIH @WHO @US_FDA @POTUS 引用 medtwitter shills
https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@SteveMock1961 @itsthelee @IDoTheThinking @pickover For most people on the planet, $1 million would be more than lifetime income and be enough to retire. But not in high income high cost areas. With $50 million everyone can be care free, which as you say is worth a lot, so reasonable people can have a meaningful choice here.

@SteveMock1961 @itsthelee @IDoTheThinking @pickover 对于地球上的大多数人来说，100 万美元将超过终生收入，足以退休。但不在高收入高成本地区。有了 5000 万美元，每个人都可以无忧无虑，正如你所说，这很值得，所以理性的人可以在这里做出有意义的选择。

@just_sum_guy7 @EricTopol @MaximeTaquet @UniofOxford Long covid is fucking up people's brains.

@just_sum_guy7 @EricTopol @MaximeTaquet @UniofOxford 长期covid 正在搞砸人们的大脑。

@mmirwaldt @BrianGoetz @pickover Heh, those mathematicians must make some bad life choices!

@mmirwaldt @BrianGoetz @pickover 嘿，那些数学家必须做出一些糟糕的人生选择！

@EricTopol @MaximeTaquet @UniofOxford Dr Topol, can you explain why people write things like "children were not at increased risk" when the data presented are ambiguous and could be consistent with children being at increased risk (albeit limited magnitude), and further how does this pass peer review?

@EricTopol @MaximeTaquet @UniofOxford Topol 博士，您能解释一下为什么当所提供的数据模棱两可并且可能与儿童风险增加（尽管幅度有限）一致时，人们会写“儿童没有增加风险”之类的东西，以及如何进一步说明如何这是否通过了同行评审？

@mmirwaldt @BrianGoetz @pickover Also I don't think all reasonable mathematicians would always push red. It definitely depends on specifics (for example, if you're a billionaire, you definitely push green). So you do need a more complex model. I may have misunderstood your point though.

@mmirwaldt @BrianGoetz @pickover 另外，我认为并非所有合理的数学家都会总是推红。这绝对取决于具体情况（例如，如果你是亿万富翁，你肯定会推动绿色）。所以你确实需要一个更复杂的模型。不过我可能误解了你的意思。

@mmirwaldt @BrianGoetz @pickover You could start with a reasonable model of decreasing marginal utility. That's not the whole answer but it gets you a lot farther than EV.

@mmirwaldt @BrianGoetz @pickover 您可以从一个合理的边际效用递减模型开始。这不是全部答案，但它让你比电动汽车走得更远。

@BrianGoetz @pickover That seems like a narrow definition of math to me. The question is a lot more interesting if viewed broadly. It was likely meant to be proactive and not constrain to a simple "answer" like EV or even a simple utility function, I think.

@BrianGoetz @pickover 这对我来说似乎是数学的狭义定义。如果从广义上看，这个问题会更有趣。我认为，它可能意味着积极主动，而不是局限于像 EV 这样的简单“答案”，甚至是简单的效用函数。

@AndrewCMyers @pickover Maximizing engagement by being ambiguous, of course.

@AndrewCMyers @pickover 当然，通过模棱两可来最大化参与度。

@mmirwaldt @BrianGoetz @pickover That's really only one way of framing the question in terms of "math". In fact math can be quite broad, including how you might apply math to model the ways people actually make this decision.

@mmirwaldt @BrianGoetz @pickover 这实际上只是用“数学”来构建问题的一种方式。事实上，数学可以相当广泛，包括你如何应用数学来模拟人们实际做出这个决定的方式。

@BrianGoetz @pickover Utility metrics, or at least characterizing and applying them, could also be broadly considered as "mathematics" but perhaps not what was meant here.

@BrianGoetz @pickover 实用指标，或者至少描述和应用它们，也可以被广泛地视为“数学”，但可能不是这里的意思。

@BurakYngn @pickover Not only net worth (usually considered as a financial calculation) but also value of your human capital.
https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@BurakYngn @pickover 不仅是净资产（通常被视为财务计算），还有你的人力资本价值。
https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@itsthelee @IDoTheThinking @pickover $1 million isn't really life changing for someone in a high income high cost of living area with good career prospects. You're not going to retire on it and you'll make much more from working.
Someone suggested change the $1m->$10m to make it more interesting, I agree.

@itsthelee @IDoTheThinking @pickover 100 万美元并没有真正改变生活在高收入、高生活成本地区、具有良好职业前景的人的生活。你不会退休，你会从工作中赚到更多。
有人建议改变 100 万美元——

@lunarstudio @Arlington_Dad @AltenbergLee @jamie_weisman EU is about 25% according to the chart above, only a few points higher than Taiwan. US is much worse.

@lunarstudio @Arlington_Dad @AltenbergLee @jamie_weisman 根据上表，欧盟约为 25%，仅比台湾高几个点。美国差很多。