[Personal opinion: The evidence is not enough to prove that is was created/improved/selected in a lab. It has a few "lucky" features, but normal coronavirus don't cause pandemics, so we already know it is a "lucky" case.]
18 points by haltingproblem 8 days ago | flag | hide | past | favorite | 4 comments
I've seen an article claiming that it spread from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. But not in the sense that they created, improved or selected it. I gather that they were simply isolating and studying viruses from bats that had been collected in southern China. And they were doing that based on concerns about new pandemics, given experience with SARS and MERS, and the expectation that there would be more zoonotic jumps from bat populations.
I would not dismiss his arguments at first sight. but they are presented as anecdotes, not as convincing proof. his gut instinct might be right, because he is experienced, but there should be a proof. And genomics proofs are actually easy nowadays. everybody is familiar with neural networks and how long it needs to come up with optimized mutations. I just miss the mathematical proof of the low likelihood of natural mutations in x generations to come up with that special spike. Note that the period of 10-14 days per generation is extremely fast. Like with the drosphila. extraordinary claims need better proofs.
Google around and you will find it. To me it makes no difference whether it was or wasn’t, what was eye opening was the speed of it hitting and being removed.
It’s the unwillingness to even allow the topic on HN which intrigued me. Believing what I believe (ie my bias) I was surprised it got as far as it did - because I know that’s not the HN community party line - and then noticed it disappeared within seconds of me seeing it on home page. I was the first to comment on it so it couldn’t have been because the threads descended into a flame war and I was unaware of which other guidelines it could have broken given it was a legit site referencing a legit paper in a legit journal (but taking a perspective the broader Hn community won’t tolerate).
> it was a legit site referencing a legit paper in a legit journal
It wasn't. the article explained how they couldn't find a publisher for it. That's why I flagged it, because that's a red flag.
It was also based on the statistical fallacy that Feynman once summed up with "There is a car with license plate GH02B [a sequence with no meaning] outside. What are the odds?!"
Do you know what porn today is like? There's so much of it and a lot of it is highly stimulating, full of interesting and unattainable-in-real-life kinks. Maybe you were exposed, but it was not likely as accessible as it is for kids/people now. Unless you have experienced the pit of despair, going through porn addiction, it's easy to think that people are going to survive it fine just like we did.
A lot of people can enjoy a healthy amount of porn and then move on from it because they were able to get a real life partner or something. Many are destroyed by it, because they have no other option and simply go downhill from there.
But it's true, you can't just ban it either. That's definitely what I'm not asking for.
Okay, the government could say if landlords increase their rent, then we'll increase their property tax by 5-10x the amount. If they want to play that game, we'll do the same, but much worse. Let's see what they do then.
In my article, I am not looking to establish intent. I am just showing what is effectively happening and therefore to make my point it does not matter at all where fewer companies are Black-owned
They never cover the success stories of small time traders who have been enabled by Robinhood and such brokerages who require no minimums and no commission fees.
To me, this just sounds like gatekeeping as usual. The boomer investors don't like the young blood coming in and ruining their game, and realizing how much money can be made by essentially shuffling money around on the stock market while doing nothing concretely valuable to society.
Bad economy might lead to wars and conflicts. But if it kills a lot of people, I guess that's good for the climate in the long game. Wars are also great for the economy assuming you survive.
Wow, the outlook for the next decade is fantastic.
I don't know your age, but I've been rather worried about the fact that almost all my < 30 years old friends seem to be some degree of 'doomer'. Whether it's climate, the economy (and the prospects of retirement), or even just expectations if what their next few decades will be like.
Obviously I don't just worry that they feel this way, but also that they probably have a good reason for feeling this way, but either way it's worrying.
I don't think this is a "funny haha gotcha conservatives" prank. This a real propaganda/fake news effort by a foreign power to subvert US journalism. It could happen to anyone. Is there really a need to make this partisan by dunking on the Right-Wing for falling victim to it?
What's the plan? Do you start executing anyone who doesn't openly support your cause? I mean, their silence is violence right? It's justified if we kill them. Only by killing the racists and enablers of racism, can we tear down the old system and build a new one that is not racist. I think that's the right thing for you to do. Anything less must be perpetuating a systemically racist system, no?
"I illegally fix iPhones on the black market..."