If the two options are a) coming from a wet market vs b) coming from a coronavirus gain of function laboratory in Wuhan that's funded by the CDC, you have to start thinking about this more than just MAGA conspiracy theories.
It's the most bloody obvious explanation, and in a sane world where "MAGA" didn't just turn off everyone's brain cells and cause them to blindly repeat what they're told, any alternative would need some serious heft to be convincing.
I don't know how you could read this story as anything other than complete vindication of the people who turn off their brains and refuse to listen to anything "MAGA" has to say. I wasn't in their camp, I thought Kennedy was going to be fine, and now he's working full time to make sure Americans get more diseases and fewer treatments.
'coronavirus gain of function laboratory in Wuhan that's funded by the CDC' is misleading.
The particular lab (Wuhan Institute of Virology) is not a 'coronavirus gain of function laboratory', but an institute studying viruses, including the coronavirus, and including gain of function research. And, critically, "the viruses used in these experiments were not physically present but rather consisted of synthesized genetic sequences, meaning they were not complete, nor infectious viral particles capable of replication, and the pseudo-virus experiments conducted to test human cell entry lacked the ability to replicate." (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12040609/).
It's possible that WIV did screw up and create, intentionally or otherwise, the virus responsible for the pandemic. And, WIV has been linked with military research programs. But, it's not a slam dunk, and the best/widest scientific consensus is still, in 2025, that the origin was natural/biological and came as a result of human/wild-animal contact.
The most bloody obvious explanation is a natural origin, exactly like the first SARS. Did you forget about that was also a coronavirus outbreak, a close cousin of the COVID-19 (whose real name is SARS-cov-2) that was more lethal (but less contagious, and contained thanks to the heroic efforts of Hong Kong and south Korea)?
> Sadly, Kent responds to everything in an email except the key part that is being pointed out to him (usually his behavior).
Behaviour sounds like the least important part of code contributions. I smell overpowered, should've-been-a-kindergarten-teacher code of conduct person overreach.
No. As someone who likes bcachefs and even literally donates to Kent's patreon, the way he has gone about engaging with the kernel community is not productive. Unfortunately.
CoC isn't even the issue, he constantly breaks kernel development rules relating to the actual code, then starts arguments with everyone up to and including Linus when he gets called out, and aggressively misses the point every time. Then starts the same argument all over again 6 weeks later.
And, like, if you don't like some rules, then you can have that discussion, but submitting patches you know will be rejected and then re-litigating your dislike of the rules is a waste of everyone's time.
I think it is partly about code of conduct issues[0]. I totally agree that Linus can run whatever release process he likes, and Overbeck should get in line with that. However all of the accompanying sighing at how many times we've had to explain things to him from others is not okay. So what if more discussion is needed or wanted? People doing difficult work might have strong opinions. People doing easy work (e.g. sending code of conduct emails) should not have an equal weight to their opinions, if any at all.
No, Kent has generally had a nice tone. The issue is that he has repeatedly violated the rules about code contributions. For example by including new features together with several bug-fixes during rc. That is not a CoC issue, it is not respecting the rules of patch submission and not respecting the time of the kernel maintainers.
> Israel, South Africa, Russia, all have (or had) exceptional engineering abilities developed because international support was withheld.
I think if you add the US to the list this theory disappears. It's more the frontier/self reliant/entrepreneurial attitude that I think makes the difference.
On the other hand setting up the turn servers and so on for signaling before the webrtc connection is established can be a nightmare, if not using a third party service like twilio
The article is answering a specific question, and has excluded this on purpose. If you have a sunk training cost you still want to know if you can at least operate profitably.
There's absolutely loads being done for the first time here. Not least of which: running this r&d off commercial contracts instead of directly off taxpayer money.
reply