I wonder how much is this due to this noble pursuit of truth and the scientific process, and how much is due to having an axe to grind and desperately seeking any scapegoat to be sacrificed in the altar of self-righteousness.

Even your justification reeks of "you're with us or against us" mob mentality.

Just because you trust who is in charge today that does not mean that said person/organization will continue indefinitely as-is.

The UK has strict rules on how much petrol/gas anyone can carry. Consequently this type of law works as an automatic rationing.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/law-rul...

So yes, "allowing supply and demand to work" is a stupid idea that patently does not work at all, as exemplified by the ridiculous toilet paper shortage of 2020.

You should really pay attention to what you're claiming, specially as there is absolutely zero substance or evidence supporting your claim. Your accusation boils down to the same exact witch hunt logic that led angry mobs to burn innocent people at the stake: claim you believe someone happened without zero evidence at all, proceed to allege someone of having the means to do it, from a massive logical leap start to accuse someone who you alleged is capable of something of actually doing it in spite, again, of having zero evidence at all, and proceed to throw that victim to the fire.

I suppose our witch hunting days are behind us, but you're dragging them back to the present by repeating the same logical mistakes and in the process throw innocents into the fire.

Do the world a favor and cut out all the baseless accusations and unsubstantiated claims. It's one thing to argue that some bits should be investigated, but it's an entirely different thing to screw up logical and rational thinking so badly to the point that you make the same completely baseless and unsubstantiated claims you're making.

If that was the case then go ahead and just show the theory.

Just provide a single evidence that supports said claim. Any at all.

Don't just handwave after claiming something is impossible, otherwise you're just intentionally spreading lies and misinformation.

What evidence? There was a grant proposal, and the proposal was rejected. Why do you feel that the fact that the rejected proposal referred to North Carolina is supposed to be "damning" at all, or even remotely relevant?

> China would have strong motivation to have SARS related research considering SARS originates in their country.

It has. They fund their own lab at Wuhan. Why is this damning in light of a failed grant proposal that never went off the ground?

No, I left out the weasel words from the original claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

Either GP's claim is factual and indeed he is aware of proof of impossibility, or he is not and he's just knowingly spreading disinformation.

> If you're objecting to the idea that well-accepted scientific theories (...)

I object to the idea of random people on the internet knowingly spreading disinformation with baseless claims that fly on the face of critical thinking, and then resorting to vague appeals to authority, inversions of the burden of truth, and outright bullying to force-fed their disinformation.

If there is any proof whatsoever supporting the claim that such thing is impossible then just support your claim and present the evidence or source. Don't expect everyone to just take your word for it, specially after you tried desperately to invert the burden of proof.

I feel this claim is simply not believable nor possible to take at face value, given that in order for a proof of impossibility to even be considered you need supporting evidence and a falsifiable model, which you have none.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility

Given this, do you have any reference that supports your assertion? I'd like to hear your rationale to claim that something like this is outright impossible.

For those who, like me, are unfamiliar with the concept of a SSH tarpit, it's a technique consisting of inserting delays into SSH connection attempts.

Old HN discussion on Endlessh:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24491453

It's the first time I heard of anything of the sort.

Do you have any reference pointing out, or is this just Facebook hearsay?

As a reference never hurts, specially in a topic prone to disinformation, here's a link to the WHO's page on its official list of members of their "Global Study of the Origins of SARS-COV2".

Dr. Peter Daszak, Ph.D (EcoHealth Alliance, USA) is listed as a member.

https://www.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus/origins-of-the...

This.

The general guideline has always been that Python is ideal for glue code and non-performance-critical code, and when performance became an issue then Python code would simply be used as glue code to invoke specialized libraries. Perhaps the most popular example of this approach is bumpy, which uses BLAS and LAPACK internally to handle linear algebra stuff.

This Nim advertisement sounds awfully desperate with the way it resorts to what feels like a poorly assembled strawman, while giving absolutely nothing in return.

That doesn't sound right at all. It sounds like a design choice aimed at achieving the exact opposite: inconsistency without any positive tradeoff in return.

> Not including the first letter avoids most of the annoyance of wantonly mixing all cap constants or lower case and linters avoid teams mismatching internal styles.

That does not sound right at all. At most, it sounds like the compiler does not throw errors when stumbling on what would otherwise be syntax errors, but you still have all the mismatches in internal styles and linters complaining about code and teams wasting time with internal piss matches, and more importantly a way to foster completely futile nitpicking discussions within a language community.

It's reasonable to assume that UBI would be linked with an increase in the demand for some goods and services, but there is no indication that this would reflect in a proportional increase in prices. For example, those who live in poverty already tend to purchase substitute goods due to lower price, which is reflected in some aspects such as the link between poverty and malnutrition. In this scenario it's likely that the increase in purchasing power from UBI would actually cause a shift in the market so that it brings down the demand for said substitute goods and instead spread the newly-found demand through other products.

The same scenario also applies to other markets, such as housing. If UBI grants you a little bit of economic freedom so that you are no longer tied to a specific job or place of residence or even access to public transportation, you can also consider moving to a better/cheaper place somewhere else without your livelihood being a constraint.

Keep in mind that one of the enablers of living frugally/off-the-grif is ensuring that you secure your financial needs. Once people are no longer forced to endure a horrible job to make ends meet, they start to make changes to improve their lives.

Not really. You're pointing to production costs, but production costs just define the price's lower bound, not the price itself.

Price depends solely on willingness to pay and pricing strategy, which is higher than the production cost when the product/service is not subsidized or a loss leader.

I disagree. The problem of surveillance still stands even if you trust each and every single actor directly or indirectly involved in it. The critical aspect is that surveillance is made possible through significant investments in infrastructure, and infrastructure outlives actors and governments and regimes. Once you have the infrastructure in place, all it takes is a bad actor to weaponized it and use it to oppress and control you.

Some people who purchase iPhones can't really afford them in the sense of having hundreds of dollars of disposable income, and either save their asses off to treat themselves or take loans.

Apple controls a 20% market share of the smartphone market. Do you really think 20% of the whole world can simply spend $1k without batting an eye?

Even in the US close to 40% of it's population cannot afford an emergency expense of up to $1k, and the US is one of the nations leading in purchasing power.

There is more to life than well-paying STEM jobs in the US.

The "evolve into a cold" hypothesis was more wishful thinking than a sure thing (i.e., pretending the problem would magically go away), which thankly was made possible with the quick turnaround time of the current batch of vaccines.

However, not only are there serious long-lasting consequences from getting Covid but it is also possible to be reinfected with more serious consequences.

Finally, there was a third scenario which I feel people are glancing over: the inception of new strains that pose bigger health risks. The Delta variant popped up from nowhere, spread like wildfire, and is deadlier. In a scenario where vaccines do not ensure immunity and where restrictions are being lifted then this development needs to be on the table because arguably we are already living it.

The site states $126/year.

> I guess everything is relative nonetheless.

Right, $126/year might not sound much for someone holding a STEM job in the US, but unfortunately a lot of people live well below that comfort level.