La1n

I don't think this belongs on HN, can someone explain to me why this does, seeing as this is number one on the front page? This doesn't seem to stimulate good and curious discussion to me.

>and that it leaked from a lab (based on the lockdown and sequestering of lab personnel in december).

You say "sound evidence" and then name some circumstantial evidence. This is similar types of evidence used for the "Fort Detrick origin" story. It was shut down in August 2019 for safety violations, and the Wuhan military games "could be" how it spread to China.

Yes, that's why they no longer in the control group. Informed consent can be withdrawn at any time during a trial, and people are not obligated to not take a vaccine when in the control group. The only thing you can do is remove someone from the study, or possibly move them to the other study arm.

Yes, the Taliban also commits war crimes...

I don't have a link, but I've noticed that quite a few videos in the similar corner of topics need an "age check" (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2khAmMTAjI , the creator of which was (according to them) visited by DHS for "anti-american sentiments" [1] )

[1] https://twitter.com/_secondthought/status/133274615894763520...

Most countries, even non-allies would not want to be invaded by the US.

>Whatever happens is up to the US internal politics and the culture of the US nation.

If only the US would live by that when looking at other countries. Sanctions, embargos, trade-restrictions, threats are used against other countries by the US, why should they be treated any different themselves?

>and put them on trial in a way that US cannot interfere with.

I think that would be near impossible when looking at US laws like the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...

Especially considering this is a multiple testing issue. When checking a lot of politicians there is likely going to be someone who is doing really well, even if it's just by chance.

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

I think the implied meaning of that question is that we are heading towards "cyberpunk" and we should not want to live in a dystopia.

>On the other hand, solarpunk art is an overtly optimistic movement, which leaves very little room for a confrontational political message.

I think hopeful instead of optimistic. Even going with optimistic, it seems to be optimistic about the opportunity and possibility of (political) change.

This bucket of nails isn't related to a USSR satellite, but was theorised by Arthur C. Clarke.

>2 For the origins of Clarke’s “bucket of nails” argument; Clarke gave the speech “Where is Mankind Headed?” on May 25 1983 for the Reader’s Digest Worldwide Editorial Conference. In the conference’s summary “Memories of Monaco,” Clarke’s speech was described as follows: “After dinner, Arthur Clarke, the noted British science-fiction writer, spoke on ‘The Militarization of Space.’ To put nuclear war into perspective, he quoted a chilling statement from Carl Sagan: ‘A full-scale thermonuclear exchange would be the equivalent of World War II, once a second, for the length of a lazy summer afternoon.’ Clarke went on to demonstrate that there’s no security in technology, concluding that the only defense is to prevent weapons from being used. Thus, the problem is political, not military. At one point, he described how a sophisticated, multi-billion-dollar laser weapon system could be destroyed by a bucket of nails,” see “Memories of Monaco from Reader’s Digest Worldwide Editorial Conference,” May 21-28, 1983, Folder 4, Box 144, Arthur C. Clarke Collection (Acc. 2015-0010), Air and Space Archives, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, 14-15.

From: https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/398410/Th... [PDF]

>Estonian

I think an issue here is that in lower-income countries software without regional pricing is considerably more of an expense. Something like Office or Photoshop is also quite different than a videogame imho, those are skills that are valuable (or often expected) on the labour market.

>So it comes down to a purely emotional response to someone else making money off something you made.

Exactly, as I said, the material situation is the same. But we all are emotional beings, you would do certain things for your family you wouldn't for strangers. I don't think this case is any different.

I personally don't work for free for a company, but I do charity work for free. Working for a company in the time I work for a charity would "cost me absolutely nothing" if I already spend the time anyway, but everyone understands the difference.

>very specific cases

Sadly not true:

https://cdt.org/insights/law-enforcement-national-security-a...

>The HIPAA Privacy Rule provides a broad exception for national security purposes. Under the Rule, a covered entity may disclose any and all protected (identifiable) health information (PHI) for “lawful intelligence, counter-intelligence and national security purposes” (emphasis added). On its face, the Rule does not require a court order or any other enforceable or formal demand; disclosure may be completely voluntary and may be initiated by the covered entity even in the absence of a request from a government official

Are we now also not seeing now why people would want to do that? A multi-billion dollar company using people work to make more profits without paying them.

I definitely understand why people pick a license that disallows use someone doesn't agree with. Imagine baking cookies for your friends, and one of them reselling them. The material effect is the same to you, you gave away your cookies, but sometimes you make/do something for a certain group of people and not for other to make a profit of your work.

>And this isn't a "tin foil hat" post or a conspiracy theory. It's food for thought.

You can say that too when you bring up some 9/11 truther "questions". Doesn't make it less of a conspiracy theory.

>Shipping is crucial to Amazon's business model. The last mile problem is the vulnerable jugular of the e-commerce industry

This is also why dock-workers unions have historically been very powerful.

https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/etd/ucb/text/FoxHodes...

> has much fewer additives.

Goose:

chili 61%, sugar syrup, salt, garlic, water, acids: E260, E330, monosodium glutamate (E621), xanthan gum E415, potassium sorbate (E202).

Huy Fong:

Chili, sugar, salt, garlic, distilled vinegar, potassium sorbate (E202), sodium bisulfite (E222), and xanthan gum (E415)

Seems very similar, distilled vinegar is E260, and E330 is citric acid.

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." -Newton

All science is based on the work of others, and it always has been.

>The 80-20 rule tells us that it takes 80% of the time to finish the last 20% of a project

No, it's not necessarily the last. Just that 20% of the work in total will take approximately 80% of the time. Tasks/projects aren't "sorted".

It's the opposite isn't it? k-anonymity would remove data until you are the same as k others, whereas this adds data (such as first name), so you are not the same as many others?

> It’s the absolute numbers.

Yes, for the world, and not per country. Otherwise it'd be "better" for the world if larger countries just split into many smaller ones.

> under excuses of damage and recent Chernobyl series.

Actually it has been a way longer process starting in 2000/2001[1], with Fukushima having a significant impact.[2] It doesn't seem the Chernobyl series was responsible.

[1] https://www.terradaily.com/2003/031114130333.jlvf6wjx.html

[2] http://bos.sagepub.com/content/67/4/14.abstract

Exactly, it's weird to think that militarization of space should be something no one can defend themselves against. If a radar installation or military intelligence unit on land is a valid target, it should be in space too.

This testing and development of ASAT weapons is fully a response to the countries putting military technology in space.

Private property isn't "anything you can own" here, it has a very specific meaning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property#Personal_ver...

I don't think that's an accurate representation. Can you link where he says he never heard of gain of function research?

I think this would only work if already done research was shared. Otherwise you get in the situation where countries that had the resources to do this before oversight get access to knowledge they can deny others to obtain.

> If you don't like an article, move on.

You just explained why you think this should be on HN, something that wouldn't have happened without the question.

>only when it can be identified.

Note that it also includes indirect identification, which means that if combined with other data it would identify you. Recital 30 might be of use here too;

>Natural persons may be associated with online identifiers provided by their devices, applications, tools and protocols, such as internet protocol addresses, cookie identifiers or other identifiers such as radio frequency identification tags. This may leave traces which, in particular when combined with unique identifiers and other information received by the servers, may be used to create profiles of the natural persons and identify them.