ejstronge

> if it did I would have thought it would have appeared in the past 5 billion years or so

It may have appeared and been outcompeted. That doesn’t suggest its (artificial) reintroduction would again be outcompeted

> Organizations aren't limited to a single country. My current client has employees in most of, if not every, time zone across the world.

In a single legal entity?

> At any point in time a US based customer might invite a EU based customer, so looking specifically at US jurisdictions is irrelevant.

What case law are you considering when you insinuate that Slack must review the retention of records between users of a Slack business customer?

> but in other situations there may be legal restrictions on reading employee-to-employee conversations.

In which US jurisdictions can employee-to-employee records (from employer-owned communication media) be denied to the employer/customer but maintained by an unrelated third party?

> > as a sibling commenter writes, well-studied cases of this are so rare that

> And yet not a single cite in sight. A random commenter on orange site is not evidence

At a certain point, one has to take on the obligation of self-education.

> Hogwash.

From the website link you pasted: "Test-Specific Technical Issues - Standard tests (such as PCR or in situ hybridization) may not detect HPV types not included in the test panel (rare or classic non-oncogenic variants)."

> There are plenty of papers on HPV independent cervical cancer based on actual gene expression methods published in reputable journals in the last 30 years.

You don't understand the field, so you don't know why the gene expression does not establish the presence or absence of HPV but instead can be used as an argument for the absence of HPV.

EDIT: Also, a fundamental point of misunderstanding - cervical cancer is not a 'new' disorder, so unless you have an explanation for why the 1999 article is wrong, we can't simply discard its result and favor a next-generation sequencing article.

> Spontaneous mutations? Which no matter how much you carve out modifiable risk factors will always be a thing. At least 5% of cervical cancers are HPV negative

Random mutations causing cervical cancer essentially does not happen - as a sibling commenter writes, well-studied cases of this are so rare that they’re below our sensitivity of detection/technical error rates.

This is what I mean when I say we try to apply our intuitions to medicine - they’re not reliable and the truth is idiosyncratic.

Because our prior for cervical cancer being caused by HPV is so incredibly high, we would require overwhelming evidence to reject the hypothesis that any new case is due to HPV. There are ways to do this, and, should they be attained, would be published in a reputable journal based on their novelty.

> You can develop cervical cancer via some other route, but the vast, vast majority of cervical cancers are caused by HPV infection.

What are these other ways? There's an intuition that bodies are like computer programs that can fail in unpredictable ways, but this is usually false and belies a failure to see links between 'novel' and previously described mechanisms.

> No the context going out of control is overblow. Lemme example why. First you need to work at feature level. It shouldn't be too large of a feature in one go.

As a meta point, why write ' Lemme example why.' ?

If someone is still with you at this sentence, that person was ready to understand why.

Otherwise, it delays (and thus endangers the visibility of) whatever your explanation was going to be.

I likely have read at least one of the articles you were citing (or similar work) and my sense was that information was obtained later that was unclear at the time of the event. I see your point - especially when a journalist writes about an area where I have personal experience - but I guess I don't equate this to a decline in journalist quality given the confusion around an event like this.

> I think it was just yesterday, I saw an article about an ICE raid of the Samsung plant in Georgia. It was a pretty long article, and even the tone of the article was pretty level. That said, there was a critical and very important piece missing from the article altogether... "Why?" As in what law(s) were broken and how/why the raid was used. TBH, I don't know that a raid was necessary over revised negotiations between DoJ/ICE, Samsung, Korea and the people in question... That said, the fact the article clearly didn't even attempt to report the ICE reasoning was pretty damning of the author and the site.

Or maybe this was a rhetorical point? Even today, there are articles that are trying to piece together who informed on the plant and what the basis for an ICE raid was. It seems you and the authors retain a similar understanding of the situation.

> WSJ and the like just hire for pedigree. You end up with careerists writing generic articles, and injecting political opinion into everything

I think your comment implies that journalism in some previous time did not 'just hire for pedigree' and 'end up with careerists.'

When was this time and who were the specialist writers from that moment? How can one write anything without taking a political stance? We make much of the odd era of doublespeak we endure (when is a 'special military operation' a 'war'?). But it's hard to imagine that there has ever been a time where even the selection of a descriptive phrase carries political weight. My imagination may be limited, I suppose.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your argument and you mean that content meant for general consumption has always (read since its inception) been 'generic' and with '[injection] of political opinion.'