geeky4qwerty

jokes on me, I pay for all the subscriptions.

Hello whomever posted this!

I am hoping you are interested in the pursuit of truth and would like to have a conversation with you about this article. I am hoping you can address the following issues:

- The lab-leak hypothesis rests on more than WIV’s location. Unpublished WIV bat coronavirus sequences, documented biosafety incidents, and early cases outside the Huanan market (some near WIV) constitute legitimate circumstantial evidence that cannot be dismissed as “fraud.”

- Worobey et al.’s market studies are not conclusive; they suffer from ascertainment bias, data-quality flaws, and invalid assumptions, as shown by independent statistical critiques; no intermediate host has ever been found and no live virus was recovered from market animals.

- The 2018 DEFUSE proposal explicitly planned insertion of human-specific furin cleavage sites into SARS-related bat coronaviruses—the exact feature distinguishing SARS-CoV-2—creating valid, unanswered questions about whether similar work occurred under other funding or at lower biosafety levels.

- Personal attacks on Ridley’s and Bhattacharya’s backgrounds do not refute the documented evidence in Viral; credentials do not invalidate scrutiny of high-risk gain-of-function research.

- Key conflicts of interest are omitted—his organization of the 2020 Lancet letter labeling lab-leak ideas a “conspiracy theory” while EcoHealth funded WIV, private early concerns in the Proximal Origin emails, and the 2025 NIH debarment of EcoHealth Alliance and Daszak himself for grant violations.

- Labeling transparency demands (e.g., full WIV database access) as “anti-science” is false; U.S. intelligence assessments remain split, Chinese opacity persists, and the origins question is scientifically unresolved.

- Overstated certainty in natural spillover ignores data gaps and politicizes the debate; continued open, evidence-based inquiry—not institutional dismissal—is required.

"The Telecommunications Act of 1996 fundamentally reshaped how wireless infrastructure is regulated in the U.S. by prioritizing rapid network expansion over local oversight.

The Section 704 Legal Shield A key provision, Section 704, prohibits local governments from blocking cell towers based on the "environmental effects" of radio frequency (RF) emissions. As long as a tower meets federal standards, municipalities are legally barred from considering health concerns during the zoning process. This effectively shifted the power to determine safety from local communities to the federal government.

Shift from Health to Engineering In the 1990s, the EPA's funding for radiation research was cut, leaving the FCC—an agency of engineers and economists—to set safety limits. These standards are based on thermal effects (the point at which tissue heats up). Critics argue this approach is outdated because it ignores non-thermal biological effects that modern research suggests may occur at much lower exposure levels.

Industry Influence and Litigation The FCC’s refusal to update its 1996 guidelines has led to accusations of regulatory capture, often highlighted by the "revolving door" of officials moving between the FCC and major telecom lobby groups like the CTIA.

2021 Ruling: The U.S. Court of Appeals recently ruled that the FCC failed to provide a reasoned explanation for keeping its 1996 standards, calling the decision "arbitrarily and capriciously" handled.

The Result: The U.S. remains one of the few developed nations still operating under 30-year-old safety protocols despite the massive increase in device density."

Not sure if you read the last part:

"...internally developed and maintained for a fraction of that cost over the products lifecycle."

Now, imagining a lifecycle of this specific app in question of 5 years, are you suggesting that a total spend of $900k for the SaaS would be LESS than developing and maintaining this one tool internally?

Yes, of course I do, just like I believe that the Australia, like false equivalencies, don't exist.

I recognize the cynicism in my observation, but is it fully unmerited?

I put the following prompt in GPT4:

create a professional title and a click bait title for the following article

Then provided the article. This was the output:

Professional Title: "Crinkle Crankle Walls: The Aesthetics and Efficiency of Serpentine Wall Construction"

Click Bait Title: "You Won't Believe How These Weird, Wavy Walls Use Less Bricks Than Straight Ones!"

Good point. I'd say if you're tight on money I'm not sure a wall should be at the top of your to-buy list.

This feels a bit like diet clickbait...

"use fewer bricks than a straight wall"*

*A straight wall of the approximal strength and length of a wavy wall, not just length.

My counter would be that from a practical perspective the amount of space wasted by the wavy design seems to negate the usefulness of the design.

Probably makes the lawn crew dizzy when mowing it too!

One of the unique beauties of aging is getting to witness the rhyming of history.

~40 years ago it was roller skates ~30 years ago it was roller blades ~20 years ago it was roller shoes ~10 years ago we began to see the wide adoption of battery powered personal transporating devices

sidenote: Anyone else notice the twice mention of Tesla in the promo video?