rualca

> For anyone who really cares about pursuit of truth or the scientific process (and how it tends to be ignored even by science institutions) this would actually be earth-shattering.

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.

My point is that actors can and do change over time.

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

> You don't get it. just because tge grant was denied, does not mean the work was not done. The fact it was even written at all is evidence someone thought it'd work.

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.

> It's not a "weasel word", "Scientific theories placing a low enough probability (...)

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.

> This is honestly the most damning part of evidence.

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?

> It's well-known that there has been high-risk coronavirus research across the globe.

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?

> When speed mattes, people use libraries that are considerably faster than plain python.

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.

> It may seem like a design mistake at first glance but it’s surprisingly useful. > It’s intent is to allow a given codebase to maintain a consistent style (eg camel vs snake) even when making use of upstream libraries that use different styles.

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.

> 1. UBI might increase people's willingness to pay for goods in general, and the prices of goods that are most strongly driven by willingness to pay would rise.

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.

> Food and clothing depend on other things (cost of employees, equipment, materials, etc.) When the costs of those things rise, the cost of food and clothing will have to rise.

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.