Why is this downvoted? This is a valid method for measuring frequency of visited sites. The exist node has to know the unencrypted destination to be able to provide the requested content.
We know so little about biology that any kind of research can lead transformative benefits. Therefore the outcomes of a certain line of biological research including GoF are unknown. Penicillin is a great example of this.
> COVID did - not - change the probability.
True from the perspective of omniscient universe, but for humans with limited knowledge, it will change our priors based on the origin.
There is a valid reasoning for how GoF research can lead to pandemic but we do not know how often it will happen in practice. There are many things we already do with potential global consequences. Historical example is the risk of chain reaction during first atomic test. Contemporary example is the universal dependance on digital infrastructure which can be hacked. Timeless example is asteroid hitting the earth.
We make decisions for each of the scenarios based on perceived (objective + subjective) probabilities and the tradeoffs.
If natural origin is proved, there is less reason to add mitigations to the GoF research because mitigations are hard to design and limit the exploration space.
Any new technology has its dangers and its uses. The whole EA vs e/acc is a more recent example. A utilitarian will try to probabilistically measure expected benefit of the technology based on existing data points.
> Doing GoF research in major metropolitan areas is very obviously unacceptable.
It is not so obvious to the people wanting to accelerate the research and solve cancer, aging or whatever their pet problem at (in their opinion) slim risk of catastrophe.
> nature can produce pathogens orders of magnitude worse than COVID on any dimension
Everything is possible, including nature producing mass extinction pathogens. The key missing information is the probability. Else we all will be living in bunkers.
> If after learning that COVID was zoonotic, your conclusion is "guess it's okay to keep WIV and WIV-like labs in major cities doing the type of research they were doing," then you are simply insane.
Agree, a single data point does not warrant extreme change in status quo. But it does weaken the argument to a non-zero extent that GoF research leads to global pandemic. This has trickle down effects of eschewing additional regulations which would have been added otherwise.
Zoonotic origin reduces the risk of GoF research because understanding the underlying biology becomes more useful to address novel variants popping up in the wild (apart from other potential uses).
A poor analogy is suppose in 1800s humans encountered nuclear explosion near nuclear research lab. It could have human or natural origin. If natural then it is important for us to accelerate nuclear research with relatively lax regulations and develop countermeasures. If human origin, lack of sufficient regulation is a more probable cause.
> decide to continue doing dangerous GoF research in metropolises, that is bad.
How do you know GoF research is bad? By analysing the consequences of previous GoF research.
If lab origin is confirmed, it adds support to GoF research being bad hypothesis helps creating relevant regulations. If zoonotic origin is confirmed, it adds another data point of naturally created dangerous pathogens and weakens the argument of banning GoF research.
There are no _a priori_ truths, only approximations at a time based on past statistics.
It is destruction from whose point of view? Life will find its way. If AI actually elevates humanity as promised, climate change would be just another adaptation challenge.
Or maybe our universe represents the dregs of what once was a vibrant dense universe teeming with life, working hard to maximize entropy. We are like the end stage bacteria relegated to do a deep clean.
Ultimately there appears to be no purpose of life apart from child rearing for the majority. There's subconscious hope that kids might eventually figure it out for the rest of us. The only thing constant is the increase in entropy. At least that is what bound to happen. Should the purpose be accelerating that process or joining the resistance?
I suspect 5yo won’t be arrested for hit and run either. What matters is the intent and the punishment proportional to the harm. If someone is doing unacceptable acts to my property I should have a way to disincentivize the act.
The quote resonated with me so well that I decided to read the article. It is telling that individual failures do not make _risk_ undesirable if it strengthens the community as a whole. OP is not communicating information but emotion which is _much_ harder task with language defined by the common denominator and for me as a reader, he is quite skilled at it.
I do not think extra spaces are the issue (since there aren't any in the link). I suspect it is converting fix chunk of words into audio and before the next chunk there is an awkward pause. Still, very soothing and natural voice.
In the end, downvotes indicate how many people had a strong negative reaction towards a post. It leaves out majority of the aspects worth considering. I found your post insightful so thank you. I wonder if the downvoters press dislike emoji more often during code review.