3 ms·
Rees's argument specifically mentions that it must be an error relating to biotechnology (possibly caused by "wierdos [sic] with the mindset of the people who n
by grupthink 6y ago
Rees's argument specifically mentions that it must be an error relating to biotechnology (possibly caused by "wierdos [sic] with the mindset of the people who now design computer viruses"). There is no proof that the coronavirus was created or unleashed intentionally or accidentally.
- spekcular 6y agoI misread the terms of the bet. So Pinker won, even with hindsight!
- imtringued 6y agoI feel like it's a wash. Sure we have a million causalities but is it really a bioerror? The problem is that the definition of bioerror is not in the bet itself. I personally think this bet should either be invalid, someone should flip a coin or the one who submitted the bet should pay because he can always word the bet in a way that favors himself. If bioerror is kept ambiguous then he would win through redefining the terms of the bet by a later date.