3 ms·
I dunno. Chemical plant seems relatively crude and cheap compared to the equipment needed to design and build a reliable, effective, and controllable bio-weapon
by JabavuAdams 5y ago
I dunno. Chemical plant seems relatively crude and cheap compared to the equipment needed to design and build a reliable, effective, and controllable bio-weapon. Two-photon microscopes and nanopore gene sequencing aren't cheap. If it doesn't have to be reliable or particularly effective, and especially not targeted, then maybe you're right. What am I missing?
- undoware 5y agoHey all, Quick/friendly reminder that this is a dangerous conversation to be having in public -- there is no telling what will happen to old comments in a few years (or decades,) when the disruption is further along. Quite serious. History tends to happen when you least expect it to. Personal web history, doubly so.
- undoware 5y agoThis got downvoted, so it's anecdote time! A former employer once forwarded me a deep-dive article about a guy who was archiving old '90s usenet posts. He explained the process by reference to a sample post, chosen at random, from the whole of the Usenet, '91-'99. That guy's sample-post? A one-off I'd made, complaining bitterly about JDK licensure or something, from around 1998, when I was a loudmouth teenage Stallmanite. It now occasionally comes up for discussion during job interviews. It came up when I applied for a work visa to USA. Stay safe, and don't let your next job interview turn to the topic of [checks notes] resource-efficient weapons of mass destruction.