5 ms·
Yes, thanks, edited.
by JunkDNA 13y ago
Yes, thanks, edited.
- jamesaguilar 13y agoThe first one is still wrong. "Underestimate the technical feasibility" means, "They think it is less feasible (harder) than it actually is." I think you mean the opposite: they think it is easier than it actually is. I.e. you're trying to say it's harder than we think. You can say instead: "underestimates the difficulty" or "overestimates the feasibility."
- nswanberg 13y agoJames, you are correct but I think JunkDNA's point is still being made effectively. In fact this was likely an intentional statement meant to illustrate the difficulty involved in intentionally creating a thing--if an error could be easily introduced in a handful of words, how likely is it that a malicious DNA creator will get their supervirus working exactly right?
- jamesaguilar 13y agoThat is very optimistic of you. Personally I think it was more likely that it was simply a typing error, as he has acknowledged. That's fine, we all make them. I had some difficulty parsing what he was trying to say, which is the only reason I brought it up. The rest of your argument is very far fetched. One person's difficulty formulating a sentence could not be less related to biologists' collective capabilities in tailoring viruses.
- nswanberg 13y ago"The rest of your argument is very far fetched." I have apparently underestimated my ability to craft a joke.
- jamesaguilar 13y agoBrevity is the soul of wit.
- JunkDNA 13y agoYou are right. I chose my words poorly. This is what I get for trying to make a complex point in a quick post between meetings.