estearum

15 ms·

331.
by estearum 2mo ago
"There are websites where you can just buy prescription drugs online?" You: "No, of course not. I once went on a website to buy a drug, and they made go to a doctor and get a prescription and send it to them"
332.
by estearum 2mo ago
https://www.genewiz.com/public/services/gene-synthesis/custo... There you go! Steps from your mailbox to an actual virus is a few days of bench work.
333.
by estearum 2mo ago
My understanding is DNA synthesis is now like a 2nd or 3rd year undergrad tier challenge and doesn't even require much specialized equipment. Versus EUV which one could dump literally unlimited amounts of money into solving and still p
334.
by estearum 2mo ago
It's super cringe and d e c e l to think technological advancement could have any dangers whatsoever. Just like in a car, the true demonstration of intelligence is closing your eyes and slamming the pedal to the floor.
335.
by estearum 2mo ago
I'm sure some of them would, but they're not required by law to do so. And historically the way you'd do this is by actual fragment/substring matches. But these are novel viruses now. So what you really want to do is try
336.
by estearum 2mo ago
I had the same reaction, but I think they meant fewer as in "requires less consensus-building to wield meaningful power." Used to have to convince lots of people to go to war in order to kill a couple million people. Fast approach
337.
by estearum 2mo ago
Yes probably true. Unfortunately we need only one defector lab to severely degrade the overall effectiveness of this approach (leaving aside the effectiveness of the detection models themselves).
338.
by estearum 2mo ago
What involved steps are those? You email the RNA strand (a text file) to a lab along with some money. The lab converts that information into a physical object (read: virus) and sends it back to you in the mail. What step is missing?
339.
by estearum 2mo ago
Same reason it couldn't be a problem to sell aerosolized anthrax at the hardware store. Humans have (many many times) made aerosolized anthrax. Can't see any conceivable problem with more people having access to it.
340.
by estearum 2mo ago
You can literally send an email to one of hundreds of companies that do exactly this. They have no way of knowing whether you're asking them to synthesize a virus or a drug candidate or what.
341.
by estearum 2mo ago
It's fine to realize that you stepped into this conversation wanting to say "this isn't settled law" but somehow positioned yourself as defending the person insisting "this is settled law." Perhaps your aversio
342.
by estearum 2mo ago
You are the only person who made an assumption (a probably-incorrect one) and then was combative about it. People on general message boards talking about state surveillance powers are not generally crafting trial strategies. https:/&#
343.
by estearum 2mo ago
I am extremely doubtful the intention of that comment was, "if I were adjudicating a case, my strategy would be X." Obviously your legal strategy wouldn't rest on this assumption. But we're not talking about legal strate
344.
by estearum 2mo ago
So in other words, it's not as simple as "plain view doctrine, QED?" or "you're either in public or you're not?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49275137 Who knew? Ah, yes, I did.
345.
by estearum 2mo ago
The central claim of the quoted text, and the claim that I'm obviously responding to, is "It's actually far more dangerous to..." If it were more dangerous to insist that these privacy rights already exist (which they do
346.
by estearum 2mo ago
No, that concurrence is referencing Katz's reasonable expectation of privacy standard, which is binding legal precedent.
347.
by estearum 2mo ago
None of these is relevant to the analysis here: > society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an indivi
348.
by estearum 2mo ago
1. Yes, they are wrong. For example, Dobbs sat downstream of generations of people perpetuating the idea that the law already bans abortion (under murder statutes) and that the Constitution already prevents the federal government from r
349.
by estearum 2mo ago
Who said anything about private property? I'm talking about following someone on public streets. The drone hovers directly over the sidewalk in front of your house. When you step onto the sidewalk, it follows you directly to the front
350.
by estearum 2mo ago
Obviously not true given that a wannabe dictator would literally say what you are saying ("it's just plain view doctrine! Always been this way! 4th Amendment doesn't prevent me from flying a drone over you to and from your
351.
by estearum 2mo ago
Yes you're right. The "signed by five" was a misphrasing on my part. What I meant is that both the concurring opinions (signed by 5 collectively) agreed on this same point: > society’s expectation has been that law enforce
352.
by estearum 2mo ago
Yes, I'm aware margins go down as you get larger. I'm aware that being large has advantages in terms of capital deployment etc. But yet, no, there is no scale at which Accenture produces 50% net margin. Because it's a consult
353.
by estearum 2mo ago
And? Do you think Accenture would have 50-60% margins if it were smaller?
354.
by estearum 2mo ago
Most people who you'd (clearly) slur as hereditarians don't actually believe in "strong genetic determinism." Why don't you just share what your estimate is? Is it zero?
355.
by estearum 2mo ago
A consulting shop with like 50% net margins? Must be really good marketing.
356.
by estearum 2mo ago
What do you think is going on inside the brain of someone who says "I can't?"
357.
by estearum 2mo ago
Correct, and the controlling opinion remained ambivalent as to the question that fluidstack (or whatever) believes is so concretely obvious. So the controlling opinion said: "we won't answer this question." The concurring o
358.
by estearum 2mo ago
You think there are people who are fortunate enough to have the desire to work hard, but nonetheless choose not to? No, there's actually nothing convenient about the fact that most people are accidents of their genetic, geographic, and
359.
by estearum 2mo ago
Yes, the .85 is probably at the upper end of the estimate. The genetic studies are the conceivable floor. I'm not sure what you mean by "hereditarian" given that even the genetic studies obviously point to significant heritab
360.
by estearum 2mo ago
> I’d like it if you provided relevant quotes from these opinions that support your assertions... These cases are highly nuanced. That nuance is why it's worth reading the entire opinion. Anyway here you go: > GPS monitoring gene

More ›