I think it might still be too soon to tell with vaccines. A lot of information from last year regarding effective treatment by using monoclonal antibodies to help combat patients actively experiencing a cytokine storm though.
Production scale Level 5, full autonomous is still many years away. Most people will be happy with Level 3/4 regardless, and those are still better/safer than most of the distracted drivers on the road today.
Because it's the same bad-faith argument that people have seen dozens of times from climate-action-deniers before. The idea that scientists at NASA and dozens of the most prestigious and reputable institutions and journals in the world have all conspired to miss That One Thing That Explains Climate Change that isn't the obvious CO2 that has been known to contribute to global temperatures for about a century.
Eventually people tire of living in Groundhog Day and go through the same thing over and over again and they just click the downvote button and move on.
You've pinned a comment at the top arguing against "nationalistic flamewar" type comments. Fair enough, however your own moderating choices seem to paint you as biased in this regard. Why is there an implied double standard for those who post vs. those who moderate/admin?
Moderator bias is the perception the mind leaps to when running into moderation one dislikes. But people's views of moderator bias are as varied as their feelings on the underlying topic. Actually, they're identical to their feelings on the underlying topic—simple introspection will reveal that to anyone. If it helps at all, I can tell you that when we see flamebait going the other way we try to moderate it just as much.
Moderation work has a weird side-effect that is elusive to describe but is relevant to this question. When you routinely have to moderate angry arguments, where neither side will concede so much as a grain of sand or a drop of water to the other, you often end up in an intense position where one or both sides turn their frustration onto you instead and decide that you are the problem. Sometimes it seems as if that's the one thing they agree on! The side-effect is that over time, this seems to gradually change how your brain functions. You start to think less in terms of agree/disagree and more in terms of the container as a whole.
People often make claims about our personal biases and views, but from my perspective they're always curiously off, because they miss this weirdness of how moderation changes a person over time. I've compared it to having one's brain sandblasted (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16361266). Dwelling in the crossfire has altered how I see many of these high-energy topics. My views have become more friable—smaller in scope and less welded to the infrastructure of the major positions. For example—speaking personally now, not as a moderator—it seems obvious to me that there's no factual dispute in the current thread. That is, there's no contradiction between state infiltration of corporate and academic environments being a thing, and misguided persecution of honest researchers also being a thing: not only could both of those be true, it's actually hard to see how they wouldn't go together. Yet people each pick one of those two and use them as spears to joust with.
What's happening is that our loyalties keep us from widening the frame enough to incorporate all available information. Instead we try to exclude any information that 'helps' the other side and block it when they try to bring it up. Most heated arguments now appear to me to be of this nature. At root, we can't and won't hear each other's stories. In this way the gruntwork of moderation has turned out to be a protracted exercise in forcible frame-widening—something that is painful in its little steps but also has an expanding effect that may (or may not) be worth it.
In an April speech in New York, FBI director Christopher Wray described the reason for the scrutiny of ethnic Chinese scientists. “China has pioneered a societal approach to stealing innovation in any way it can from a wide array of businesses, universities and organisations,” he told the Council on Foreign Relations. Everyone’s in on it, Wray said: China’s intelligence services; its state-owned and what he called “ostensibly” private enterprises; and the 130,000 Chinese graduate students and researchers who work and study in the US every year. “Put plainly, China seems determined to steal its way up the economic ladder at our expense.”
This has been going since long before the Trump administration, probably all the way back to the Clinton one.
The whole point of a research collaboration on global disease to "Yes! Please! Learn from, use, and improve our ideas!" The FBI framing this as a quasi-spy role is damaging human welfare for political purposes, which is their traditional role going back to their founding under Hoover. The environment in this country is getting progressively scarier.
There's also the broader question of whether it's morally right to push the US drug patent regime upon the rest of the world - in this case, before the patents or IP ever kick in from a legal perspective.
This isn't just a US-vs-China thing. It's also a US-pharma-companies-vs-sick-people-everywhere thing.
China needs to adjust their official target of 6-6.5% GDP growth per year - it is completely unsustainable and has caused far too many risks to be taken in order to maintain it.
Unless they want the bubble to pop? I can't imagine the social upheaval it would cause there (and throughout the rest of the world)
Implying that China is correctly reporting their true GDP. Given how opaque their system is in general, it's hard to trust any official sources. It's likely they are ~2% lower than officially reported already.
