Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jcims 1657 days ago
Biological are even cheaper.
1 comments

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?
Hey 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.

This 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.