I’m with Sjlver. There’s a lot of hand waving past problems in the happy timeline: eg, how long does it take to train new regulators who are going to work weekends? How quickly do trained regulators working constant overtime burn out? What happens when the Chinese government denies that the genome released early is the right one?
(Also, the invocation of “war time” as a model assumes that wars are run any more efficiently or even urgently. They’re not.)
You seem to be mistaking this for a white paper, or a piece of legislation, or an itemized purchase order for one different timeline please. It is not that. It is instead a thing to measure our situation against, to short-circuit the useless shrugging described in the opening section.
It would be difficult for more seriousness, more money, more personal and institutional courage to not help. I struggle to understand why you are so sure it wouldn’t, or, if you do, why you’re pointing out that unexpected things happen, on occasion.
In fact the genome was released by one person, and the government didn’t say anything [against the genome]. He could have done it a week earlier still.
I was mistaking this for a genuine analysis of what was possible, not a hand waving experiment in impossibility. But since it’s the latter, can I have a pony too?
Measuring the situation against an implausibly analyzed alternate scenario is not useful.
It’s nice to see the replies defuse things a bit, but this comment was unnecessarily rude. It’s fine to disagree on which scenarios are plausible, but please be polite in the process.
I’m with Sjlver. There’s a lot of hand waving past problems in the happy timeline: eg, how long does it take to train new regulators who are going to work weekends? How quickly do trained regulators working constant overtime burn out? What happens when the Chinese government denies that the genome released early is the right one?
(Also, the invocation of “war time” as a model assumes that wars are run any more efficiently or even urgently. They’re not.)
You seem to be mistaking this for a white paper, or a piece of legislation, or an itemized purchase order for one different timeline please. It is not that. It is instead a thing to measure our situation against, to short-circuit the useless shrugging described in the opening section.
It would be difficult for more seriousness, more money, more personal and institutional courage to not help. I struggle to understand why you are so sure it wouldn’t, or, if you do, why you’re pointing out that unexpected things happen, on occasion.
In fact the genome was released by one person, and the government didn’t say anything [against the genome]. He could have done it a week earlier still.
I was mistaking this for a genuine analysis of what was possible, not a hand waving experiment in impossibility. But since it’s the latter, can I have a pony too?
Measuring the situation against an implausibly analyzed alternate scenario is not useful.
It’s nice to see the replies defuse things a bit, but this comment was unnecessarily rude. It’s fine to disagree on which scenarios are plausible, but please be polite in the process.
You should go for a Connemara; so good natured, unlike some other breeds.
Oo, I like that one.