"We need a Modern Home Economics class." Brilliant, actually just brilliant. But, first you have to teach alienated students ..... what's a HOME !

The funny bit is that the climate models contained in the 1990 IPPC report have been spot on (after 35 years, we are right in the middle of their prediction range), and all subsequent climate models were underestimating the effects. Apparently exactly those politicians you accuse of hysteria for personal gain were in fact pressuring climate scientist to modify their models and give less hysterical predictions - and they have been wrong, because they systematically underestimated the change.

But that's no wonder. While the amount of money spend on climate science is about 5 billion dollar a year, just the amount of subsidies given to oil, gas and coal is about 500 billion dollars a year, and no industry wants to lose half a trillion.

WOT!  The Onion ... like the Guardian ... is not an objective news service. Both are propaganda outlets. Both pimp the DEI/Stalinist line and both deserve to be neekapped ... metaphorically ...

BTW//  You wouldn't like it much for this to be the 2nd coldest year in recorded history. Colder than the micro-ice-age in the 19-th Century. You want NYC harbor frozen? Human pollution of various orders has saved us from that. 

In conclusion, no one is even developing a machine which would make identifying the RNA sequences encoding cancer antigens tractable.

Meanwhile many labs can implement the protocols for tumor tissue based vaccines at negligible cost, that's the low hanging fruit for cancer vaccines. RNA approaches are decades out, identifying antigens from DNA alone sci-fi at the moment.

Bullshit, at best they work the other way around. Identify antigens on cancer cells and try to work back to DNA.

Lets assume you do it the right way around so it doesn't require science-fiction, who's selling or even developing the machine which can do that for a single patient in reasonable time? Using many millions worth of general purpose machines for months with phd students babysitting the process, is not tractable.

Until there is some super-automated AI pipeline to identify novel neoantigens purely from cancer DNA with no human needed in any of the millions or billions of required steps, truly personalized mRNA vaccines seem intractable to me. Identifying antigens on the outside of the cancer cell from DNA alone is very difficult indeed.

The only tractable personalized vaccine in the short term is much much simpler, just use the tumor cells and forget about the DNA.

What's with ELITE ?! That Harvard prof who hates students might be one-of-three people in the world who deeply understand their subject Books ... any books or the average PhD know about 10% of the hard-stuff, though they are mathematical athletes. I believe Socrates 1st proved this ... and hemlock was his reward. So don't go around in public, saying I need this one transvestite/fascist/Rando-Marxist dark-faced white-livered Columbia drug runner to teach me what's next with quasi-deSitter spaces. You will end up chewing almond pits ...

You have the university experience very wrong. It IS about knowledge and is NOT about finding yourself. One serious intermediate STEM course will send you out the gate ( yes G-A-T-E ) a different person. Unless you are Einstein or Feynman your brain no longer functions as a natural man(woman) , but directs itself at the combinatorial North-star where irrelevant nuances are stratified. You hope for nothing; you just do the path integral. And after 4-years, you're fit to earn a living .....

Directly suppressing the greedy is more trouble than it's worth, and carries nasty unintended consequences. Structuring social/financial/personal rewards to maximize benefit to the "commons" is both safer and more practical. For example, tax credits , custom sewage treatment and worker training could be provided to a tool-and-die machine shop, while a river-boat casino gets NO H1-B employees and is subject to weekly fire & food service inspections by agents with a bad attitude.

Nice point. Presumptuous vocabulary is a dead give-away for chat-bots. Chomsky and Buckley might have used such phrasing, but nobody else. 

You make a valid point. Science ( physical behavior ) does NOT depend on trust; it depends on 'rejecting the null hypothesis'. "I will not die if I walk off this cliff." RESPONSE:: Catch you next-time-'round. No matter of "trust" is involved. The "good-will" of the paper-writer makes no difference. Lawyers and politicians of-course hate that they cannot apply affirmative-action/social-justice concepts to the chemical world. (Look at the scientific abortion that is "gender" ) . What is relevant is the dose-response curve for  the pesticide in question. A judge could require confirming experimental results, but of-course that action reduces the judges perceived power.

That's why I differentiated between Chinese made cars and Chinese brands.

Goods are mostly luxury. Fuel, minerals, industry and agriculture are necessity when shit hits the fan.

For the moment Xi is using foreign investment while keeping Chinese poor to snowball the industrial hollowing out of his geopolitical enemies (ie. everyone).

This is not sustainable and causes problems down the line. First autarky for China and dependence and cheap goods for the west ... then when the gravy train stops, third world west.

Neomercantilism loads down sinking ship with cheap TVs, it doesn't raise all boats.

Bet classical Egypt had a ( Nile-based ) postal service ... Tigress/Euphrates cultures certainly did. In the USA New Deal government-jobs were a model of efficiency for their time. Sadly government services  have  NOT become more efficient/responsive/effective. Still, something to be said for  easily communicating with another human W/O using electricity. Extra points for hand-writing  with  real ink on real parchment. Do I trust FedEX? Hahahaha...