Your comments are highly misleading.

A classical computer can compute a quantum algorithm approximately and very slowly. The approximation can be very precise but it is very slow. These calculations are commonly done.

Real quantum computers also run quantum algorithms approximately, but quickly. All quantum computers have error.

There is no proof that a "classical" computer cannot be designed in the future that will run a quantum algorithm the same way a quantum computer can. It's not really worth thinking about because reality is quantum.

I have seen those turbines and I consider them scenic.

I did not claim the mutation happened anywhere near Wuhan. Maybe it did, maybe it did not. I would not expect to find out.

It is very unlikely to find the correct "intermediary animal." If somebody stole an apple from you three months ago, looking for the apple seeds today would be preposterous. Looking for the source of a zoonotic respiratory virus is just as preposterous.

Because we are skeptics and it is a conspiracy theory.

Well, maybe it gives them a very weak incentive. NIH is in no way responsible for how people in China might have used their money.

Also, this ridiculously tenuous link does not motivate the CIA to lie.

The popularity of a theory or astroturfing about it has nothing to do with with its truthfulness.

Unusual mutations happen all the time. That's how evolution has always worked.

Bats can fly. Also, nobody checked all the bats in Wuhan, including the dead and rotten ones.

You would not expect to "find" infections "along the path." First, nobody is systematically checking animals for viruses on the scale needed to find a "path." Second, the evidence biodegraded months before the investigations began. Third, experience shows that if you find a "link" along the path, conspiracy theorists will simply say that there are now two paths where nothing has been found; one before the link and one after. Fourth, transmission between animals has been extensively proven.

As a conclusion: Zoonotic infections are normal and have occurred frequently for a long time. Zoonotic infection is a simple theory. Simple theories that have been correct in the past are usually correct again.

In upscale urban retail districts, retail stores are more than two floors. Example: https://l.macys.com/new-york-n...

The terms of service say that if you open the enclosure you have to return the product.

I wonder what happens if you wait for the startup to go bankrupt before you open the enclosure.

A word of advice: Stop giving your money to publishers.

The author of this paper has published just a few papers. All the ones I saw were in low quality journals. The author has posted a massive number of preprints, possibly in an effort to make their work appear popular using hundreds of self-citations.

I peer review for multiple well known physics journals. Any decent physicist would know that "World Scientific" is a terrible publisher and none of their journals are "top tier."

This cannot possibly work. Your vision cannot focus on a display that is on your eye.

If the battery is small enough to fit on your eye, the battery life would be awful.

Undergraduates are supposed to study all the time. PhD students are apprentices who are supposed to do actual work all the time. In developed countries like the US, the majority of actual science is done by PhD students, not professional scientists.

"working phd students get 3-4months off for summer break" No they do not. PhD students are not entitled to a single day off. It's at the discretion of their supervisor.

University administrators (excluding the occasional investment manager who has no say in university operations) are never paid as much as the top sports coaches and surgeons at large universities.

I was a PhD student a long time ago.

1. I shared a studio with another person.
2. I ate out once a month and cooked otherwise.
3. I got my health care from the university.
4. I rode a bike.
5. I used the university pool and went to $5 concerts.
6. I did not get my clothes from Goodwill.

So I did 5 out of 6. But the thing is, I was paid $30,000 a year. Adjusting for inflation, that's about twice the $20,000 stipends mentioned in the article. $20,000/year is setting the PhD student up to fail.

The tuition waver is a lie. There is no incremental cost to teaching PhD students because PhD students are treated as workers, not students. That's like counting the manager's pay as part of the cashier's pay.

"The reason Concorde prices were expensive was because demand was higher than the available seats."

That is false. If prices were high because demand was higher than available seats, then airlines would have bought more airframes. A correct understanding of the price requires knowledge of fixed and variable costs, subsidies, and customer psychology.

The budget for science is not that big and is shrinking. It's much more efficient to use that budget to pay people to do science, than it is to pay them to be on a "Red Team." Even if they do it for free, their time is better spent elsewhere.

Save the "Red Team" situations where the stakes are life-or-death.