News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Study shows proof that a safer UV light effectively kills... by aqme28 on Friday September 18, 2020 @01:44PM (#24519696)
You have it backwards. That would prove that it was made in a lab. How do you prove that it wasn't made in a lab?
[dead]
Re:Study shows proof that a safer UV light effectively kills... by Jaepa on Friday September 18, 2020 @03:58PM (#24521248)
Ohhh ad hominem attacks and implying that people who disagree with you are bots.

So what you said literally does not make sense. I think you are saying that there are long subsections of genetic sequences that are used as markers? But as you have not actually cited anything we only have a one sentence explanation of your understand of something. Long is ambiguous, as is not found in nature. Hell even markers can be vague.

Re:Study shows proof that a safer UV light effectively kills... by aqme28 on Friday September 18, 2020 @04:42PM (#24521688)
Long sequences of genes not found in nature would be evidence that it is a lab-grown virus, but how could you prove that it is NOT a lab-grown virus? The absence of those genes doesn't prove that it wasn't made by a very clever lab.
Re:Study shows proof that a safer UV light effectively kills... by ionwake on Monday September 21, 2020 @01:30PM (#24546113)
I understand your point but don’t see how it relates to the example we were discussing which has a paper discussing its markers.