Thank you, Baker. Loving the movie.
Comfy theatre. Somebody yell "FIRE!".
This is what happens to Russian troops that surrender
The Ukranians shoot them in the legs, knees and crotch. Pretty good motiviation to NOT surrender. Three new Russian POW's arrive at the end in perfect condition and are shot as soon as they get out of the van.
Posted by Jim Stone (http://82.221.129.208/).
It's a video. We already saw this.
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1508141760052084742/pu/vid/320x568/d2-ez5CEOIzDUR7Q.mp4?tag=12
>US is last bastion of freedom and democracy
Emphasis on "last". Russia is apparently the first bastion. The US will have to catch up pretty soon.
It's the Graveyard Shift.
Beware the werewolves, vampires and freshly deceased vaxxers.
The shills have all the latest tech but they still can't beat this small band of frogs.
Kek, kek, kek.
>i won't engage in a battle of wits with an OBVIOUSLY unarmed opponent
Kek. How about coming up with a more original taunt?
Nowadays, we have flat screen TVs that fit inside the wall.
Much harder to push out the window.
>i wrote that before you were born, fuckwit
Here I sit
Broken-hearted.
Tried to shit
But only farted.
>Was the COVID spike protein optimized on a supercomputer?
This would assume that we can faithfully render reality inside of a computer program.
What makes you believe that humanity is that far advanced?
They're just guessing like the rest of us.
>molecular modeling IS that good, fren. not perfect, but easily good enough for that.
Good enough to simulate non-organic chemistry, I'm sure.
We still don't understand why proteins fold in one direction but (normally) not in the other direction. Nor can we understand how DNA encodes life. Don't pretend that we're not just guessing. Hubris before the fall, right?
Blah, blah. If all of this theory is sufficient then why do we need experiments? Or drug trials?
>We have two strips of hair right above our eyes.
Yeah, that seems pretty bizarre. Supposedly, it keeps sweat from the forehead from dripping into the eyes. Or maybe it's just decoration. I guess it's both.
>don't pretend that YOU'RE not guessing, asshat
Name calling is no substitute for evidence. Would you like to point me in the direction of some biochemical treatise instead of proffering an explanation yourself? You can't. You can only call me names as you've been doing for a while.
>different thing than designing proteins
In what way? The point of "designing a protein" is to obtain an effect. If said effect cannot be predicted without experimentation then what has been achieved? It is guesswork, is it not?
>computer modeling can screen that many candidates in weeks, instead of years
The screening of potential candidates is different from the claim of purposeful design of complex molecules from pure theory. But thanks for the clarification.
>you've been on creationist sites?
Nope. I just think that there is more to the universe than our minds can yet understand.
I am skeptical of the idea that science has advanced as far as has been claimed here.
>How many gene changes before it’s not Covid-19 anymore?
Silly Musk. Covid will be with us forever. It's the only disease that matters anymore.
>screening is DONE by the design of complex molecules from theory
Now you're arguing backwards. Why can't you just admit that theory is insufficient for the design of complex molecules without experimentation?
>misfolding proteins
The folding or misfolding of proteins is what is meant by the term "chirality". The question is why one direction is favoured in nature but not the other.
Definition of chirality:
the configuration or handedness (left or right) of an asymmetric, optically active chemical compound
What are you arguing about?
>why don't you just admit that you're an illiterate tard and a shill who has no clue what the big words mean, and we'll call it even then?
Fair enough. I'm a cynic and a skeptic. I am not claiming omniscience. I merely deny your claims to such.
>chirality has NOTHING to do with proteins folding one way or the other
Wut? Folding is directional. You're trying to say it's not?
>i NEVER claimed omniscience, merely competence
You claimed omniscience on the part of your field of research. Not that you are personally omniscient. The difference is moot. I am merely arguing that the experts in your field are not as knowledgable as you believe. Is that too hard to admit to yourself? It took Dr. Malone decades to wake up to the decadence of the drug industry. Being on the inside makes one immune to criticism. I'm not blaming you. Just asking that you come down a peg or two.
>chiral molecules are MIRROR IMAGES of one another. folding a protein two different ways does not produce mirror images.
Got it. Thank you for the explanation. It did not require pointing me toward a body of research.
>i did not claim omniscience on the part of my field of research
You claimed that complex molecules can be designed from pure theory.
That is what I say is a claim of omniscience.
>YOU need to get off your fucking imaginary high horse, you pretentious pompous poseur.
Why the anger? Do you not see this as an opportunity to educate?
As an "expert" in computer programming, I cannot imagine ever resorting to slurs just because someone has made an invalid claim. I like Javascript but I wouldn't feel personally offended if someone stated that JS is an insecure and overblown piece of crap. I would simply state that the positives are greater than the negatives. Do you see any parallel?
>you mean you're NOT a shill, and i actually helped you understand a concept?
Are you really so convinced that I'm a shill and not just an honest skeptic?
I admit that I am enjoying this conversation despite your attempt to slough me off. Kek.
Kek. We are the news.
>When I provide IT support to a person
Yes, that is rage-inducing. Different from a mere technical discussion.
>you have an agenda, and you pursue it in spite of facts to the contrary
What agenda? What could I possibly achieve with this argumentation?
Am I trying to make you look like a fool? No. And I'm not suggesting that you are making yourself look like a fool. You just seem aggravated for no real reason.
>Anon didn't ask before breaking 'the science' rules.
When I was in high school many decades ago, I used to debate a lot with my chemistry teacher. I'm still not convinced that heat can be explained as mere molecular vibration. I may be wrong but it seems too simplistic. Fortunately for me, he did not become angry.
I get what you mean. I don't mind arguing with a skeptic like myself. It can be difficult with someone who is convinced of his own correctness. But, surely, there is nothing more rage-inducing that having to explain that spaces matter on the command line. I've had to explain that far too many times.
Everything is vibration.
Perhaps. I can be convinced. I'm just not satisfied with simplistic (as opposed to simple) explanations. Occam's Razor is not always right.
>then it's probably fact checkers from CNN.
Why would CNN be bothering with a bunch of fucks on 8kun?
If those are really shills then they aren't accomplishing anything besides getting your goat. Har har. Is that your standard for who is a shill? Whether or not they personally annoy you?
>IT support for command line?
What is the url bar in a web browser if not a command line?
You wouldn't believe how hard it is to explain to a normie how to set up a desktop icon. Especially on Windows where space characters are allowed in a file name. Oh lordy.
The only difficulty is discerning which of us is being sarcastic. Kek.
What happened to your carpet, anon?
>so i called out the obvious ones
Kek. Why do so many anons regard themselves as expert shill spotters?
I've lost count of how many times I've been labelled a shill. In fact, that was my impetus for starting this thread on fake viruses:
https://8kun.top/qrb/res/48592
I got called a shill by one too many angry anons so I posted my fucking sauce. You think you're smart for calling me out as a shill?
You must be one of those anons who called me a shill that night.
Your acerbic conversational style is certainly familiar.
>if you really believe viruses are fake
Learn to differentiate between "belief" and "skepticism".
>i have NO patience left for conceited illiterate fuckwits
Then why are you still wasting your time talking to me?
I thought you were done a half hour ago.
>which of us is the real deal, and which is a piece of shit
You would be surprised by the polling results.
>Hunter is protected until (they) can no longer sweep it under a Russian carpet.
You mean Ukrainian carpet. Putin is busy looking for the dirt under that.
>i believe there isn't life on mars is also a BELIEF.
"I believe" is not equal to "I'm not convinced".
You are definitely shilling now.
>I want follow the sun to see where is the end of it
A sphere has no end. And it has no beginning.