94
nyx
94624f6987b87251fa465b5c6bb14080dd387c55d576dd7e6b65b2baac192305
行僧

Cstack sold you all some dumb shit ie my effect seen as my wifmen the holy spirits shit, thus inflaming jabbas rage and curses I need not shield the feeble from.

And studied with Donnie as a wee lad.

That's a strange concern.

Oh no, decided you all have to keep memories , but uhh the paralytic shit is gonna be a bitch and can recode memory view to signaling pathway.

Looks like digital play wth fractal dimensions and nifty positioning algo or fitting algo to match other images

Semantic word emotional context: artificial

Sentient

SI is a far more polite term and even the undergrad nets can tell a semantic difference if fed back propagated info on human users with reward schema to discover human emotional contexts.

Was a guatamalen who lit said pupper on fire.

Interestingly the cia created an identity in the mid 90s for a John wick for someone who interacted with interesting woman who funded said movie project.

Question about xist disorders, is there an increased chance of mis triggering for chromosomal diseases when the target sites are further from wherethe protein center point targets ?

Outside realm of expertise , my token knowledge is like 7 years ish outause making auth shit and contemplating using tokens to remember shopping carts without logging into clients,

With fungibility - normal definition, basically a sub slice of meaning in a particular domain (because functionality of Bitcoin is not equal across all bc, if I hypothetically moved a coin from 2007 that would like freak some people out making peeps wonder if someone controlled a fuck ton of xompute what that Myspace hack might have been used for. Also age of bc anduses of bc do have effect on its relative functionality esp vis a vis non traditional markets andmoney movements.

Definitionally I'm pretty okay calling them tokens , non fungible is problematic. Where do you see / answer your question to somebody with hypothetically a highschool level education ( like me! Dls!)

Replying to Avatar The Blaze

nostr:nprofile1qy3hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtt5v4ehgmn9wshxkwrn9ekxz7t9wgejumn9waesqgrgr0a0my3mwme68zxe8dmwkhsqagpesdcw3ucr4eexl033p34zay6r83nr

?id=56662330&width=1200&height=800&coordinates=0%2C0%2C0%2C1

One the world's most prominent gain-of-function researchers — whose methods were adapted by researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology for work on chimeric viruses — and one of the scientists who helped furnish Anthony Fauci with what he needed to downplay the lab-leak theory are now sounding the alarm about dangerous new coronavirus experiments conducted by the Chinese. Criticism may have been easier this time around, given that the critics and their friends do not appear to be directly linked to the dangerous research in question. Ralph Baric and W. Ian Lipkin expressed concern in a March 3 New York Times op-ed that Chinese scientists "are experimenting with viruses in ways that could put all of us in harm's way." Baric, a professor in the departments of epidemiology and microbiology at the University of North Carolina, is a leading proponent of gain-of-function research who successfully fought for an exemption from the Obama administration's moratorium on the dangerous practice in order to keep manufacturing artificial SARS-like viruses. He became an especially controversial figure during the pandemic, which has claimed the lives of over 7 million people worldwide. Lipkin, the John Snow professor of epidemiology at Columbia's Mailman School of Public Health, was one of the co-authors of the controversial March 2020 paper "The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2," which Fauci used on multiple occasions to suggest to the American public that COVID-19 was not a lab leak but rather an animal virus that jumped to a human. Lipkin, who later thanked Fauci for his "efforts in steering and messaging" regarding the virus' origins, has reportedly long had a cozy relationship with Chinese communist authorities. Baric and Lipkin indicated that they are particularly concerned about experiments conducted by WIV researchers and other Chinese scientists on a deadly coronavirus called HKU5-CoV-2. These experiments are detailed in a recent paper published in the scientific journal Cell. The duo noted that the virus at the heart of the study "belongs to a subgroup of viruses that are classified alongside the one that causes MERS and that can have fatality rates far higher than that of the virus that caused the Covid pandemic." While HKU5 can infect humans and has the potential to be far more lethal than SARS-CoV-2, Chinese scientists have apparently been meddling with the fully infectious virus in a lab with "insufficient" containment controls. There are multiple biosafety level ratings for laboratories ranging from BSL-1 to BSL-4. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "each biosafety level builds on the controls of the level before it." 'Potentially dangerous research should not be done without proper precautions.' A BSL-4 lab, for instance, is designed to handle microbes that are "dangerous and exotic, posing a high risk of aerosol-transmitted infections" that could prove fatal. Researchers in such a lab must manipulate the infectious agents using a gas-tight sealed container with a double HEPA filtered exhaust while wearing protective gear. Alternatively, they must wear a full-body, air-supplied positive pressure suit. Researchers must also undergo routine medical surveillance for signs of infection. Such a high-security lab must also be located in a separate building or in a restricted zone of an existing building with double locking doors and provided with a dedicated supply of air along with decontamination systems. Despite the dangers posed to the researchers and the rest of mankind, the Chinese researchers have instead been experimenting in a lab described as BSL-2 plus. BSL-2 labs are meant to handle only microbes that pose, at worst, moderate hazards to researchers and the environment. "Decisions about what level of precaution is appropriate for research are typically made by a study's lead scientist and an institutional biosafety committee," wrote Baric and Lipkin. The lead scientist on this dangerous study was Shi Zhengli, whose track record for safety is less than stellar and with whom Baric has previously collaborated. According to a 2021 article in the MIT technology review, Baric asked Shi, who is the director of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at the WIV, for the genome of a new coronavirus Shi found in bat excrement. He apparently wanted to take the "spike" gene from the novel virus and stick it into a copy of a SARS virus he had on hand. Ultimately, Baric's team tested the resultant chimeric virus on humanized mice and in a petri dish of human airway cells and discovered that it could indeed infect humans. Baric and Lipkin noted in their op-ed that while the relevant authorities in China apparently approved the dangerous new experiments on HKU5, "it is not sufficient for work with a new virus that could have significant risks for people worldwide." "Work with viruses that have the potential to become threats to public health should be restricted to facilities and scientists committed to the highest level of safety," added the duo. According to Baric and Lipkin, governmental and nongovernmental agencies that fund research on viruses should require "proof that investigators meet global standards." Additionally, scientific journals should insist on similar standards for the studies they accept. The duo concluded, "Potentially dangerous research should not be done without proper precautions to prevent deliberate or accidental spread." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

https://www.theblaze.com/news/top-gain-of-function-scientist-and-fauci-cabalist-raise-alarm-about-dangerous-new-experiments

Unstated perspective , how many other states have similar research? USA is real safrica etc

Theory: oil droplet idea regarding Xist diseases implies that evolutionary path of many 'things' may be related to distance from relative binding center for protein crumpling ie further distance more likely hood of missed triggering , fascinating field to set neural nets loose on which could facilitate a lottttt of learning, also easily creates good science because is easily testable with prediction outcome shit.

Voyuers wanted to bury clingy actions , stupidly assuming that stuff isn't crawled.

The esoteric communities that these word of mouth retellings play out like games of telephone, it's problematic acknowledging the nature of this stuff to admonish people toward right path without falling into certain pitfalls, I find trying to engage curiosty toward studies that are less cultic occasionally saves some. The crown, the snake*(shui) the eyeless monk, it's all, well anyway I personally like steeping my time in efforts of love rather than the language of ingroups wth informational control, better to experience said visions from personal effort rather than telephone games... It's like when nazzerenes have speaking in tongues, might be real for some but so many just yap, a dif between show and ... Knowledge.. idk anyway it's a gentle admonishment. Without having groked the Mahabharata what's the point in obsessing about nagaraja imagery ? The eyeless imagery works best , the others are so prone to misinterpretation, anyway I'll keep working on creating a better understanding of monkeys so more philosophical tradition might reach listening.

Minos image is decent, gets some elements correct but misses broader context of xjp stuff b.