It's also the demogrpahic of the internet. Internet is abundant with, for a lack of a better term, toxic people. Which makes sense if you think about it, since on the internet you can be toxic with very very little to no consequences. Lot of toxicity comes out in the form of criticisms. On a moderated forum like HN it's not easy to criticize a person, so you go for the next good thing - a company or a new area.
If one just reads the HN solely, they might get the impression that Google is the most evil company on the earth since the beginning of time. In reality very few people actually have that kind of view. It's mostly toxic people need to find a target to unleash their toxicity; on HN it's Google.
Since you are young, I'd advise to be very cautious on internet. Never take internet crowd as a proper sample of real world population. It's very skewed and almost always not in a good way.
At searching? I can't comment on bing but duckduckgo is different, not necessarily better. In fact for vague matches and context sensitive terms it's quite a bit worse than google.
Keep in mind this is changing over time. Search engines do not stand still, I keep bouncing between Google and DDG, the former has been steadily decreasing in quality and the later increasing to the point that I now use DDG first.
I'm not necessarily saying your opinion at this moment in time will change, only that you should re-evaluate it occasionally.
The problem with this kind of requests if you comply with it, then you've set a precedence. Then who knows who else is going to get offended and then start demanding something else to be taken down.
And the worst case scenario in this attention hungry culture how many others will start making demands like this just for more publicity? I can't read minds. I didn't know this artist before this debacle. It certainly brought him a lot of free publicity. How many people are going to start doing the same now given the amount of free publicity?
Neil Young was one of the most gifted songwriters and musicians of the 60s and 70s (and produced popular music since then but not anywhere near that peak, save a brief resurgence in the 90s). If you haven’t listened to him before, “Heart of Gold” was his biggest hit.
Anyway, it’s a huge stretch to say that he’s looking for attention 60 years past his prime, and probably only a few years from his 80th birthday. He’s already made his millions and lives quietly in rural Canada and California.
My guess is that he actually is bothered by Rogan’s content and doesn’t want to be associated with him.
It’s more akin to a boycott than a publicity stunt IMO.
The wild speculation that I've read that is somewhat related to the grant proposal, because it was submitted to DARPA. The speculation is following (paraphrasing):
> WIV is a dual research institution. What that means is there's been military research done by PLA at WIV. Ecohealth Alliance is a front for two different things: 1. outsource risky pathogens experiments, which is done by NIH, NIAID and other organizations 2. spying on Chinese military operations at WIV, which is done by US military and intelligence organizations. That's why Daszak is intricately linked to US administration and has been untouchable so far. EHA has been essentially voilating NIH grant terms and denied NIH requests to submit all the experiments data. That explains US govt's reluctance to have a proper investigation.
I am in no way claiming there's any evidence to it, especially EHA is partially funded by US intelligence operation. You be the judge.
I think the parent poster was talikng about BANAL virus discovered in Laos, which apparently is closest to SARS-CoV2, but it doesn't have Furin Cleavage Site.
> The Laos study offers insight into the origins of the pandemic, but there are still missing links, say researchers. For example, the Laos viruses don’t contain the so-called furin cleavage site on the spike protein that further aids the entry of SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses into human cells.
From [1]. So yes, the claim made by the parent poster is patently false.
> Correction, October 25, 9:50 am: A previous version of this story stated that SARS-CoV-2 had been definitively proven not to be a bioengineered virus. While an August 2021 US intelligence report concluded, “Most agencies … assess with low confidence that SARS-CoV-2 probably was not genetically engineered,” and many scientists agree with that assessment, it was an overstatement to claim that the theory has been definitively ruled out. The introduction and conclusion of the story have been updated to reflect this lower level of certainty. (h/t to Alina Chan, biologist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, for her critique and input)
First of all, if a transmission can happen at a wet market, it can also happen inside a lab. One doesn't need a virology degree to understand something this simple. As a matter of fact that's exactly what happened in a Taiwan lab [1].
