If unrecognizeable entries from compressed image triggers a filter, that's a compression issue. They didn't "modify" the image. They ran shitty compressed images through their workflow. As I originally said, this brings into question the WORKFLOW, and it means they need to aquire the source files, but titling this as "MODIFIED" is insane hyperbole.

I spent 7 years in print before doing what I do now. Don't try to appeal to authority on me buddy.

That doesn't refute my assertion.

Do you even know what your point is?

The discussion is irrelevant, you're not even reading what I wrote.

But if I were to take a stance on that discussion, I would not take the marxist position that those I view as cancerous can be morally executed 'for the greater good'

But if you want to be one of those "Communism would have worked if only I had been the one deciding who to execute" you go ahead and be wrong.

My issue is with the title and the word "MODIFIED" please don't fucking straw man it into more than that. FFS some of you are completely incapable of self reflection or the least amount of legitimate criticism.

How can you know you're right about the big things when you can't even admit to being wrong about the tiniest of things?

I'm not arguing any merits, but framing those this was written in. I'm explaining to you naive sheltered folk who are fortunate to live in comaprably lovely places that this is a piece of Marxist dogma written to justify the dehumanization of people they deem not to be living in accordance with the state, to justify the need and righteousness of lining them up against a wall and shooting them.

That's what this is.

You see a biology question, I immediately recognize it as Marxist dogma. I've seen this exaxt argument before. I recognize the rhetorical framing of the inserted questions on morality and the way it sets up extrapolating up onto society at large.

I'm trying to warn you. Please don't try and fight me just to fight me. Please allow yourself to be warned and raise your guard just a little.

You posted literal marxist dogma that they jerk over. Congrats.

I'm not arguing the merits or not of any position. I'm explaining to you that this is an actual Marxist argument. Marxists post this. They use it to justify dehumanizing those they feel aren't living for the state, and dreaming of executing them - afterall the body does it so it's perfectly right for me to as well. This protein is a savior for the body, and so I shall be a savior of society executing those I deem cancerous.

All the rest of you seem to be so ashamed that you found yourself tricked by marxist theory that you're trying to pretend it actually hasn't anything to do with marxism.

I'm not arguing the marxist interpretation. It's not mine. I'm not arguing it's right or has merrit. I'm trying to explain to you that it IS a marxist argument. A marxist infographic was stickied to GA without critque or comment.

This isn't a debate

Dude don't be obtuse. I wasn't saying it can't be debated, I said it wasn't framed as a debate - it did not come with critique or comment. And I never accused you of personally downvoting me. Quit inventing goalposts.

And yes, marxism is inherently wrong. Cells are a constituants of a body, societies are composed of individuals. One isn't conscious so can neither decide for itself, not be tyanized, the other can. They aren't comparable. There is nothing of value extrapolating up and marxists do NOT have a point here or anywhere.

Posting without critique or framing is NOT the examination you describe. It's dogma and propoganda subtlely slipped knowingly or otherwise, no different than if I slipped without comment some cleverly disguised Thomas Sowell quote into a commy sub on Reddit.

Man, what would I do without you folks? I honestly miss all that surface level stuff.

For real, this isn't even all of the Senate, let alone the house

Images were delivered compressed and some janky shit happened. That is NOT the same thing as being modified. Holy fuck these are some leftist levels of headline hyperbole

Do they need to go back and get the source files? Obviously.

Does this raise huge question as to why in the fuck this was part of their workflow? Hell yes.

But the title makes it seem like officials were opening the images in ms paint and changing shit.

This is America

"Hey guys, it's totally a good to put people up against the wall if they aren't acting in concert with the needs of the state right?"

This isn't a debate, and it wasn't posted with critique. This is someone stickying actual marxist dogma on great awakening and leaving it to people like me to be downvoted for pointing it out.

I'm not arguing nature, I am informing you that the above example is one that marxists use to justify marxism.

Too prevent this the structure (society) must punish cheaters (you can't be rich unless you cheat) with a violence proportional to it's own success

Violence proportional to success (???)

(Up against the wall)

You now confront the basic problem of morality. It is the alignment of individual incentives with the global needs of the structure

^ "It is immoral to work for yourself rather than the state" - That's literal communism that's being argued in the picture. An actual Marxist image was stickied on GA and you all can't see it. It's framing you (an individual) as 'a bomb' if you ever deviate from 'the needs of the state' to justify lining you up against a wall and shooting you.

Now I know how Yuri Bezmenov felt. You're repeating a marxist argument and internalizing it without realizing. I'm trying to warn you. Someone stickied a marxist argument on GA.

Killing those who act for their own interests rather than that of the greater whole is core to the communist ethos. The argument is that because it is right for the body it therefore follows it is right for society.

Makes too much money? You're not working for the body anymore, up against the wall

Wrong politics? You're pulling in the wrong direction of the body, up against the wall

It is blowing my mind how none of you have encountered this argument before.

Communists absolutely line up and shoot the wealthy. The cell is one that has taken more than it 'deserves'. Anything that is in opposition to the organism's greater good is to be excised.

Rich? Up against the wall

Wrong politics? Up against the wall

This is what Marxists argue. This is an example they use. If it's good for the body, it's good for society.

You're noting what marxism is in practice, I'm noting that this is a marxist justification for their priciples - Kill the rich because anyone that doesn't toe the line and takes more than they 'need' is a disservice to the greater organism. The body does this, therefore so ought society they argue.

It's an actual marxist argument that actual marxists use.

It's framed as a rhetorical question, which is an argument. And it's one Marxists make because they mistakenly think you can extrapolate mechanics necessary in absence of consciousness, to scales where that awareness is abundant.

It's because it's an actual argument that actual marxists use.

I almost envy the naive comfort you must live so far from them. But I'm surrounded by theire sort, and I'm giving you a heads up. Piss on it if you like, but you're agreeing with the marxist ideal that the selfish cell should be lined up and shot by p53 for failing to put the whole before the self.

Yeah, it's a marxist argument framed to justify lining up those they deem 'selfish' against the wall to be shot. Can't believe it was stickied.

It's a maxist argument that those acting in self interest are akin to a bomb, framed as justification for lining you up against a wall and shooting you... just like the body does.

It's a literal marxist argument. You all see that right?

It's saying that acting in the interests of the self is something that must be punished with death for the 'greater good'. Marxists lack morality and therby assume it's absent in all. They don't understand consentual exchange or that inequality of outcome can arrive from unequal contributions.

They want to frame you as a bomb to justify lining you up against a wall and shooting you.

SARS is like AIDS, it's a phenotypic description of symptoms. SARS = Severe Accute Respriatory Syndrome. Covid was another example of "holy shit, this shit is crazy" ie 'Severe and Accute'. But covid wasn't the same as the first SARS. So it's just "SARS2". But they are different. The SARS virus creates the SARS symptoms. Covid also creates SARS symptoms, but it's not the SARS virus so you gotta call it something different. So we call it SARS2, but media got confused and heard it called covid-1 (Corona virus (CoV) ID 2019) and ran with it. But it's just another corona virus creating SARS symptoms. SARS2. Both corona viruses though, so similar enough with enough conserved mechanisms that what works for one might(?) work for the other.

But you don't know unless you try. Validating an existing approach that works for one coronavirus to demonstrate it works on the other virus is important.

An assay is just a fixed, routine experiment designed to generate similar repeatable results. Like running an alamar blue assay to return drug toxicity, or a custom assay designed to evaluate drug efficacy by surrogate (entry inhibition, binding inhibition, assembly inhibition, etc). What's important is validating that the results are represntative, that they are likely to reproduce when you go back to a larger model.

As for throughput, simply imagine doing an assay in cell culture with every control, drug, in triplicate, in their own petri dish. Imagine hundreds of dishes filling your hood. Imagine the amount of media that would take, the incubator space, the time to pipette individually moving from one step to the next... and then imagine instead doing so in a 384 well plate with a multi channel pipette. Imagine not needing to involve the sensitive conditions of cells because the assay is de novo. Speed goes up two orders of magnitude, cost goes down an order of magnitude.

But is that de novo assay representative of what you'd have gotten in cell culture? And is the cell culture result representative of what you'd see in animal? And is the animal model representative of what you'll get in humans? This issue is arguably THE issue in medical research, so assessing how representative something is a huge part of the process.

Demonstrating that your animal model reproduces the same pathology as in humans is critical, or what works in animals won't work in humans.

Demonstrating that your cell line can replicate the whole life cycle of the virus with no skipped or altered steps is critical if you're going to test in vitro.

Demonstrating that your high throughput assay replicates the specific isolated mechanism/interaction is critical for testing de novo/in silica.

There's lots of ways to do that. But what machines you use and what you measure depend a lot on what you're doing. Binding assays could be western blot and 384

So lets say you create a binding assay to evaluate how effective drugs are in inhibiting that binding (just an example). How do you test that the binding you're evaluating is the same as the binding the actual virus is involved it? Well, a great way would be to measure a number of variables of your surrogate and compare it to the genuine article. Do they match up, or is something off? And if something is off, what can you change until the surrogate matches the real thing?

But to do that, you need the real thing. Irradiated (inactivated, the gentic material has been destroyed, no risk of infection) to test against. This is a service the CDC provides. It's how labs like mine can work with things like Ebola without risk, without the cost and training that's required in running a BSL-3+ lab with clean rooms and bunny suits.

But the CDC wouldn't even retrun our inquiries. Which is odd. So I never got the samples I needed. So is the assay which is (probably) representative for SARS1 also representative for SARS2? Will the drugs I find in that assay likely to repeat in cell culture, animals, and humans? Well, I can't know. And that's a problem. So if the CDC gave a shit about the drug discovery process for covid, this would be among their priorities. That it ISN'T part of their priorities says everything. They are sufficiently co-opted to just be a vaccine 'health as a subscription service' shill organization.

I am hesitant to detail the assay I would be using the particles as validation for as it would likely be enough to out me and my lab and living where I live has instilled in me an odd mix of caution for precisely when and where and how I stick my neck out.

In general terms, drug discovery requires a degree of throughput that can't be accomplished by doing things the 'best' way. One can't for example, infect tens of thousands of monkeys with SIV to test individual drugs against - ethically you've gone from a grey area to something utterly reprehensible. Doing so would also take a gargantuan amount of time and cost astronomical amounts.

It's better to do things in cell culture. Better throughput, even though as a collection of cells rather than a living breathing immune system or integrated organs it might not be quite as representative. Do the results in cell culture transfer to animal? Often not.

But even cell culture is low throughput, so in reality the only way to have a shot is to design assays which approximate the functions of relevance in the cells that are representative of the larger organism to test agaisnt the mechanism of action you're trying to develop against - for example, merely replicating the receptor binding that is prelude to entry, or the binding regions of a capsif they rely on for assembly.

But how do you know your assay which so removed from the integrated whole is actually representative? Well, you validate it. And for many such examples, trialing against actual legitimate viral particles is enough. If the virion binds the same as your stand in, and shows similar reactivity to some of your early drug candidates, you can have enough confidence (never needs to be 100%) that's it's then worth the time to roll the dice running that assy hundreds of times on tens of thousands of unique compounds to find one or two worth doing more intensie looks on...

...In cell culture. And if that works, in Animal trials. So as you could imagine, I am happy to receive other irradiation particles from the CDC, and a little perterbed when I don't know if my generic SARS1 coronavirus assay is sufficiently representative to SARS2 to be worth the time.

I swear that wasn't supposed to be that long.