Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

So you mean "overestimate" in the second paragraph right? Because the rest of it reads that way.


Yes, thanks, edited.


The first one is still wrong. "Underestimate the technical feasibility" means, "They think it is less feasible (harder) than it actually is." I think you mean the opposite: they think it is easier than it actually is. I.e. you're trying to say it's harder than we think.

You can say instead: "underestimates the difficulty" or "overestimates the feasibility."


James, you are correct but I think JunkDNA's point is still being made effectively. In fact this was likely an intentional statement meant to illustrate the difficulty involved in intentionally creating a thing--if an error could be easily introduced in a handful of words, how likely is it that a malicious DNA creator will get their supervirus working exactly right?


That is very optimistic of you. Personally I think it was more likely that it was simply a typing error, as he has acknowledged. That's fine, we all make them. I had some difficulty parsing what he was trying to say, which is the only reason I brought it up.

The rest of your argument is very far fetched. One person's difficulty formulating a sentence could not be less related to biologists' collective capabilities in tailoring viruses.


"The rest of your argument is very far fetched."

I have apparently underestimated my ability to craft a joke.


Brevity is the soul of wit.


You are right. I chose my words poorly. This is what I get for trying to make a complex point in a quick post between meetings.


specifically the first "underestimate" is wrong, the second is correct. :-)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: