> Well, this is a new topic altogether, but I will try to respond to your straw man
Not a strawman, my point was contained in the original comment you replied to. ("WHO is still investigating how it actually developed")
In regards to the rest of your comment and the discrepancy between the case density around the market location in comparison to the lab, I'm sure you can think of many reasons why this evidence isn't conclusive.
I think you're conflating the location of origin with the actual development of the virus. A location is step 0 in understanding how the virus developed.
Future of discourse isn't looking good, seeing how easy it was for tech/media/government to censor this theory as disinformation, even though it was completely reasonable.
I agree that education should be free, but not colleges. Colleges are involved in the business of credentialing and monopolising entry level jobs.
There is no use in education being free if there are credentialing businesses charging $320k (which I believe is going to increase as they teach more highschoolers why college debt is worth it) in order to use your skills in the job market.
Colleges who have a history of exploitative pricing have no place in the future of free education.
There is nothing referencing Q1 2022 on this thread.
> Alas, that has not happened yet, and the market is more complex than net income trajectories
The comment you replied to didn't state that the market is simply net income trajectories.