Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

ajross

> Which virologists think it's natural, and which think it's unnatural?

Literally no one, including the authors of this paper, contends the sequence is "unatural".

View on HN

Are you meaning to say natural or unnatural?

What do you think? Kinda a pedantic response for a spelling mistake.

Both are 1 letter off from the presumed correct word:

unatural + n == correctly spelled unnatural

unatural - u == correctly spelled natural

How the hell are you supposed to guess as if the context of viral sequencing is somehow easy to parse correctly?

Seriously? Is this the quality of discussion HN is regularly becoming? You want me to make an assumption? Is that how you operate in conversation - assumptions to fill in the gaps when something isn't clear?

You realize that their saying "natural" or "unnatural" completely changes what they're saying to the polar opposite, right?

So now clarity is pedantic?

Seriously?

If HN had subreddits there'd be one similar to /r/WatchRedditDie

It's not an assumption for people who read the article. You'd know what the authors were claiming - natural, unatural, or unnatural.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com