Quotes from this page show you are wrong:
“Death to Unveiling” (Marg bar bi-Hejabi).
“Unveiling Stems From Men's Emasculation” (Bi-Hejabi-ye Zan az bi-Qeyrati-ye Mard ast)
“Death to the Unveiled Woman and her Cowardly Husband” (Marg bar Zan-e bi-Hejab va Shohar-e bi-Qeyrat-e ou).
Note the word "hejab" in these quotes. That means that it is called "hejab" in Iran (presumably in Farsi).
As for the rest of your comment, you are inferring what I never said. I don't care either way about women wearing the hejab in Iran - that's their culture and their business to sort out one way or another and nothing to do with me. I was merely pointing out your error in saying the "hijab" is never worn in Iran.
No. But given other Muslims (including women) call the headscarf they are wearing a "hijab", I would assume that at least some women in Iran also call the headscarf a "hijab". Regardless of the exact terminology used in Iran, headscarf=hijab is true at at least some parts of the (Muslim) world, so your point that "Iranian women never weared hijab and nobody force them to. They wear kerchief or headscarf to cover hair" seems to a pointless point about terminology rather than anything substantial.
Having lived in a Muslim country where Muslim women wearing the hijab is the norm.
A headscarf is a hijab. If you are thinking about coverings that cover more than the hair + head/neck, those are niqab or burka.
Optimisation by brute-force is a common technique in biological sciences. Methods range from simple random mutagenesis of organisms, to more complex techniques such as phage display. The basis of all is to evolve a phenotype that can be selected using a screen of some kind, often over multiple rounds.
What you are describing using human subjects is not plausible simply because the sampling space when using human subjects is too small. You should calculate the number of possible alternative sequences that could plausibly be assessed using human subjects, and compare to the number of possible sequences encoded in an RNA or peptide. You'll find they don't even come close. For comparison, the number of combinations that can be tested in human subjects (billions at best) would be possible to do in a single tiny experiment using a biochemical assay or similar.
The supposition that the different batches may be used to test somewhat different compounds has been made before and is plausible. The key difference to your ideas is that a small group of candidate variants is being tested in different batches, rather than a largescale brute-force experiment.
quickly the antivaxxers and the like jumped on that narrative.
Most didn't though. There are far more of the people you call "anti-vaxxers and the like" in the "viruses don't exist at all" camp than screeching about "bioweapons". Plenty of others are like the others here who acknowledge SARS-Cov-2 might be made in a lab but it is pretty harmless. The "Chinese bioweapon" narrative was always a mainstream narrative being allowed to exist quietly in the background so that it could be used to undermine the "virus is harmless" pushback, and justify lockdowns/vaccines/etc. You are just too naive to see it.
Valid point, but I can't figure out real-world example. Say, some conspiracy theorist paid $1 CBDC for groceries in dad&mom shop, they paid $10 CBDC using that "bad" $1 CBDC for car replacement part, then that bad $1 CBDC was paid as salary to a worker that made that spare part. Then government find out that first person is a conspiracy theorist and disable his $1 CBDC. So completely innocent worker of spare parts plant who wear pride parade pin and have a trans as a best friend will lose $1 CBDC he honestly earned working hard.
But they have the complete history of every transaction. The innocent spare parts worker was effectively defrauded by the conspiracy theorist using illegal tokens (they can trace the chain of every token). Thus, they can make it so the conspiracy theorist now owes the spare parts worker the $1. If the conspiracy theorist has no tokens (because all of his tokens were made illegal), they could take the tokens from his family to pay his debt, or make him into a permanent "debt slave" of his "victims" until his pays back his debt (this could also carry to his family if he decides to kill himself).
Government could declare that $10 banknotes with numbers from XXXXXX to XXXXYY was used in some bad activity and so no longer valid.
But the government cannot retrospectively identify every banknote used by the conspiracy theorist. With the CBDC, since every token is tracked, they know the id number of every token ever used by the conspiracy theorist. They can identify these tokens retrospectively i.e. once they identify the conspiracy theorist, they can find all his transactions and the id of all the tokens he used. They can then invalidate these and punish him as above.
I presume the main difference will be that CBDCs will be non-fungible, unlike the fiat money that currently exists. This will allow every token to be tracked, and potentially invalidated in the future if a user performs a non-authorised operation. No one is going to want to knowingly take tokens from a black market operator if there is a risk the authorities could destroy the value of these tokens with the simple click of a button. This differs from fiat currency as there are loop holes that make money laundering possible, ultimately because fiat currency is fungible.
A likely answer to this is that it is very hard, if not impossible, to engineer a dangerous virus. All those stories about bioweapons are science fiction and will likely remain fiction. The reason for this is that humans (and all organisms really) are highly robust against challenges that they have faced during their evolutionary history. Viruses (and other pathogens) are one such challenge that has "attacked" humans over and over again, so humans and human populations have very robust defences against these i.e. adaptable and highly varied immune systems that ensure multilayered protection against these viruses. This doesn't mean that you couldn't kill some people with an engineered virus, but that the ability to kill a large number of people and have that virus spread throughout the population doing this is very limited. Especially if people take precautions to bolster their general health (i.e. exercise, well-nourished etc.), which ensures healthy immune systems and protects against infectious diseases in general.
(Humans, of course, are not robust against challenges not faced during their evolutionary history. This is why projectiles and chemical weapons are effective - we have no evolved robust defenses against these, unlike biologicals).
It could be limited to IPs, IP ranges or even AS, so IP, IP range or whole AS with multiple nodes receive as much as single node in IP, IP range or AS.
But this would now limit the ability of an average user to run a node at home. If me and my neighbour have the same ISP, we will likely be on the same subnet and thus function as only a single node. So one node is effectively redundant and will receive no reward (or the reward will be divided). On the other hand, people with control of the IP address allocation will have the ability to allocate themselves a node on every subnet. This likely favours those with control of the network infrastructure, i.e. tech companies who are in turn owned by billionaires. Not sure this has really made anything better.
A fundamental problem with proof-of-work (or any proof-of-energy system, really), is that they favour the existing unequal distribution of wealth. The people with the most access to the ability to do computing work, or the most energy, are the existing rich. Obviously, the billionaires of the world can easily afford access to vast computing power that ensures that they would be the ones that would gain most of the newly minted cryptocurrencies.
So, even with the end of fiat and all money is now crypto, lo and behold, the current billionaires are still the billionaires and nothing has really changed. Except maybe people are more dependent on energy, computing resources and access to the network to do something as trivial as buying something, giving the billionaires even more power to de-person anyone they don't want, by denying them access to these things that a person cannot produce by themselves.
Your proof-of-network might be an improvement on this but I'm not sure it really fixes the problem. How hard would it be for a billionaire to own millions of nodes on the network? It's simply a matter of devoting computing resources to running independent nodes instead of calculating hashes.
Do you really think they can't have two words for the same thing? What a stupid argument.
But anyway, you are getting all worked up about nothing. I don't really care if Iranians call a headscarf a "hejab" or they call them a "rusari". But you haven't convinced me that they never use the word "hejab" for headscarf. All you've convinced me is that you really don't like being called out for being wrong and would rather dig yourself into a hole. (Just like when I pointed out how your crazy idea of testing peptide sequences in covid vaccines was flawed - you pretended you had actually accounted for the number of combinations that could be tested ("oh I just skipped over the details") when you probably never even thought of doing that).
And no, I don't accept everything the "West" or anyone else tells me about Iran or anything else. Everyone is pushing an agenda. Everyone uses propaganda. But I don't really expect a random article to be making up Farsi quotes that imply the headscarf in Iran sometimes called "hejab" - their propaganda will be focused on lying to show how "poorly" women are treated in Iran, not lying about trivial things like the word used for "headscarf".