Oh, TIL, fascinating, thanks! Wild.

Thanks for the extra info - this is good stuff! I figured the moon difference might be, like, some extra rocketry on top of ICBMs, but not necessarily a lot - but this makes sense that it's in fact a pretty substantial difference.

Yeah, I think people signing onto the OST really helped bury the idea. (It did not stop the USSR from at one point from violating it in 1974-75 by attaching a 23mm gun to a space station. (For "self defense". It was never used.) This probably isn't that related to the larger nukes question, I just learned that recently and thought it was a fun fact.)

I appreciate your excellent comment.

"I want to indicate an alien microbe," I thought. "I'll just draw something with a distinctly microbial feature but otherwise so weird there's no way it could exist." Archaea have shown me what for once again. 

Thank you for introducing me to this odd fellow.

I'm to understand that trichinopoly chain is structurally the same as knitting. See for instance this post and the diagrams included, which look a lot like knitting and describe it as circular knitting. Is that incorrect?

I hadn't seen this post at all until a couple weeks ago. I'd never heard "exfohazard" or similar used. 

Insisting on using a different word seems unnecessary. I see how it can be confusing. I also ran into people confused by this a few years ago, and proposed "cognitohazard" for the "thing that harms the knower" subgenre. That also has not caught on. XD The point is, I'm pro-disambiguating the terms, since they have different implications. But I still believe what I did then, that the original broader meaning of the word "infohazard" is occasionally used in the wild in e.g. biodefense, whereas the "thing that harms the knower" meaning is IME quite uncommon, so I think it seems fair to let Bostrom and the people using it in their work keep "infohazard". Maybe the usage in AI is different.

Yeah, great point! So to be fair to them, they were not doing tests that hinged on it having a specific codon scheme or amino acid. Like, they weren't sequencing the samples - it was 1969, they couldn't do that. They were putting it in nutrient-rich media or plants or animals or etc and seeing what happened. So maybe in such a case the coloration change would have been detected in, I don't know, the water of the shrimp tank. But as you say it could well have been too late at that point, if an organism grew in seawater.

Sure, Wikipedia, NASA's About Astrobiology page indicates this is pretty uncontroversial at NASA, Hawking, Dawkins in The Selfish Gene, this website from a NSF-funded exhibit at the Boston Museum of Science, Scientific American... I can't immediately find a "how do most biologists think that life came to be" survey but I bet if there is a good one, it would support this. In high school and undergrad, I was taught that abiogenesis was all but consensus, and that other things (divine intervention, panspermia, ??) were considered unlikely.

GREAT post. I sent it to my friends. It may be of interest that the oldest socks we know of have split toes, probably for being worn with sandals! So they've been uncool to wear with sandals for a while but they started out cool to wear with sandals, at least. History could be made to repeat itself.

End-of-2023 author retrospective: 

Yeah, this post holds up. I'm proud of it. The Roman dodecahedron and the fox lady still sit proudly on my desk.

I got the oldest known example wrong, but this was addressed in the sequel post: Who invented knitting? The plot thickens. If you haven't read the sequel, where I go looking for the origins of knitting, you will enjoy it. Yes, even if you're here for the broad ideas about history rather than specifically knitting. (That investigation ate my life for a few months in there. Please read it. 🥺)

I'm extremely pleased by the reception I got from this. People say "oh, Less Wrong won't be interested in a post about knitting". These people were not writing good enough posts about knitting. They probably also said that about tree phylogeny.* If you think something is interesting, you can explain why it's interesting to other people and maybe they'll agree with you.

I would say the challenge of writing this was maybe in sort of trusting myself that these freewheeling high-concept connections between alphabetization and knitting and bacterial evolution were worth explicitly relating to each other. On one hand I often sort of hate reading pieces based around the author holding up distantly-connected things and going "do you get it? do you get it??" ...But on the other hand, sometimes they're insightful, and man, sometimes there is a weird concept that's really made clear by seeing a few disparate examples. So it's worth trying and ultimately it is just a blog post and not a scientific paper, so "gesturing vaguely at an idea" is on par for the course. Evidently other people thought the connection was something too. Nice!

*Fact check: Nobody has ever said either of these things to me.

Possibly if by "come in contact" we mean like ingesting or injecting or something. That's the going theory for how the Kuru epidemic started - consumption of the brain of a person with sporadic (randomly-naturally-occuring) CJD. Fortunately cannibalism isn't too common so this isn't a usual means of transmission. I think if anything less intensive (say, skin or saliva contact) made CJD transmissible, we would know by now. See also brain contact with contaminated materials e.g. iatrogenic CJD, or Alzheimers which I mention briefly in this piece.

it's possible that FFI genes cause the patient's body to create prions,

Yep! That's how it works. Real brutal.