GreyEyedGhost

In 1990, they started to sequence the human genome. About a decade later, the shotgun sequencing technique was advanced enough to be used on the human genome. A few years later, it was declared complete. In 2022, it was considered to be gapless, almost 2 decades later.

All of this, plus some other discoveries, led to CRISPR and the ability to edit genes in fully formed beings rather than just a few cells. After decades of research in a number of fields.

One of the things DNA does is make protein. (If you want to look at it a certain way, all it does is determine where and when to make protein.) Part of what makes protein do the thing it does is the shape it takes. (For instance, prions are misfolded proteins that cause other proteins to misfold, and then other weird things happen, like holes in your brain.)

So we have this massively complicated process that makes slightly less complicated things that behave in a variety of ways depending on their shape, which is dependent on the myriad ways they can fold, at the molecular level. And you wonder why they haven't done a lot when we're still to a large degree in the data-collecting and validation portion of this massive undertaking. As for what it can lead to, I expect it will be no less revolutionary than CRISPR is and will be, but that could still be decades away.

There's an old joke about that to piss off Texans. If Alaska was split in half, Texas would be the third largest state.

I believe one of France's kings had aluminum dinnerware back when it was still hard to make. Fun times.

I only do phone calls when I'm in a situation where I can't look at a screen, such as driving. Otherwise, if it's not in person, it's text or video. And, given my personality, it's usually text for most people.

I honestly don't put it past Samsung. Their TVs already do. I have an old monitor, and I'm currently using what will probably be my last smartphone from them. They make good hardware, but I'm tired of them insisting on knowing everything I do to use it.

Okay, but what does any of that have to do with Meta?

You should read the saga of when MS bought Hotmail. The work they had to do to be able to run it on Windows was incredible. It actually helped MS improve their server OS, and it still wasn't as performance when they switched over.

Not everything, and not now. As per the article, these laws have been in place since the 90s, and there are seeds, etc. that aren't covered.

Thanks for the insight. I'm concerned about regulatory capture, much like in the wireless market. That would absolutely have a negative impact on the royalties for farmers, but producing hybrids still isn't cheap. I can see where both sides have some valid arguments, and hope the government comes to a reasonable conclusion. If they don't, I hope the farmers vote with their wallets for the sake of all of us.

Yeah, I get that, but keep in mind the case everyone refers to is a little more complicated than that. More like:

1. Protect the IP protected seeds genomes.

2. Have people save seeds from fields that have experienced blowover.

3. Use pesticides to kill off non-resistaseeplants from those saved seeds.

4. Repeat a few seasons.

5. Get the crap sued out of you for having knowingly bred for the pesticide resistant genes in your IP.

Now, I'm not saying this isn't shitty of Monsanto, but that still has no bearing on the economics for the farmer. If he can produce a better outcome for the dollar, perhaps it makes sense to go thenroute of buying IP-protected seeds. I can only assume this is true, or a lot more farmers would reject those seeds. Also, if the price gets too high, the non-IP plants will become more financially attractive and farmers would turn to them. Hence why I say I'm not equipped to say what makes more sense for them, but it's not a place I'd willingly put myself into.

Sex education isn't pornography, and as a general rule depictions of nude people isn't sufficient to be considered pornography. Moreover, comprehensive sex education has a strong correlation with reduced teen pregnancy. The only reasonable conclusions that can be drawn from that is that sex education isn't required for teens to have sex, and that sex education increases the odds that teenagers will engage in safe sex rather than unsafe sex.

There are two rules you need to know in negotiations. First, never lay all your cards on the table.