Yeah, the killer part of that whole thing is him admitting he knew better. Like you can’t claim ignorance or that it wasn’t willful.
It’s literally that scene from the Big Short. “I don’t get it, why is he confessing? He’s not confessing. He’s bragging.”
Trump literally IRL that scene and if the courts give him a pass on that, then we don’t have a justice system. Because Trump literally confessed to a fucking crime as he was committing it.
Does this really solve the ethical wicket of human embryo testing?
Subjectively, no. Objectively, yes. Just because it has enough properties to do things similar to an embryo, it has been shown that it is in fact NOT an actual embryo.
Is tricking stem cells into forming an embryo really that different from fertilizing an egg with a sperm cell to form an embryo?
Yes, very much so. Sperm and egg method is you get what you get and you don't throw a fit. Which is less than ideal if a very narrow line of cells is all that you were interested in. Think of the ethical implications of taking a fetal tissue and indicating, "Oh well 90% of this isn't what I wanted. Let's slice that off and focus on this 10% I do want. Oh and freeze that shit I sliced off, someone may want it before it goes bad." The tricking stem cells allows us to focus efforts so that the yield is much higher on what researchers want.
would this still develop into a functional human being if implanted into a womb?
No. It does not. No one has tried with humans but it's been tried with primates. The uterus takes the embryo and plays along for a bit of time but after that, the body figures out the ruse and the whole thing comes apart, usually in fetal resorption. So while this method can produce particular lines of cells quite well, there is obvious things that are massively missing form our understanding of ovum to make this remotely successful. Can we overcome that technical deficit? ABSOLUTELY. Will we? Nah, it's not likely.
Synthetic embryos serve a particular sticking point researchers have about human cell lines. Most governments allow human cell lines to exist for about five weeks (there's particular exceptions to this that have more asterisks than the TOS for most social media sites, I'll not go into them, we're just going to stick to in general here). Thereafter, they must be destroyed. The problem is that if you need a particular line of cells that develops much later in the development stage, you need donor tissue which is much more expensive. With synthetic embryos you can "jump" right to what you need.
So this brings us back to the ethical part of this. Objectively, these cell lines being created by this process come very differently than what we harvest from actual donors. And there's little likelihood that this process is going to develop much further than great for single targeted cell lines, piss poor for complex tissue/organs/actual humans. So objectively speaking, synthetic embryos today have very little chance to be confused for actual human embryos. Today's synthetic embryos are just way too dissimilar to actual embryos that I think any ethical concerns are overblown. Yes, it has the name embryo in it, but that is solely a technical distinction and confusing it with actual embryos is a gross misunderstanding of the details.
Subjectively speaking, if I build a ship out of things that look like wood, act like wood, and feels like wood but is indeed not wood, did I build a wood ship? There's a point where I can make fake wood look real enough that it would be hard to tell if it was wood or not. Likewise, it wouldn't be impossible to develop synthetic embryos to a point that the body would know no difference between it and a real one. The only problem is that much like our wood thing, there are trees that are way cheaper to just grow and harvest than to sit here literally trying to reinvent the tree. The whole sperm/egg thing is just something nature has had a lot of time to perfect and it's going to be a very pretty penny to mimic that. And everyone will find that there are very few takers that want to blow that kind of money.
What synthetic embryos solve is a need for particular lines of cells much later in the development phase of a human life. Those cells are expensive to obtain. Synthetic embryos are a cheaper means to getting SOME of them. But if the goal is an actual embryo, you still cannot beat the cost and effectiveness in your run of the mill fertilization. Additionally, if your goal is large amounts of tissue/full organs, likely that 3D printing is going to beat out this technology but until either one of them wins, we still have the expensive and complex system of being an organ donor and waiting till you get a fatal head injury. So synthetic embryos seem to only be able to serve the niche that they are more affordable than the current method. Could they do more? Oh yeah. Will they? Probably not. It was pretty expensive getting to where they are currently at, and going further there just seems to be better methods for the use cases they would serve.
Out of this whole thing, I just want to say something about this.
Some players' reactions to the paywall have been unfavorable; they think that charging for mods is unethical and goes against the spirit of community modification
Everyone needs to make bread. Someone asking for money from their mod or map or whatever isn’t against any spirit. It’s just a human being asking to make bread. Now some don’t agree with the price tag and that’s fine.
But we all need to recognize humans asking for some dough for their hard work is in the spirit of existing. Some folk do it for free just for the feelings and we love ‘em for it. But those asking for some cash are no different.
This world is already full of dog eat dog. Let’s not hate on someone just trying to get through it. You don’t have to pay the ask, but let’s not go making enemies just cause we don’t agree on that number on the price tag.
Let’s do both?
That's a fine take, but it ignores that for this particular issue the consumer isn't the one dictating the terms. I can't roll up to the McDonald's and ask them to put my soda into the cup I hand them. Bioplastics and green plastics aren't a thing that I directly can fund nor can I convince my politician to prioritize research into them. And the other alternatives outside of a brand new kind of plastic or a reusable cup have massive cons, not because they are inherently bad choices, but because companies rushing to implement those changes are usually executed poorly. I mean, the BEST way to reduce this aspect that's immediately achievable by every single consumer is to just simply stop eating out completely.
I also think that having the mindset every day to live more sustainably and reduce personal waste is valuable
Absolutely. But there's also the aspect that our society is build with some really messed up assumptions and we really need to address those. Like a lot of energy needs to be poured into those things more so than anything else. Like I said, easiest way to do away with all of the particular plastic involved in the story is to just simply stop giving any money to fast food, take away stuff, etc. Make your own sandwich, pack your own mashed potatoes, fix your own coffee to take with you.
But there's a lot of people who are getting the full throat IRL experience that will say, "who the fuck has time for that shit?" And it's not their fault they are caught up in the shit tsunami that is modern society. They're just trying to survive. So things like "just stop eating there" is surprisingly, and fucked up, a big ask for them.
It can be eye-opening and a step toward bigger steps like voting, advocacy, boycotts, and conversations with others
And yeah, it's good to have a conversation about it. But we ought to really also talk about the details of the matter because they're important. Why isn't that voting working? Why is there so little advocacy? Why are boycotts doomed to fail every time? There's reasons for these things and I would argue that those reasons are way more important than shaming people who just want to eat a lunch today.
I would rather do something infinitesimally small than nothing
And I agree, but it needs to not stop there. And in fact the bigger picture items, the finer detail things, those things should be what lead the conversation and the stopping of plastic cups would be an outcome of that. Instead we have here a story that starts out with "you're a bad person for using plastic cups" and goes absolutely nowhere with "why it be like that?" It's just pure "you're a bad person. End of story." That's not incredibly helpful to convince people that they should be mindful. People should indeed be mindful, but the shirt that a lot of us are currently wearing has a lot more contribution to the issue than the cup some person just received at the McDonald's.
It's literally the plastic straw thing again. And changing that didn't really change much of the calculus then, because the straw thing contributes so little to the actual issue.
Are we doing this shit again? Look the straws and disposable cups consumers use pale in comparison to the largest contributors of plastics.
The fishing industry accounts for 70% of all plastic that makes it into the ocean. Textiles and shitty tire disposal combine to contribute about 65% of the plastic you will drink.
All of these things are things politicians can “do things” about but just simply don’t. Instead we get story after story about how you dear consumer are the shitty one who is at fault for the fucked up world you live in, not these hard working captains of capitalism who are just doing their best to keep shareholders happy while trying to buy that $50M mansion.
Yes, disposable cups are a problem. Solving that problem will do zero to change the calculus on the amount of plastic you’re actively putting into your body. This whole, “it’s not the fucked up systemic pollution our society relies on that’s the issue, it you to average person who is at fault for every problem in this world” Stockholm-esque bullshit type of journalism needs to stop.
Yes the scientific paper is indeed an interesting read. But what Wired has done is take this pretty innocuous study and turned it into some green washing flagellant bullshit that literally helps the core issue zero percent. Yes, we should be better stewards of the planet. No, telling everyone they’re pieces of shit for existing does not help the cause.
“Notice me Putin Senpai!”
I have to admit, the number of people who simp for Authoritarians is much higher than I thought it would ever be.
Perk
And
image caching bug
Bravo, spoken like a true software developer.
The thing is the added complexity that the plaintiff is adding is just going to extend out the entire process. The filing indicates something like a 60% loss of ad revenue. Even if the case runs smooth as butter, there's no way Musk can get access to the money he's seeking in time to cover the massive loss plus the huge debt obligations he's sacked the company with already.
There's zero ways restitution from this case would ever give the company enough head above water quick enough to prevent drowning in debt.
Neat thing, most oil companies are buying lithium mines to stay ahead. In a few more decades most major oil companies will have transitioned to lithium mining and end user electrical distribution.
Our US advertising revenue is still down 60 percent, primarily due to pressure on advertisers by @ADL
What’s neat about this, is that with that kind of loss and the complexity that X is tying to these cases. Even if it was going to be a slam dunk case, the odds they’ll ever recover any kind of cash to stem the absolute bloodletting that percentage indicates within enough time is close to zero.
That kind of loss paired with the monster sized debt already saddled onto the company is like taking a person who has been cut in half and just had their arms ripped off, all while the person is suffering a heart attack. And the best the doctors can hope for is that a single unit of blood can get here in time to help with the massive blood loss.
That said, the case is likely to end up like the other one they have going on. Very unclear, very murky arguments, and a lot of questions that don’t have good prior case history.
Additionally, no court is actually going to think the ADL caused billions of losses by reprint of tweets actually on the website. You can be free speech Musk. But people get to point out what’s on your site to advertisers. The ADL actually can work in concert with advertisers as pretty much every court will see the ADL playing a vital role in due diligence. No court is going to attempt material harm for someone presenting facts, that’s just begging the court to side with a commercial entity in spite of facts.
Musk looking for excuses on why his company is sinking like the Titanic and he is having issues with accepting that he’s the one who sank it.
Radio Shack the brand isn’t dead. Remember they filed ch.11 which is the reorganize bankruptcy.
EDIT: Of course, to me, they died when they went whole hog with cell phones and less being able to walk in there and pick up various ICs. So in that sense Radio Shack died long before their bankruptcy.