Could also be better diagnostics. A lot of diseases are becoming much more common just because we can recognise them more easily.

Yes, but I didn’t write anything about buying. The comment I replied to was only about reading, which I thought may be excessive.

Is it wrong to enjoy art made by bad people? I think it’s a very complicated question and the answers will definitely have a lot of variation between people. What if it really is a good art? Or just enjoyable? Should everyone avoid it? People still listen music by Michael Jackson, for example, are they bad because of it?

My own approach is that qualities of what someone creates don’t need to be inseparably tied to the personality or views of the author. Everyone can enjoy what they like without the obligation to find out details of the author and adjust their preference based on that. It’s fine to make them aware of the problems, it’s not fine to make them feel bad because they like something that is not wrong on its own. If you dislike the author enough for it to spoil their works for you, good for you. I also feel this way about some authors. But don’t require it from other people.

That’s my take. I’m curious, what’s yours?

But there are eukayotic parasites. They are even closer to us. This on its own is not an explanation.

I’m afraid that you don’t quite see all the complexity involved. I’m not saying I see all of it, but I can see there is more to it than you think.

What about bacteria? Not only don’t they don’t often use sexual reproduction, so they don’t need a pair of parents to produce offsprings, but they exchange plasmids and therefore DNA with little regard for species.

Plants are a complete mess of genome duplication, aneuploidy and whatnot. In these aspects, they are sort of scary to me.

Also, what about formation of a new species? Do you think there is a clean-cut time when they stop producing offspring? Also, what exactly do you mean by fertile? Where do you get a partner to test if the offspring is fertile?

These are just a few problems that came to my mind right away. I’m sure there’s loads more. I’m afraid that the notion of well organised, easy to categorise world just doesn’t match the real world. Species are more or less a continuum. Incidentally, so is life. We have no good definition fornlife either. Just use whatever definition is useful at the moment and don’t forget to specify it when necessary.

Hasn’t Beal’s list been taken down quite a while ago? I remember making a copy of it before they removed it. It was a great source, but sometimes it needed some context. I think all of Frontiers in ended up on the list for reasons, but their review process was mostly alright, for example. It was this kind of lack of clearly definedrules and explanations that let them to taking the list down. Is it back up?

Well, if USA and Europe were at war, with article 5, they could arrange it so that Europe fought Europe and USA fought USA, singe they are allies and must help. It would save a lot of transatlantic logistics and make things much easier.

It sure is, but on google maps, it looks as big as northern America.

Does Trump want Greenland so bad because he thinks it’s huge due to a map projection?

I think a quasi-particle is more like a phenomenon that can mathematically be described in a way a particle would be, rather than just a group of particles. After all, holes in semiconductors are quasiparticles caused by a lack of real particles.

Admittedly, I know very little about quasi-particles.

They are the same, just divided to 10 differently.

I very quickly checked wikipedia, because I couldn’t easily identify the extra one. It lists all 16 of the 10 commandments… The table looks like different branches of christianity bundle some of them together (mostly various coveting) or don’t even consider the first and last a commandment, so they always only count to ten. So it’s an easy mistake to make.

But the fact that they couldn’t even count the paragraphs is riddiculous.

Oh, that sounds reasonable.

Thank you! It looks like it needs more people for more excitement, but on the other hand, one-man projects look possible. Should be fun :-)

So… What is it exactly?

Photons have zero rest mass, right? They have mass while moving, don’t they?

There were some compatibility problems that required genetic engineering of the pig. I don’t remember specifics, but there was talk about potential dormant viruses in pig DNA that need to be removed first, possible problems with glycolsylation (sugar chains on the proteins outside of cells) and maybe more. The article also mentions that the pig had some human genes, I’m sure those help compatibility too. So many changes would be next to impossible to do until relatively recently, before use of CRISPR-Cas9. Also, it must’ve taken some time to certify the procedure. That’s why it took so much time since the topic was hot.

I would’ve thought that picking some of the 5 distinct points I provided to be absolutely clear would be simple. Apparently not. Nice day to you, too.

Possibly poor wording, not a native speaker here. I apologise if I offended you. I would really appreciate if you could point out particular points which you find “outrageous and despicable”.

No, I’m fine, thanks. I might, though, when I try to find what you’re talking about… Out of curiosity, which points of my TLDR trigger you so much?