CartyBoston

peeps here can be very literal, it's I suspect no accident

It's kind of illuminating to see this issue get so little traction here.

in this they behave like a short-term gain focused stock market

The pain you express here is one I recognize, I'm sorry. For me the answer is simple to say and difficult to execute - if I don't value the world I am in, create a world that I do value. Creating worlds is awesome, literally Godlike. And very, very hard work that I try to be patient watching me flail at.

I love "others as individuals of infinite worth"

I did exactly this, at least here in the US the machines are very inexpensive and even free because manufacturers make $ from the strips. So for about $30 I was able to do readings several times a day for a week. My PCP was impressed.

Fish yeah but extracting useful DNA from olive oil and other processed foods/ingredients is not straightforward.

bcheung, I absolutely agree that CRISPR is substantive and even very exciting. But sloppy allusions to things far from fruition make me not like this particular article very much.

"Using the three-year-old technique, researchers have already reversed mutations that cause blindness, stopped cancer cells from multiplying, and made cells impervious to the virus that causes AIDS."

Ugh. Overreaching rhetoric like this with no context or detail signal silly pop science writing rather than anything substantive.

Ellison may be an asshole but

“I was told it stalled in committee and the reason why, we found out a few weeks ago, is because Oracle uses it to go after their competitors”

Is not the slightest bit specific about what, if anything, he actually did. Some actual journalism would be helpful here.

Wait ... where is there a $2 burger?

That was my first post here, I want to watch my step.

Is an "ocular melanoma" any tumor discovered in the eye? Or is it mutated eye tissue that was subsequently discovered in his liver? Which would indeed be pretty definitive.

I do appreciate your help.

It's a beautiful essay, and I don't mean to undermine its gravity but one thing he mentioned has me curious. How does one conclude that two tumors are related? Might it be that the cancer that metastasized in his liver is independent of that that was in his eye?

He is a neurologist, I am not intending to challenge, just curious and I know there are people here that know much more than I do.