> if it did I would have thought it would have appeared in the past 5 billion years or so
It may have appeared and been outcompeted. That doesn’t suggest its (artificial) reintroduction would again be outcompeted
1,639 karma · joined December 17, 2012
It may have appeared and been outcompeted. That doesn’t suggest its (artificial) reintroduction would again be outcompeted
In a single legal entity?
> At any point in time a US based customer might invite a EU based customer, so looking specifically at US jurisdictions is irrelevant.
What case law are you considering when you insinuate that Slack must review the retention of records between users of a Slack business customer?
In which US jurisdictions can employee-to-employee records (from employer-owned communication media) be denied to the employer/customer but maintained by an unrelated third party?
It will continue to be necessary because there are more strains of HPV than those that are targeted by vaccines.
The way this article is broken into sections is a bit misleading - the recommendation for cervical cancer hasn't been annual screening for a long time. This is acknowledged in the text, but even there is unclear.
> And yet not a single cite in sight. A random commenter on orange site is not evidence
At a certain point, one has to take on the obligation of self-education.
> Hogwash.
From the website link you pasted: "Test-Specific Technical Issues - Standard tests (such as PCR or in situ hybridization) may not detect HPV types not included in the test panel (rare or classic non-oncogenic variants)."
> There are plenty of papers on HPV independent cervical cancer based on actual gene expression methods published in reputable journals in the last 30 years.
You don't understand the field, so you don't know why the gene expression does not establish the presence or absence of HPV but instead can be used as an argument for the absence of HPV.
EDIT: Also, a fundamental point of misunderstanding - cervical cancer is not a 'new' disorder, so unless you have an explanation for why the 1999 article is wrong, we can't simply discard its result and favor a next-generation sequencing article.
Random mutations causing cervical cancer essentially does not happen - as a sibling commenter writes, well-studied cases of this are so rare that they’re below our sensitivity of detection/technical error rates.
This is what I mean when I say we try to apply our intuitions to medicine - they’re not reliable and the truth is idiosyncratic.
Because our prior for cervical cancer being caused by HPV is so incredibly high, we would require overwhelming evidence to reject the hypothesis that any new case is due to HPV. There are ways to do this, and, should they be attained, would be published in a reputable journal based on their novelty.
I think a better example is the very recent (i.e., in the 2000s) discovery of anti-NMDAR encephalitis which can very closely resemble schizophrenia [1].
In syphilis, there were at least other manifestations of disease that can (and were) known, unlike this totally unappreciated mechanism (which better resembles Barry Marshall and H. pylori).
What are these other ways? There's an intuition that bodies are like computer programs that can fail in unpredictable ways, but this is usually false and belies a failure to see links between 'novel' and previously described mechanisms.
As a meta point, why write ' Lemme example why.' ?
If someone is still with you at this sentence, that person was ready to understand why.
Otherwise, it delays (and thus endangers the visibility of) whatever your explanation was going to be.
This was overturned.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/22/business/media/appeals-co...
Maybe you mean that those journalists were more specialized than the writers of today?
It seems that there may have been more journalists in the 1970s (when we consider people who call themselves reporters and work in 'news').
1972 - ~39,000 ( https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/occupational-outlook-han... ; a great resource to find out about what journalism was like)
2022 - ~17,000 ( https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/oes273023.htm#nat - search for Newspaper, Periodical, Book, and Directory Publishers. If you want to add social media companies one needs a reasonable way to discount media streaming services. At any rate, this doesn't match what was being done in the 1970s so it's immaterial to your argument)
Or maybe this was a rhetorical point? Even today, there are articles that are trying to piece together who informed on the plant and what the basis for an ICE raid was. It seems you and the authors retain a similar understanding of the situation.
I think your comment implies that journalism in some previous time did not 'just hire for pedigree' and 'end up with careerists.'
When was this time and who were the specialist writers from that moment? How can one write anything without taking a political stance? We make much of the odd era of doublespeak we endure (when is a 'special military operation' a 'war'?). But it's hard to imagine that there has ever been a time where even the selection of a descriptive phrase carries political weight. My imagination may be limited, I suppose.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting your argument and you mean that content meant for general consumption has always (read since its inception) been 'generic' and with '[injection] of political opinion.'
> once you start adding more than one item to a cell it doesn't always work out.
Very true, but the amounts of money at stake would justify the relatively inexpensive cost of hooking cells up to the already-available ER/TR-responsive gene elements.
> but I don't believe any before have contained these immune escaping edits
Hard to say, I'm not an expert on immune escape. It's an old idea, however, so I imagine it's been used in other pre-clinical or Phase 1 settings.
> I believe all of those treatments are cancer treatments which allow for a different level of risk
I imagine you're speaking about allogeneic treatment? Either way, this isn't true at all - here's a list of current treatments for diabetes alone:
If we're controlling the cells' genomes (which we are), we can add any sort of killswitch (see another comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45220068 ) that we would like, and this would function better than relying on host immune surveillance. The opposite could be done, making insulin release dependent on the presence of a harmless drug, e.g., insulin release can only happen if a designer steroid molecule is present in the blood.
There are already cell therapies that envisage permanent implantation of modified cells, so I am not sure why a long delay for 'any type of usable treatment' would occur. The structure of this need not be analogous to a stem cell transplant; you could imagine injecting new cells intramuscularly every few months.
The costs to develop this are incurred during development (unlike the autologous therapies that require extensive, expert-level analysis for each new patient). I'm not sure that we can compare the current levels of investment in autologous gene editing to this product.
The baby aspirin is not for hypertension (it does nothing for hypertension). Its goal is to prevent changes in placental vasculature that may lead to severe pre-eclampsia in those already at risk for pre-eclampsia. One clinical sign that demonstrates risk for pre-eclampsia is high blood pressure.
I would - because the alternative means we are locking up current human beings to act as incubators for potential, future humans
It very much is still your wife's body - what other sentient entity is available for consultation?
I also am not sure if she is seeking professional medical advice - 'baby aspirin' is not a blood pressure medication, full stop. If this is based on non-medical doctor advice, please do consult a fully-qualified obstetrician.
Edit, just because this is very worrying to me, for later viewers, aspirin is an NSAID and its use should be weighed similar to that of other NSAIDs in the context of pregnancy. Consider this web page:
https://www.fda.gov/safety/medical-product-safety-informatio...
Second, from your article:
‘ Commerce expects "upside sharing will only be material in instances where the project significantly exceeds its projected cash flows or returns, and will not exceed 75% of the recipient’s direct funding award." 'NOT A FREE HANDOUT'
Democratic Senator Jack Reed praised the profit sharing plan, saying chips funding is "not a free handout for multi-billion dollar tech companies.... There is no downside for companies that participate because they only have to share a portion of future profits if they do exceedingly well."’
Clearly, there was a cap on repayments, but there is not one on giving away equity
It is not possible, by definition; here’s a portion of the DSM 5 definition of schizophrenia:
“ The disturbance is not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, a medication) or another medical condition”
Hard to find a publicly accessible DSM link, but here is an excerpt
https://floridabhcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Pages...
I saw this line in the article: "Meta tells The Verge that it’s not currently training its AI models on those photos, but it would not answer our questions about whether it might do so in future, or what rights it will hold over your camera roll images."
It would seem important to share this with people who may 'not read the article'
This further weakens the dishonest posture that tourists are not subject to US law
You are clearly partisan. The GP says nothing about the number, but is instead the impact.
You should also consider normalizing the number of injunctions to the number of executive orders per term.
> The author of the clause didn't think it applied to the children of aliens, so it doesn't seem crazy to me. >> Howard said that the clause "is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States."[30] He added that citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons"[30]—a comment which would later raise questions as to whether Congress had originally intended that U.S.-born children of foreign parents were to be included as citizens.[32]
This ‘jurisdiction’ claim essentially only applied to people who had a diplomatic status while in the US. A traveler from Canada has no special right against being prosecuted (just like you would not were you to go to, say Britain).
A governmental figure from Canada would have protections - we would need to interact with another sovereign to hold them accountable.
This really has nothing to do with tourism, outside deceitful assertions on television.
Regarding Britain, here’s an example of someone not being subject to the jurisdiction of a country after committing a serious crime: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/harry-dunn-uk-anne-sacoolas...
I hope this clarifies your misunderstanding about the meaning of jurisdiction.
This has existed for at least a decade, maybe two.
> There is a concerning gap between prediction and causality.
Which can be bridged with protein prediction (alphafold) and non-coding regulatory predictions (alphagenome) amongst all the other tools that exist.
What is it that does not exist that you "found it disappointing that they ignored"?
The analysis refers to things that just happened in May. 'New' things that happened in May.