It's entirely reasonable that a panicking and scared child might forget they can escape by removing their headset, or experience enough to end up traumatised before they've got it off - if they don't log out, too, they'll know people are still there doing things to a representation of themselves. There's still harm, even if the exact nature of the harm is different.
If you don't have a solution to the autoimmune aspect, then a stem-cell-based treatment is no better than one with engineered bacteria or someone else's cells. The originals are gone because the body mistakenly thought they were foreign. A treatment like the article discusses might make stem cells more viable than the alternatives, though, as they'd be less foreign, so need less immune system alteration.
We can genetically engineer bacteria to mimic the missing pancreatic cells, and it's not too different to the way most insulin is produced as all that's new is the system to stop producing insulin when blood sugars are already low enough. However, if you put them in a person, the immune system attacks the bacteria, so they need isolating. To do that, we need a membrane that lets sugar in and insulin out, but doesn't let antigens or live
bacteria out, and doesn't let immune cells in. Even if the bacteria are held in place, if immune cells can get in, it's no better than a pancreatic transplant as you'll still need immunosuppressants, and they're generally worse than dealing with type one manually. Development of the membrane keeps hitting unexpected hurdles, so artifical pancreases are still unable to start trials, and then they might take a decade.
There are other approaches, e.g. using electronics to control photosensitive insulin producing bacteria, but they don't have any advantages (the membrane still has to let sugar in so the bacteria can eat) and have more things that can go wrong.
Fair use only covers critique, parody and education, and only with a whole bunch of extra nuance (e.g. you can't just put a clip of yourself saying you didn't like a movie at the end of the movie and get away with hosting it on your site by claiming it was critique, and you can't download a PDF of a textbook and get away with it by claiming it was for education). Fair use lets you do a lot less than people think.
Quantum dot LED TVs don't actually use quantum dot LEDs (yay, marketing). They're built like any other LCD, but instead of having a white backlight (typically a blue LED with a phosphor to fluoresce the blue to green and red, too, making white) and then a colour filter behind each pixel subelement to only let the right colour through, they have a blue LED backlight, and then a quantum dot film that fluoresces the blue to the right colour.
The advantage of this is that you're not making light in colours you can't use just to get absorbed by the filter and turned into heat, so can make the backlight brighter, which, when combined with other techniques to make good LCDs, is enough to make them comparable to OLEDs in quality and price.
Actual quantum dot LEDs let you make light at practically any frequency you want, like OLEDs (traditional LEDs only make light at bandgap frequencies for atoms of elements, and there's not a huge choice of suitable elements, hence blue LEDs taking decades to materialise after other colours were cheap). In theory, quantum dot LEDs won't have burn-in problems, but they're currently not practical to make a TV out of, giving marketing people plenty of time to weasel out of their fuckup with naming existing QLED TVs.
So would a fish that's eaten a device that administers a small electric shock at random intervals and with random intensities. I don't think that eating such a device made the fish suddenly sentient, but it would suddenly change the outcome of your test.
You can't tell me what to do! (You can, however, tell me how I'd go about disobeying you as I'm very interested in overclocked underwear, and know it's not got an unlocked multiplier, but have never gone about FSB overclocking and don't know what I'm doing with it.)
Despite how it's often framed, the NHS doesn't get to make recommendations one way or the other in this kind of case. Once the patient's doctors are no longer sure that it's in their best interest to continue being kept alive, they make the legal system aware, and a court will take evidence from the patient (if they're in a fit condition to give any, which they usually wouldn't be), doctors, family members, relevant experts, and any other appropriate witnesses, to determine what is and isn't in the patient's best interest. One the court has made a decision (which might involve a lengthy appeals process if the family are upset about the initial decision), the NHS does what the court tells it to. If the patient is capable of experiencing anything other than pain, it's unlikely that it'll be in their best interest to die, so the court will order them to be kept alive.
It's relatively common for anti-abortion and anti-state-funded-healthcare political campaign groups from the US to pay for expensive lawyers to argue in favour of keeping child patients alive and persuade the parents to keep appealing as upset parents saying the state killed their baby makes an evocative headline that can easily be pivoted to make the most merciful option look cruel and callous, and sway people's votes.
There's a chapter on this in one of The Secret Barrister's books - I think the second one.
I found the game's political message a bit ham-fisted, with the core problem being that the setting was effectively a company town (or several) and the criticism being of under-regulated capitalism as a whole. That lead to there being some contrived or unexplained ways real-world problems had managed to come up which could have just been an inevitable consequence of a slightly tweaked setting.
I think if someone played the game who didn't already agree with its politics, they'd have a very easy time dismissing all its arguments as strawmen, and feel more confident voting against regulation or shared ownership.
I did like the discourse around cystipigs, though.
It was reasonably big news when it was noticed, so it's not unreasonable that people might remember it. IIRC, the gist of it was one contributor that had historically contributed to a large number of articles added a redirect for every article with breast in the name so you could also access it by replacing breast with titty or boob, so for example, typing titty cancer into the search bar would bring you to the page for breast cancer.
Between the two of you, you've complained they're selling both too many and too few paid ships.
The claim they make is that they sell better ships because they want there to be late-game ships in the universe on launch day, and that they want the number limited so the game is properly balanced. If they weren't trying to grab cash at least a little bit, they could have raffled them off or given them for free to the people with the most playtime in alpha, so there wasn't a need to involve money, but their claim isn't wildly inconsistent with their actions.
I think part of the reason there's no set release date is that without shareholders breathing down their necks to release early to recoup their investment, they don't see any advantage to releasing sooner rather than later. Maybe that means they'll polish the game to a degree we've never seen before, but that could either mean a good game with no bugs on launch day, or a game that no one ever gets to play because some perfectionists working on it will never be satisfied.
Yes and no. Yes in that it's a different shell that is intended to be used instead of something like Bash, and isn't compatible with Bash scripts. However, unlike Fish and Zsh, it's also not compatible with plain POSIX sh, so you have to run plain shell scripts by calling into something else that is sh-compatible.
Not that I agree that removing/banning archive links is sensible, but reddit has a much bigger budget for lawyers than any instance admin, so is in a much safer position with grey-area and black-area-but-no-one-complained-yet content. It's not like reddit was ever particularly anti-piracy, either - the corporate interests they bowed to were advertisers and their shareholders.
AnyOldName3 @ AnyOldName3 @lemmy.world Posts 1Comments 367Joined 2 yr. ago
It's entirely reasonable that a panicking and scared child might forget they can escape by removing their headset, or experience enough to end up traumatised before they've got it off - if they don't log out, too, they'll know people are still there doing things to a representation of themselves. There's still harm, even if the exact nature of the harm is different.