IHeartBadCode @ IHeartBadCode @kbin.social

Posts

1

Comments

618

Joined

2 yr. ago

Nah, much like shit gets tested on mice, tobacco is the goto for testing on plants.

Yeah, there's time we need to test on pigs and whatnot. But mice are usually good enough in multiple domains, cheap to get a lot, and are pretty easy to handle in a lab. So that's the usual selection for testing shit on.

Pretty much same deal with tobacco, checks enough boxes for interesting things to test against, is super cheap, and pretty straightforward for dealing with in a lab.

You do initial testing on dummy cheap shit. Once you work out the bugs on the cheap thing, pretty much you do roughly the same thing on the expensive stuff that you're actually going to sell.

Tobacco is super cheap and editing the seed gene on it is pretty similar to the seed gene in grapes. So you do most of the work on cheap ass tobacco. When you've got tobacco down switching that same process over to grape only requires a few tweaks.

So you've got seedless grapes, but say this one flavor of grapes you really like is seeded. Boom! Now you can make it seedless. We've got seedless oranges, but say you really like the taste of Valencia oranges (which are seeded). Boom! Now you've got seedless Valencias. And you go from there.

SEC. 2010. OPERATION STONEGARDEN.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT .—There is established in the Department a program to be known as ‘Operation Stonegarden’, under which the Secretary, acting through the Administrator, shall make grants to eligible law enforcement agencies, through State administrative agencies, to enhance border security in accordance with this section.

Well that's escalating fast. This would allow local police to "enhance" border security, which is... Ungood. So this is obviously going to die in the Senate.

To be eligible to receive a grant under this section, a law enforcement agency shall
...
a State or territory with a maritime border.

Ah shit, we're going to give a ton of money to Florida's State army. Boo!

Man, Division C of this just sucks giant donkey balls. Also, some of it doesn't even make math sense. Use the budget allocation pre-2021 for 900 miles of solid wall? There's not enough dinero amigo! And yes, even with the oh so clever item (3):

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall waive all legal requirements necessary to ensure the expeditious design, testing, construction, installation, deployment, integration, operation, and maintenance of the physical barriers, tactical infrastructure, and technology under this section

Just ignoring all the construction regulations isn't going to save that much money on nine followed by two zeros of miles of solid wall in a lot of the land that Congress is requiring. It's just a non-doable thing, even if we were building the wall out of papier-mâché. Also the whole "oh don't worry about documenting anything during the construction" that seemed to work "oh so well" with the PPP loans. Let's clearly do that again.

Oh also of note is the lack of any guidance on E-Verify. Clearly we cannot be going after "innocent" employers who "forgot" to check if the person was a legal immigrant or not.

All I have to say is that whole thing is a BIG ASK for just kicking the can to October.

SEC . 101. (a) Such amounts as may be necessary, at a rate for operations as provided in the applicable appropriations Acts for fiscal year 2023

Just FYI for anyone who doesn't know. The US fiscal year is from Oct. 1 to Sep. 30. So FY23 ends on September 30th and that's literally the first thing this bill covers. "We're just going with it until the end of FY23."

All I'm going to say is that I'm putting a shiny quarter on this being told to pound sand by the Senate. Just a hunch.

Picks up my Portugal after it turns itself, in a puff of smoke, into a small green leaf. Shouts, "Woohoo". Shoves green leaf into pocket. Proceeds to smack an alligator in the head with a butterfly net for two hours.

It WILL set you apart

As being a gullible schmuck who takes advice from opportunist dumb fucks.

Not her first time her bullshit being called out because someone was recording it. She should start assuming that someone has recorded her before she opens her mouth to spew bullshit.

That's not really how that works. There's not a section in one's DNA that codes for bones, rather there are sections that code for proteins that get involved in chemical reactions that begin building bones themselves. DNA codes for chemicals that when they come together at the right time produce your fingers for example. It's not that the DNA codes for a 32mm birth canal it just codes for the proper chemicals to come together to begin developing what will eventually become the birth canal.

So editing the DNA to modify a particular physical aspect is not just reprogramming a new number somewhere in the DNA, it's coding for more expression of particular chemicals to come together. But like anything, adding more reactions can have various side effects, having those chemicals linger for too long and the tissue may eventually become too frail to even give birth to begin with.

You know, like utilize our knowledge of DNA to fix known issues as such

And that's easier said than done. Editing DNA isn't something we regularly do and when it is done, it's usually done on something simple because editing usually results in a 99% loss. Long story short, editing haploids (and most likely male sperm) is going to be the primary means for germline genetic editing that "might" be passed on to children because most people are not ethically okay with attempting to edit embryos with a 99% failure rate.

But editing haploids doesn't assure that the trait will be conveyed to the offspring. During combination some of the genetic material is mixed around in a sort random fashion. So that new trail could get mixed around and now you've coded for a pregnancy that might end in miscarriage or even worse, might not.

It's really complicated and incredibly error prone to edit DNA. Which is why it is mostly done with sperm, yeast, bacteria, and what not. Things that if we kill 99% of it, isn't some big ethical concern. Editing an embryo is like rolling ten million dice and every single one of them have to land on six otherwise you've just doomed that person. That's not an impossible thing, just a highly improbable thing and no one is really comfortable with those odds from an ethical standpoint. We're not really good at editing DNA correctly the first time, but given enough of something, we can eventually have success. So if the odds are one in a million and you have 500 million of something, then you've got really good odds at success.

So you should keep that in mind when you think about editing DNA. Even if we got really good at knowing which genes to express and which ones to repress (which we're not even there yet), putting in those changes that would actually make it to the offspring would also be monumental. So yeah, we're not anywhere near where I think you think science is at.

start growing people in a lab

I also commented elsewhere about this notion. But also, even if we did have an artificial womb today, it's likely going to be in the NICU of your local hospital and not some laboratory. Because an artificial womb, as I indicated in my other comment, would only really be for preterm births greater than 22 weeks gestation, which is way better than what we get with incubators that only give moderate success rates at 28 to 32 weeks gestation and are ideally for 32 to 37 weeks gestation.

Also, image what little Jimmy is gonna think when he finds out he was grown in a laboratory

That's not what artificial wombs will do. Currently we have incubators, that's pretty successful for births between 32 and 37 weeks gestation and sort of successful for 28 to 32 weeks gestation. Artificial wombs will allow hospitals to have better rates of success for the 28 to 32 weeks gestation and allow for a new group of 22 to 28 weeks gestation.

In a round about way the artificial wombs are much more sophisticated incubators. Instead of well controlled rooms and layers of barrier to prevent pathogens, the preterm child is placed in a sack filled with fluids. And rather than concentrated oxygen delivered via a nasal cannula (which requires some pretty advanced development of the lungs), it's delivered via the umbilical cord. Delivering nutrition to a preterm is a complex determination but in some cases it may require delivery via IV, in the artificial womb it is also delivered via the umbilical cord.

For the most part the artificial womb will allow higher success rates for preterm birth. The artificial womb will not be useful for births lt; 22 weeks and will not be something that preterm babies would spend months at a time in. It's not that sophisticated a device nor attempts to be that. At most a preterm child would spend a few weeks within the bag and then be transferred to an incubator when chances of success are much higher there.

No one is popping embryos inside a bag and then opening it up nine months later to pull their kid out. We're still really, really, really far from that point. Likely we're not going to have that technology for some time from now, but who knows? That said, it ain't this technology.

It might run into some troubles along the way though.

but he definitely has an M.D. from Harvard

Yeah, of Internal Medicine. Infectious diseases is a specialty of that domain for the reason that most internists hand off to specialist for specific diseases and mostly deal with generalized management. I don't go to a gastroenterologist for hip replacement. Someone who is into family medicine ain't my first choice for diagnosis and treatment options for something like lymphoma, I'll likely go to a specialist who knows what the hell they're talking about for specifically dealing with the disease and they'll hand off notes to my PCP for generalized management. Ladapo is no different here, Internal Medicine doctors are ones that usually look at a patient and try to figure out who to send them to for specialized care and then handle general management based on the notes from specialist.

Ladapo is indeed a doctor. He's got a domain of mastery. But that domain isn't on infectious diseases, but instead of deferring to those who have devoted their lives to this specific domain of study, he's just spouting off at the mouth about something in his professional career he'd refer patients off to a specialist for.

So, I find it humorous to say the least that when he was an internists that whole being held accountable for running his mouth off about things was next to nothing and routinely handed off for specialty care. But now that he's in a political position where he can be held less accountable for BS he spouts off, he's got no problem indicating that he's got the answers to it all.

It's just funny how once that accountability goes out the window, he's less affable to defer to specialist's wisdom.

The quip about me heading to my optometrist is going a bit extreme indeed, but still, guy has a background in knowing when to hand off to others when he's being held accountable, and now has a background of running his damn mouth when he's no longer being held accountable for the crap he's saying. But that said, guy better hope to hold tight to that political career now. Making a lot noise needlessly isn't a look most hospitals like for their residents.

Wow, let's cover some of the gems there.

After her trial, St Cyr had said in a Facebook livestream that she wasn't sure the case would ever move to sentencing because "the truth" would come out before then.

I'm sure "the truth" is coming right after infrastructure month.

"So just keep watching Tucker, keep spreading the truth, keep talking about the corruption, keep sharing, and we will bring the system doooooowwwwn.”

Tucker Carlson's show was canceled.

At her sentencing hearing Wednesday, St Cyr's attorney, Nicole Owens, said her client was at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, because of a “misguided sense of duty.”

C'mon don't leave us hanging, who was the source of that misguided sense? Also, getting ice cream on your first date with someone only to find out they're lactose intolerant, that's misguided. Attempting to overthrow the government, that's a few levels past misguided. Just saying.

“I’ve been on a spiritual journey,” St Cyr said. Then she launched into a bizarre 45-minute rant — until the judge cut her off with a stern warning to wrap up — on a series of topics, including her beliefs about the air we breathe, her spiritual being, radio frequencies, her difficult upbringing and a woman she watched being arrested on a playground during the Covid pandemic.

Actually I blame the judge on this one. After sitting for weeks listening to this lady's crazy Facebook streams, figuring "what's the worse that could happen if I let this lady speak freely?", you're just opening yourself up for that.

That said, I'm sure the 45-minute jam packed insane stream of consciousness diatribe was something to behold.

She also talked about her actions during the Capitol riot. She didn’t express regret or accept any responsibility for her actions that day, and she indicated that she wasn’t concerned about the prospect of serving jail time

Shocking. Been a pattern of that with folks who attempted to overthrow the government. It's like these small jail sentences aren't deterrent enough.

“I did the right thing,” St Cyr said about her actions on Jan. 6. “I know it sounds delusional.”

Oh sweetheart, it's a bit past just sounding that way.

In a Facebook livestream after her sentencing, St Cyr also said she hadn’t filed taxes since 2019, and she encouraged her followers not to pay their taxes.

I foresee another court case in her future, just a hunch.

Florida Surgeon General who has no formal education in infectious diseases, gives advice about infectious diseases. Seriously, the guy's medical background is "PhD in Health Policy, clinical training in internal medicine, and clinical studies for 'weight loss, smoking cessation, and cardiovascular disease prevention among people with HIV'."

I may as well just go to my optometrist and ask what they think about the vaccine while I'm at it. Good professionals command what they have mastery over and become supportive on that which they are not. Shitty professionals run around acting like they know everything. This guy is very much the latter.

This hits a lot different when you work from home.

When you're against something you should stop financially support it.

Yes. But it should be said, it cannot just stop there. People need to indicate to their various governments that union busting should be prosecuted no matter the billionaire doing the busting or the third party they hired.

I think too often people rely on the “you should vote with your wallet” that they forget, we cannot buy our way out of social ills. Spending our money on the “correct” product and not spending it on the “incorrect” product isn’t a panacea. And worse it can breed superficial support in companies to simply convince you to buy more of their shit. I think we’ve made enough memes about Eddard Stark warning us that with Pride month, the rainbows are coming to social media.

I think that’s the key point. Not going to Starbucks is one thing BUT it cannot stop there, otherwise no Real ™ change is actually going to happen. Lots of people are just tangentially caring about the issue for lots of various reasons. We need to implement change at every level. People should talk to their mayor, their city council, governor, State assembly, and what not.

Starbucks spends money so they can see results quickly, and since us common folks are not wealthy beyond belief, we’ve got to take the long and time expensive route. It cannot just be “just stop spending your money there” that alone is never going to work and breeds even worse results, with ads just pretending they’re buddy buddy with you.

See this? These are the comments I live for. You are technically correct, the best kind of correct.

When a civil action is removed solely under section 1441(a), all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal of the action.

— 28 USC 1446(b)(2)(A)

petitioners’ first claim, which is brought against Secretary Griswold,
makes it clear that the Secretary is not a nominal party.

— Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer ruling

The Secretary Griswold is joined and Trump did not have the Secretary sign on to the request to be removed. Therefore the request is deficient.

I no longer want to be.

Hey also. Gopher is also getting a bit of a hit, but mostly due to a new protocol someone came up with called Gemini. It's like Gopher a lot but has some (and I cannot emphasize this enough) very basic markdown.

You can find out more about it here. I recommend Lagrange for your client. Two places I like to go to are Station (gemini://station.martinrue.com/) and Antenna (gemini://warmedal.se/antenna/). BBS (gemini://bbs.geminispace.org/) is also a new one on the scene.

And the nice thing about Lagrange is that it also supports the Finger protocol which basically is a way to read the .project or .plan file on a given user for the indicated system. Those files for those that never used them allowed a user to type a short status update into them that folks could then poll at any given time. Basically "ye olde status update".

There's a person that serves a weather reporting system via a finger interface at (finger://graph.no/) and it works really well in Lagrange.

It's a motion to dismiss that was granted under rules of the court. The rules cited by the defendant (The Secretary of State) in the motion to dismiss:

• Rule 12(b)(1) — The plaintiff did not present enough evidence to show that they have standing to bring the matter before the courts.
• Rule 12(b)(6) — The plaintiff did not present sufficient factual matter to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face .

The court sided with the plaintiff that sufficient evidence was indeed presented before the court to indicate that the plaintiff did indeed have standing, BUT their argument brought before the court failed to state a claim under either the APA (the Administrative Procedure
Act) or the First Amendment. Thus the court has accepted the motion to dismiss the case, citing:

A concrete injury is “foremost” among the standing requirements

Plaintiff could state in concrete terms the injury to be suffered by those affected by the two avenues of injury they (the plaintiff) had indicated. The plaintiff is the one who brought up the first amendment and the APA but failed to follow through on the argument before the court in terms of actual injury (a court CANNOT assume injury even ones that sound pretty obvious).

More importantly the first amendment issue brought before the court couldn't be held. The court indicated that the Government has a vested interest (in the name of national security) to be all up in the business of people traveling here for work. But that the plaintiff did bring up a point about how that might also hurt their ability to work here, but failed to qualify it in their original argument (that basically means, "I don't think this is a first amendment issue but you've got a point if you want to try something else.")

The motion to dismiss is granted with perjury. The plaintiff cannot bring it back before the courts and cannot usually appeal the decision.

So yeah, the Judge sounds like he was interested in the issue being brought but the arguments that were critical to their case fell apart at the whole "for foreigners traveling here, the US has every right to monitor your social media accounts". The argument that seemed to pique the judge's interest was how that information might be used to remove business opportunities from people traveling here. Which is a good point because once a person is approved to work here in the US, the information obtained by the Visa application cannot be used to taint the work environment the person works in.

However, the plaintiff wasn't able to provide a concrete way of how that would happen (that was outside of the "we're arresting you and kicking you out" which the Government has a right to do). The thing is the plaintiff would need a way to connect the dots on how information obtained in the Visa might get back to their employer and then the employer keeps the person but alters their job based on that information released by the Government. If there is a manner by which that might happen, then yeah, that's a no-no.