We shouldn't forget the pipe bombs that were found. While the "protesters" (we shouldn't actually use the word here) were clearly too disorganized to orchestrate a full-blown coup d'etat, this is insurrection and domestic terrorism. And the chief arsonist still sits in the WH.
If I understand the Wikipedia article for the history of DirectX correctly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectX), then the actual developer for the first DirectX APIs was Craig Eisler while Alex St. John and Eric Engstrom were its chief evangelists to the gaming industry.
Does "expanding" really mean, more search is conducted by more experiments or does it mean, that the potential search space has expanded, because more (and more exotic particles) have to be accounted for? This wasn't really clear from the article.
"Big viral moments"? The whole year was one big viral moment, no?
Have you guys ever seen a bullet chess tournment? E.g.: https://www.youtube.com/result...
It is my understanding that Fang Zheng / Broad Institute won the patent dispute, because they extended CRISPR/CAS9 to animal cells (while Doudna / Carpentier were focused on procaryotes). But that does not take away, that Doudna / Carpentier are the original inventors of the CRISPR/CAS9 gene editing method
Simple answer: NO
Only the two scientists investigated / discovered / developed the full CRISPR mechanism and subsequently the CRISPR/CAS9 gene editing method. While others may have been important along the way, they didn't do the same. Back then there were a lot of people who _could_ have invented PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction), but only Kary Mullis did it. There's no price for "almost inventions".
I dread quite some stuff, but I don't hate much. Also: you can't hate or dread something, you don't actually use. That being said, I only hate VBA / VBS, especially in some incarnations where it is coupled with bad editors.
Where's Microsoft? Should have broken up this power-wielding giant decades ago. They are still holding a tight grip on the office market everywhere. The way they exerted monopolistic power on programs, standards and formats cannot be achieved adt all by the companies here today. Oh, they are not 'social media', I get it. This is strange and half-hearted attempt at regulation.
Monsanto more or less single-handedly gave bio-engineering (in the widest sense, including genetic engineering / modification, molecular biology, agro sience) a bad name (they and the possibility to patent genes, I think). As a former bio-chemistry undergrad I'm far from a techno-phobe, I know where genetic engineering is used, what it can do (producing human insuline for example). But I know, the way Monsanto does / did genetic engineering, it brings farmer into their dependency. It's a total vendor lock-in.
As a German, I'm greatly dissappointed, Bayer bought into this totally evil brand (no, no quotes to make that adjective softer). Removing the old name will not help, the portfolio (and the methods) remain the same.
The idea of rejuvenating the airship business isn't exactly new. In 1996 company Cargolifter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CargoLifter) was founded with exactly the same idea: built large airships for cargo delivery, preferably to remote locations with no other means of transportation. It didn't work out. Lack of interest and orders forced Cargolifter to go into banktruptcy in 2002. Only their humungous hangar survived and is now refurbished as tourist attraction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_Islands_Resort).
Maybe our favorite internet billionaire has more luck, but I doubt it.
A 3D printer is certainly good for prototyping. For actually production? Not so much.
This project has ambitious goals: integrated database for all things neuroscience, testbed and virtual lab for neuron simulation, brain-inspired new hardware ("neuromorphic computing", possible required to achieve the exascale hardware to create the simulation), new insight into neurological diseases and finally the simulation of a human brain and therefore the human mind.
Even if it achieves only 1/3 of its goals it would be already a success. This project has its share of naysayers and distractors though, who all know beforehand it won't work. I think, the majority of them are other neuroscientist who fear, they won't get any funding in the future.
If it works however, it will provide major scientific breakthroughs. I'm all for it. One fear is laughable: that this will become something like an all-seeing, all-knowing skynet. If at all, it will just simulate an average human brain with all its weaknessess and irrationalities. The FutureICT project (didn't win) deems me much more dangerous in this regard. It was planned as a simulation of all human activity on a global scale.
Any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts which are unobtainable, and three parts which are still under development.
