Dang, they can't even round properly, also there's no way they're teaching C/C++, maybe JavaScript, how do you write macros in JS?

This:

I thought the shopping bot was at best a slight upgrade on searching Amazon

Talk about setting a low bar... Amazon's search is one of the worst, quite possibly the worst, searches out there. Not only does it not find what you fucking clearly asked to find and is missing even the most basic search amenities such as wildcarding and quoted exact phrasing, it spams the search output with complete product irrelevancies, artificially up-floated overpriced results, and actual advertising for... well, whatever, but most likely nothing to do with your search.

When doing search engines for my clients, I use Amazon and Pinterest as examples of exactly how poorly searching can be implemented.

Meat is defined as the flesh of animals

Yes, and cultured meat is unquestionably the flesh of animals. It's grown directly from real animal cells, real animal DNA, etc. Therefore, obviously, it's meat. Trying to say it isn't is either a demonstration of a complete ignorance of the science, or disingenuous nonsense unworthy of the claimant or those the claims are being made to.

The USDA's definition doesn't say "has to be from a slaughtered animal carcass."

Fully hyphenated would be better, "Lab-Grown-Meat" or perhaps "Cultured-Meat".

Sure, seems fine. Might want to call the other stuff "Slaughtered-Meat", too. Just so everyone's clear.

Related, I 100% object to calling plant-based products "meat." They aren't meat by any reasonable definition. Calling them meat is outright deceptive. Being a curmudgeonly crank, whenever it comes up in conversation, I say, "Oh... you mean salad. :)

You don't know what you're talking about. The USPTO has granted many patents for "suspected" (ahem) perpetual motion machines. I posted a link to some examples, but here's an interesting explanation of one case by a patent attorney:

https://unmakeme.com/2022/05/0...

The secret to getting your patent granted (besides arguing a lot with the patent examiner) is to avoid claiming "over unity", even if your device would clearly provide that if it did as you described.

And, as the other poster mentioned, an actual working model would demonstrate utility nicely. The trick is coming up with one, given thermodynamics.

The USPTO could reject the patent on those grounds but doesn't have to. Just because someone receives a patent doesn't mean that the invention necessarily works. But the patent office will require a working model if the application claims that the device puts out more energy than it takes in. Don't claim that and you may get your patent.

There is even a patent category for such things:

F03B17/04 - Alleged perpetua mobilia
Perpetua mobilia of alleged kind, i.e. devices where the hydrostatic thrust effect is used to supposedly drive a device continuously, without input of energy, or of additional energy after the start, even when the concept perpetual is not explicitly mentioned.

https://patents.google.com/?q=...

The USPTO will grant you a patent on your perpetual motion invention if you submit a working model. This is why perpetual motion crackpots file patents for devices that output exactly as much energy as is input, with no loss. That doesn't require a working model, unlike "over unity" devices.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

So banning the use of the word "meat" with respect to lab grown would be a fine move to avoid possible consumer confusion. Call the lab grown somethings else.

That makes no sense at all. You're saying "let's not call meat, meat."

Just call it "Lab-Grown Meat" or perhaps "Cultured Meat" as these accurately describe what it is and provide a clear distinction for those who are concerned with it, and go on with progress.

Buy an EV and keep meat on the menu.

The objective — far from met as yet — is to keep meat on the menu; the idea is to get animals off the menu.

And yes, by all means, EVs are the obvious way forward. But moving to an EV represents a major change in consumer habits, at least in the USA, and it's going to take a while both to achieve consumer buy-in and to see the charging infrastructure become ubiquitous. Plus, replacement cycle times have extended because vehicles are lasting somewhat longer and replacement costs have risen for similar vehicle types.

...maybe Slashdot could get their help prevent preventing duplicate articles just hours apart?

Sir, this is a Wendy's.

Reading the paper, it took scientists 10-years to develop (not sure of procedure) hammerhead RNA which is now able to copy itself.

The origin of the RNA in this story is lab created RNA.

Electronic Arts promised me a molecule construction set back in the 90's, where is it?

Visually? Zero. That's not how my mind works.

Interesting link/video. Thank you.

I'm an EE, and visualizing things is a really important tool for my work. Circuit diagrams, circuit board layout / routing, how a board fits in an enclosure, transformer design, etc.

That's fine, and no doubt it's powerful, but it doesn't mean there aren't other ways to approach the same kinds of work. I've been doing hardware design for a bit over 50 years now, and have quite a collection of successful original projects, many quite complex. I've been writing software since the early 1970's as well, and again, lots of completed projects in that domain. For some systems, I did both the hardware design and the supporting software.

WRT schematics and other diagrams, I'm comfortable and effective on a drafting table at putting together complex ones; but, being lazy, I've also written both schematic capture and PCB layout software, including auto-routing and auto-placement. In assembler. :)

I'm a "5" — I can't visualize anything at all. But I can juggle concepts as both words and abstractions just fine, and I find it a comfortable process to realize them as concrete products.

Likely related, I really enjoy photography; it serves as visual memory for me. It's how I can "know" how my mother and father looked, old flames, places, pets, etc. I also take pictures of my hardware projects both under development and at completion. There's definitely a worthy aspect to being able to access that information. Also, some of my most complex software products have been image manipulation systems.

The bottom line is there are definitely multiple highly functional modalities to dealing with most creative tasks.

This is wrong on many levels but I'll single out the single most important reason why Rust will never be a good choice for an OS kernel, it contains hidden control flows.

What Rust are you referring to? Rust is anything but terse, it's what I image the offspring would look like if C++ and Perl had a one night stand. Is this terse and grokable?

use std::ops::Mul;

struct Factorial<T: Mul<Output=T> + Copy + From<u8>>(T);

impl<T: Mul<Output=T> + Copy + From<u8>> Factorial<T> {
        fn new() -> Self {
                Factorial(T::from(1))
        }

        fn compute(&self, n: u8) -> T {
                (1..=n).fold(self.0, |acc, x| acc * T::from(x))
        }
}

fn main() {
        let factorial = Factorial::new();
        println!("{}", factorial.compute(5));
}