When was the last time you've ever heard of a dogfight?
In pretty much every war every war where both opponents had air capability, including the first Gulf war and the Balkan war. In the first Gulf war air-to-air combat usually happened after the pilots could get visual confirmation that the target is not a friendly. If you are in visual range you are pretty much in a dog fight. Pierre Sprey, the man who brought us the F16 and the A10, has the best description of the F-35:
If you read the article, you will notice that the F-35 failed a test that was stacked in its favor - The F-35 did not carry any load, while the F16 was saddled with two external tanks.
So you'd then have two repair mechanisms.
And by "two" you mean "three". The two mechanisms dealing with this type of damage in human cells are Nucleotide Excision Repair and Trans-Lesion Synthesis. There are multiple published works showing that the resistance of human cells to UV radiation increases when they are made to express photolyase. Doesn't matter if one mechanism is better than the other as long as having two (or three) does a better job than one.
Yeah, but we can do better than random modifications if we have a solid understanding of ourselves.
Can you do better? May be you could in the simplest of cases, where we know that the gene variant in another organism works better than the variant we have. Even in such cases you will need to brace yourself for the unexpected consequences. The number of nonlinear interactions between different genes, and between genes and the environment makes it very hard to predict outcomes. There is a virtue in having a population with buggy, unstable and diverse genomes. If the environment changes, and it alwys does, the population as a whole has a better chance of surviving the changes, compared to a population with stable and uniform genomes.
Having said that here is the number one on my list for bettering the human genome:DNA Photolyase, an enzyme that directly repairs the most common type of DNA damage caused by UV light. For reasons that are poorly understood most mammals, including humans lack this enzyme. The health benefit is obvious - a photolyase will reduce the incidence of skin cancer.
In the past few years, I don't recall coming across a single product that had any trans fat.
FDA had mandatory labeling for transfats, which contained a loophole. You could put a label stating "0g transfat" if your product contains less than 0.5g of transfat per serving. If you define your serving size as 1g than your product can be made of nearly 50% transfats. Many bakery products, particularly the ones with long shelf life do contain transfats and can be labeled as "0g transfat". That's why some manufacturers use a label "No transfats" to indicate that there are indeed no transfats in their product.
They were pretty good for collisions 15 years ago
There fixed that for you
Because Google pays billions to Apple to make its search engine the default search provider for iOS devices, the company collects much more from ads placed on Apple devices than from ads on Android devices.
Google pays apple to be default search engine on iOS; Google does not pay Google to be the default search engine on Android --> Google (the one that doesn't get paid by Google) must be such a looser. Once we have proven that we bravely conclude:
If Google already makes more from ads on iOS than Android, growth in iOS might actually be good for Google's bottom line.
Is this an MBA degree speaking here?