I assume that, as an exercise, getting 5 simultaneous introductions working makes for a better paper; but is there a reason why you would want that in practice? Especially if there is any wobble in the ratios either randomly, across generations, or in the presence of certain environmental conditions that tweak the plant's metabolism one way or another that sounds like it would be a real pain in the ass to have to re-balance (and, if different patients are deemed to need different combinations even a perfectly stable plant is going to need re-balancing of the outputs) vs. very specifically going for a specific target output per-plant(or e. coli or yeast or whatever is easiest to bioreactor) and then just mixing to taste after purification. Is there some advantage I'm not seeing?

I realize that there are cases where some plant-sourced pharmacological effect looks like it is actually driven not by the identified 'active ingredient'; but by dozens or hundreds of assorted things, and in that case you just have to live with the complexity if you get better results with that than with purified isolates; but if you are deliberately engineering for very specific outputs why a mix of 5?

I've been wondering for many years before the first traffic camera appeared, why the toll-roads aren't enforcing the speed limits automatically. The time you enter and exit the highway is recorded down to a second. The distance between these two points is known — your average speed could be computed on the spot even with the early 90-ies technology...

The polite police officers would be standing right behind the toll-booths issuing tickets without the drama of hiding in the bushes, then chasing you at highway speeds...

And, yeah, you could lower it by stopping at a rest area — but it'd still be a tremendous disincentive to speed.

I was and continue to hope, that such universal enforcement, affecting all voters, would cause the limits to go up to reasonable figures — or even be abolished completely...

I've run into these people, they're the worst

When have you last checked your compiler's output?

Either you lose $200 billion now, or you lose your lives in a few years.
The IR has been actively building missiles, developing better ones and funding various terrorist groups around the world while making money selling oil.
They are stronger now than they were 20 years ago. They openly call for the complete destruction of Israel, and they call the US "The great satan". If they had the capability to destroy Israel and the US right now then they absolutely would, if they ever got that capability in the future they wouldn't hesitate to use it.

The majority of the Iranian population HATE this regime. They also know that this regime is ruthless and will not hesitate to kill, and yet thousands of them stood up against it in january and lost their lives.

The sooner the IR is taken out the better for everyone, $200 billion this year, $400 billion next year, $1 trillion in 2 years time, or in 3 years it's too late and they take you out instead. And unlike western governments, the IR will not hesitate if they have the capability.

The market plunging 2.5% is a 2.5% drop...
But Linux going from 2.5 to 5% is a doubling of linux market share, even if it is only 2.5% of the overall market.

Hence the right to work remotely unless they can justify you being in a specific location.

This would put the burden of proof on them to prove why you can't do the job remotely. Then the additional costs and relocation assistance would apply.

Well if they buy the nearby buildings and offer you a decent deal on rent then it's not the employee paying, as they'd still need to pay rent somewhere else and would likely be paying a higher rent.

This is exactly what's needed for jobs which aren't flexible on location - keep employees nearby so they don't have to waste time & money commuting. It would also force a redesign of cities so instead of clumping all the workplaces together with no housing for miles around, things would be intermixed.

Immunology, presumably.

The only donor bodies that aren't going to treat the transplant as an act of war are clones or heavily immunosuppressed; and it's probably more plausible to assume that you'll be able to clone a human like a sheep than assume that you'll be making some fundamental breakthroughs in immunology to deal more elegantly with unmatched hosts.

I can see the utility of having spare organs in certain emergencies; but how much life extension would you actually get even if the sort of neurosurgery involved in removing a brain and reattaching it to a new host's spinal cord were viable? Is the theory that the assorted ghastly flavors of neurodegeneration are actually to be blamed on older organs and everything will be fine; or is this just a very expensive way to ensure that you skip the various ways peripheral organs can kill you and are assured to be the spryest patient in the dementia ward?

If you could transplant your brain into a younger body, why a clone?
Surely you'd pick a better body if you could? One that's taller, better looking, stronger, not suffering from any genetic risk factors you might have etc.

Most of the warmongering kings cannot be voted away.
The current Iranian regime has long been a problem. Their goal has always been to destroy Israel and western countries, they just aren't strong enough to do so. If the IR had the capability to destroy Israel or the US today they would absolutely do it - it's literally baked right into their core ideology.
If you left them alone they wouldn't suddenly become peaceful, they will spend the time building strength while also funding deniable proxy wars until they're strong enough to destroy their enemies completely.

How? Higher prices are GREAT for the oil and gas guys.
The US is not facing shortages due to Iran, most of the oil used in the US is domestically produced and there's always Venezuela as a nearby source too. Shipping oil from the middle east makes no sense for the US.
However US producers are still reaping the rewards of higher prices because it's a global market. Only the customers are suffering.

Businesses already have financial incentives for remote work, they still choose to ignore them. Keeping an office open is expensive, reducing it in size or eliminating it entirely can save a significant amount.

The carrot isn't working, try the stick. Make it a burden on companies to have onsite employees.
Give people the right to work remotely by default unless the company can prove why their job needs to be performed in a specific place.
Make commuting time part of working hours, so that employees are paid for that time.
Make commuting costs business expenses so companies have to reimburse employees for those costs.
Require companies to provide relocation assistance for anyone who needs to work in a specific location.

Religion is just a method of controlling people.

Thailand and Cambodia are both primarily buddhist countries, despite the supposed peaceful nature of buddhism they still had a war recently.

Myanmar is primarily a buddhist country too which is currently under a military junta fighting a civil war against its own population, as well as being accused of genocide against a muslim minority in the country.