If computer manufacturers are going to start including another "system" with their computers, what I'd actually want to see is an independent system-on-board snapshotting file server with its own independent memory and OS which the main computer acts as a client of, with deletion of snapshots requiring pressing a physical button to switch to the file server.

Instead of gimmicks, if we were to make something like that standard, we could effectively kill off ransomware; all it could do was fill up your disk unless it could convince you to delete your proper copies. Instead we're getting things that sound like they were invented by the team behind Microsoft Bob or BBC comedy writers. "And next up, we've developed a toaster that can talk - a chirpy breakfast companion!"

No, seriously, they write themselves - AI is increasingly taking over the advertising industry.

As someone who lives in an area with very limited winter sunlight, I would love some additional winter sun. Winter is beautiful, and I hate how you don't get to enjoy it much because of the limited light. Yes, by all means add an "artificial star" in the sky that shines when the sun doesn't.

What they're doing is dropping the amount of ram in the budget models to crazy-low levels. My laptop died due to a motherboard problem (ram test was fine), so I just bought a new laptop of the same series, which has a better processor and GPU but only 12GB of RAM : So I'm going to try taking the 32GB of ram out of my old laptop and putting it in the new one. It *should* be compatible.

I bet there's a good market right now for people buying up "broken - for parts" computers to strip the ram out of them.

ED: Forgot to post this when I wrote it. Installed the old ram, and at least thusfar (fingers crossed) it seems to be working well...

. and perhaps 30 percent never became pregnant

Correct. See my reply further downthread.

ED: but many have none

On reflection, my wording was too harsh for what was a simple misreading on your part. But just to be clear: some recipients have multiple children. Some have just one. But most have none, and the most common reason is rejection of the transplant. They don't even try IVF until they're certain the transplant isn't being rejected (traditionally at least a 12 month wait, though times have been dropping). 25-30% of transplants fail before IVF can be attempted. Each IVF cycle has ~50% odds for a young woman, dropping significantly with age. Also, this is a relatively new procedure, so a meaningful minority of people who have ever gotten womb transplants are yet to have children.

While the numbers born thusfar are small, at least thusfar in the data, there is no statistical difference in the health of children born to transplanted wombs vs. non-transplanted.

Do I understand right that this basically comes down to religious interference in people's lives?

It's not religious-based at all (we're one of the least religious countries on Earth - religious people generally love surrogacy). It's seen as like sex trafficking.

That's about a 33 percent failure rate

Do I seriously need to explain to you how to read English? Or in your mind, is there some law that says "one womb transplant = one birth"?

From the article, about a third of the children resulting from this are not healthy births

You need to work on your reading comprehension. The sentence:

More than 100 womb transplant operations have been performed around the world and more than 70 healthy babies have been born as a result.

... does not mean what you seem to think it means.

As was pointed out, not lifelong - and also, FYI, surrogacy is not only very expensive and leaves you without the experience of having carried your child, but it's also illegal in many places.

People have been having children while on immunosuppressants since cortisone was released in 1949. Many millions of children. The science supports that having children while on immunosuppressants is safe for the child. And I guarantee you, this is the first thing everyone looking into this procedure asks themselves, as well as every doctor, nurse and researcher in the field.

Amusing comment ;) But from a more serious perspective: uterus transplants from living donors are much easier, but they're also in much lower supply.

I mean, this is still a new, expensive, and risky procedure (anything involving transplants is, it means being on immunosuppressants). But overall, yeah. So many people still have this misperception that this is the world of 50 years ago and there's hundreds of millions of young, healthy, neglected kids out there in the world just waiting for an adoptive parent, and it's just not true. Adoption is nonsensically slow and difficult. Right now, the world doesn't need more adoptive parents, it needs more kids.

Also, beyond having a kid that is genetically yours, we also tend to glaze over the issues with adoptive kids. There are large groups of former-adoptees out there who want to ban adoption, seeing it as basically child trafficking that crushes mothers who feel compelled due to their situation to give up their children and children knowing that they were treated like property ("shopped", "paid for"), and having all connection with their past broken (including things that matter a lot, like for example, knowing what genetic diseases you may be likely to develop with time and what treatments worked with your genetic parents).

I've looked into the science, and it's mixed, but there are genuine concerns. Very, very few people in the real world can, emotionally, carry a child to term and then just walk off and be totally fine with abandoning them. Regret is extremely common, sometimes very deep regret. And with the children, the worst results are the more you hide from them and the more you restrict them. The best results come from what adoptive parents generally don't want to do: sharing. Meeting with the birth parents as much as possible / as much as they want to (if it's safe to do so). Not hiding a single thing from the child, even from a young age. Letting the child fully grok - instead of you just telling them - that the situation with their birth parent(s) genuinely was not good and they genuinely either didn't feel fit to raise a child or were not capable of it. The worst case is that your adoptive child grows up mad at you for the secrecy - or any other "normal" reason - tracks down their genetic parents (which is easier than ever before), has a deeply emotional reunion with them (and any extended family - grandparents, siblings, cousins, etc etc) and is furious at you for the rest of your life for having taken them away.

Also, some additional notes:

In some countries (including mine, Iceland), surrogacy is illegal. You cannot legally pay someone to have a child for you if you can't bear one yourself. And of course if you do, you not only face legal liability, but they won't recognize the child as yours.

Also, for anyone who has not done it, raising a child that doesn't see you as their mother (I was with someone for several years who had two children from a previous marriage) is - at least it was in my experience - horrible. No matter what you do for them, you will never be loved by them in the same way they do their biological mother. You're always second class, just a playmate and servant. I'll never forget one night when the little girl was scared of the dark and started calling out "Mommy! Mommy!" And I rushed in to try to comfort her, but she kept calling out, "No, I want MY mommy!" and I couldn't console her. Just heartbreaking - it makes me cry just writing this. Never again for me.