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?

Iran was not in compliance with anything and was so antisemitic it hosted an international conference on holocaust denial. Khamenei himself literally claimed Covid was black magic caused by Jews creating a satanic pact with demons.

What are you blathering on about? It's embarassing to see you at +5 insightful. From the moment the regime seized power it's been at war with the US. It's violated every agreement it's ever made with the west and openly pursued its stated goal of trying to exterminate the Jews before turning its eye to destroying America. They never "trusted" America, they just knew some American leaders were either unbelievable suckers or actively supportive of their regime due to anti-western radicalism.

As for a million troops to defend itself the IRGC is estimated at maybe 600K absolute maximum combat capable personnel, in a country of ~93 million people about 80% of which absolutely despise the IRGC to the point 30,000+ of them accepted the risk of being murdered to take to the streets in protest.

That's just plain gaslighting. Every major western city has been filled with two groups of protestors for the past month: Iranians desperately calling for more international intervention to end the mass slaughter and decades of global terror from the Islamic Republic, and migrants + white westerners waving pictures of Khamenei and hezbollah flags screaming "hands off Iran".

There's been TONS of people taking the regime's side.

The only one who's spoiled here is you. Just because I bought something 10 years ago doesn't mean it isn't still mine and I don't have a right to use it. You don't want to host master servers anymore? Fine. But you aren't allowed to stop me from doing it to use my own product that I paid for.

You answered your own question, quisling: They disclose before purchase that the game will have a hard sunset of 10 years when the car license expires. See? That wasn't so difficult, was it?

Simple: Enforce existing basic contract and property law that we've had for centuries throughout the west.

Is it a "license" and therefore the company retains total control of the product? Fine. There must be a full meeting of the minds and adequate consideration. The term of this license must be clear up front. You are 100% responsible for ensuring all maintenance and up-keep for the duration of that "license".

Is it "property"? Fine. The property must be fit for purpose, not defective, and if you actively sabotage or destroy or you get charged with theft and destruction of property.

No more flip flopping whenever the other is more convenient.

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?

They seem particularly unreliable when asked to tell the difference between a headmaster and a fundamental rule.

Translation: we don't currently have a quantum algorithm for reversing hashes. But there was a time, not that long ago, when we didn't have a quantum algo for factorization either. However, I don't expect to see a quantum algo for hash reversion any time soon, because the whole problem of reversing hashes is pretty complex.

Factorization as a classical problem is essentially trivial, in that there are very simple classical algorithms for it. They just take a lot of time to run. But coming up with an efficient quantum algorithm was not trivial, and the algorithm itself isn't so simple. So you can estimate that a quantum version of any algorithm is a lot more complex than the classical counterpart.

I've only taken fairly general master's level courses in quantum information and regular cryptography, but I agree with this overall sentiment. My math professors used to say that no asymmetric encryption scheme has been proved unbreakable; we only know if they haven't been broken so far. Assuming something is unbreakable is like saying Fermat's last theorem is unprovable — until one day it's proved. So to me "post quantum cryptography" is essentially a buzzword.

Interestingly, Finnish government was planning to move election systems to Amazon's cloud, but the plan was just recently cancelled due to public outcry. https://www.heise.de/en/news/F...

Mostly just in the bulk, low barriers to entry, and pervasiveness(like a lot of things social media). The case of actors actually goes back a long way; state laws regarding compensation of child actors were spurred by the case of one who was popular in the 1920s and litigated with his parents over where the money wasn't in 1939. That case doesn't provide for takedowns; but it's also the case that filmmakers are normally looking for children to play characters; rather than to do 'candid' intense documentaries of them at home; so the degree of public exposure of private life is presumably deemed to be less; with the main issue being children who were...definitely...getting a solid education while on stage finding that all the money was gone when it became their problem.

Child-blogging, by contrast, seems to reward verisimilitude (if not necessarily truth) and invasiveness, relatively pervasive in-home mining for 'content', so presumably seems better served by removal-focused options; though there has definitely been talk about covering the economic angle in line with child actors.

I don't even know what the deal is with child beauty pageants, or how something you'd assume is a salacious bit of slander about what pedophile cabals are totally doing, somewhere, is actually a thing a slice of parents are into, way, way, into. Apparently that's a third rail to someone, though, as the only jurisdiction I'm aware of with significant restrictions on them is France.