Multiple ways of gene editing have existed for a while. CRISPR is way more scalable. Other forms of genome editing are either more expensive to target a gene of interest. Other technologies are imprecise. We've been able to insert a gene into a genomes for decades, but it also just randomly inserts it all over the genome.

That's what I can't get over with these types of articles. Conservative media got worked up over some internal use words to avoid list for use by Stanford's IT department a couple months ago as if it was some banned word list at the college. Just like this guide here. Is this a banned words list? Not really. Some nonprofit put out an internal use language guide for official communications. Do I think some of their recommendations are goofy? Yeah, but I don't know why I should care. This guide has no material effect on my life and no words are "being banned." I would agree with the thesis of article on the Atlantic if you they were criticizing something that was actually happening, but it isn't. It's just another trite "free speech" that seems more in line with the standards of the New York post.

Redditors? Reading an article they're commenting on? You have too much faith in this platform.

I'm excited to see how it's adapted. I've never really had something that I like this much be adapted before, so I'm curious to see how it turns out. It's also the first video game adaptation I've heard of that seems to have a fighting chance of being good.

As for this being streamlined, I don't think I agree. Based on the promotional material HBO has put out so far, it seems like they're doing the opposite. Roles of more auxiliary characters appear to be expanded, and I believe there are new characters.

What I'm also curious about is how this will impact the video game series if it gets a second season. As it stands right now, there are only two games, so if the second game becomes the second season, I wonder how or if they would continue the game series.

That's around when I think the movie got good lol.

The first time I tried to watch it, I lost interest at around the 30 minute mark and didn't come back to it for like 6 months. I have to speak of the movie in it's first and second half, the mid point being when Cumberbatch starts working on the lasso. I think the first half of the movie is glacially paced and boring, and I think the second half is some of the best filmmaking I've ever seen. Ultimately not sure what I would rate this movie because the two halves are at such different levels of quality in my opinion. If they could have cut like 20 minutes out of the first half of the movie, I'd probably have nothing negative to say about it.

Stop watching American media if you hate the US so much.

A show and a movie that were both financial successes are two great data points in favor of OP's thesis. I'm surprised they didn't get their findings published in a peer reviewed journal.

Oh, I assumed it hadn't done well because I've heard absolutely no one talk about it. I guess it got renewed though..

No, the dude that's mad about 6 not white characters across 2 franchises is probably completely normal.😂

Yes, his contrasting example is hilarious because they also race swapped characters lmao.

Damn, someone should tell those Disney execs that their $4.4 billion trilogy was a flop, I'm sure they'll really want to hear what some random antiwoke redditor thinks. As far as RoP goes, maybe it flopped because the production looked terrible and didn't have to do with the 3 black characters (this is seriously what you're made about?). HotD similarly made several characters black, and was a massive success.

Do you realize how racist you sound describing virtually any non white character as woke? Furthermore, can you even tell me what woke means? Because I've seen some morons describe the new God of war game as "woke." It's a completely meaningless term that says way more about the person criticizing the media than the media itself. No one cares about your racism that you're trying to mask as media criticism.

Anywhere between colonizing the solar system to the extinction of the species and the majority of other species on the planet.

An episode is filler if it doesn't advance the plot meaningfully in a show that is meant to have a plot that progresses week to week.

Rats aren't pestilence, and they're still fundamentally rat brains.

Especially when you learn that all the news was talking about the energy output by the lasers, not the energy input. The lasers have an efficiency of 1%, which means the lasers used 200 megajoules of energy to generate 3 megajoules of fusion energy... which is significantly less impressive the 2 megajoules in for 3 megajoules out to say the least.

Rats where some cells in their brain are human cells. It will hopefully make studies in rate brains more translatable to humans.

That's because science journalism isn't very good. Cancer is never going to be cured, new cancer treatments just add to the laundry list of treatments that we can employ which increase survival rates incrementally over time. Cancer is a diverse group of illnesses that share some things in common, so a treatment for one isn't always going to be a treatment for another. Cancer is also often lifelong illness. We have no real good ways of removing all cancer from your body in many cases, and even if you appear to be "cured" it may very well come back at a later date.

This article's headline implies that this cancer was cured in 73% of study participants. If you actually look at the results of the study, about 70% had at least partial response, and about 30% of those that had a response had a complete response (meaning there is no evidence a tumor is still present). Additionally, this is only measuring short term responses (less than a year), and a later study will need to be published on long term response. So you have a treatment that we know short term leads to partial or complete remission most of the time. That doesn't generate as many clicks as "new treatment destroys bone cancer cells in 73% of patients" though.

It's now thought to be mostly remnants of ancient parasites like viruses and transposons.

The difference here being that DNA, unlike ocean waves, is a naturally occuring molecule that evolved to store information that is encoded and decoded. How then is it a stretch that this molecule could be harnessed to store digital information? Furthermore, you ask what applications it might be useful for, and I already said in my original comment that cold data storage seems like a possible application. I also stated that there could be issues with the technology that either make it impractical now, and may even make it an inviable technology.

​

You said that encoding information in plant DNA is "like a puzzled from a 90's adventure game" which seems to be a continuation on your idea from your original comment. I'm not sure why this needs to be said again, but yes, for an information storage medium to be useful, you need to know how to decode it. Once again, this is true for any storage medium, be it a vinyl record, a magnetic tape, a CD, or a solid state drive.

​

I'm honestly not sure what you're attempting to criticize about anything I've said. It feels like you read the first sentence of my comment and decided that it needed to be attacked because it showed the slightest hint of optimism about an emerging technology. Would it have been more interesting if I had just said "it wont work?"

Cold storage is for cheaply and compactly storing large quantities of information that doesn't need to be accessed often. Yes, in order for DNA data storage to work, we have to have a means of decoding it. I'm not sure how this is a criticism of this specific technology as this would apply to literally anything that we use to store information.

Storing data in plants might make some sense when I think about it. To "read" the data encoded in DNA would require you to consume some of the DNA, which means you only have a limited number of reads of that data before you run out. Putting that DNA into the genome of a plant would allow you to cheaply generate a bunch of copies of that data, and this data could then be stored indefinitely as seeds that could be planted again if more copies are needed.

I'm not sure how the show depicted it, but I think the idea of having a plant flash drive or something sounds unrealistic. However, I could see it being used as a form of cold storage in the future, but it's probably not even close to being a practical solution. There's also the issue of how much data could be crammed into a plant's genome before it starts effecting the plant's ability to be a plant.

It's a taboo, which creates tension in a story... it's not that hard to figure out. Also, it's not like it's every, or even a lot of shows.

I think your question comes from a place of both a misunderstanding of what dominant and recessive alleles are is and what a punnet square represent. Sexual reproduction involves the combining of 2 haploid genomes to form a diploid genome. A haploid genomes contains a complete set of genes, so a diploid has 2 complete sets of genes. All genese have variants known as alleles. If an individual has 2 copies of the same allele, they are homozygous, if they have 2, they are heterozygous.

Dominant and recessive relationships are not about how a gene is inherited, they describe how the phenotype relates to genotype. An allele is dominant to another allele if it masks the phenotype of the recessive allele. For example, in pea plants round peas are dominant to wrinkled peas. This means that an individual that has the round pea and wrinkled pea gene allele (Ie a heterozygote) will have the round pea phenotype. It DOES NOT mean that the round pea allele is preferentially inherited. It is also important to remember that dominant recessive alleles does not describe the majority of traits. It is the first, and simplest, genetic relationship that was observed. Most phenotypes are polygenic, meaning there is a small contribution to the phenotype from many genes.

Next, A punnet square just tells you the expected genotype ratio of homozygous and heterozygous offspring given the parents' genotypes. If two parents are heterozygous for a gene (eg BbxBb) have offspring, the expected genotype ratio for their offspring would be 25% BB, 50% BB, and 25% bb.