AnyOldName3

They still need making and putting up, and they’re more obtrusive than a swift brick as they stick out instead of being embedded in the wall itself.

There’s kind of need for them everywhere and this is a pretty practical way to ensure they end up everywhere and will stay there.

Investors managed to pour billions into making the metaverse bubble, even though that was just video games being invented a second time by people so uninterested in them that they hadn’t noticed they’d already been around for decades. There’s no reason to think that investors know what they are beyond something on a computer, so obviously they’d see something else on the computer as a viable competitor.

With energy prices in the UK being what they are, it’s only raw potatoes that are cheaper than bread. At least toast toasts quickly, so isn’t that energy-intensive compared with boiling a pan of water.

It’s not the ‘Linux on’ subsystem, it’s the ‘Linux on Windows’ subsystem, so it’d have to be Linux on Windows Windows Subsystem, which would be silly. It can’t have a colon in it as some command-line tools take a subsystem as an argument, and traditionally, Windows command-line tools have used colons the same way Unix has used equals, i.e. to separate an argument name from its value, and parsing that gets harder when you’re expecting colons in the value, too.

Windows has subsystems. They’re called Windows Subsystems. This one’s for Linux. However you slice it, the initialism has to have WS in it.

If the ferrite is filtering a hum you can hear, it’s also filtering parts of your music that you can hear because a ferrite just dampens a frequency range and can’t tell what is and isn’t supposed to be there.

But all the interesting people are in the computer, the same place as the bad stuff is.

And the context was a sentence that was correct if you used OED sense 1, or MW sense 1, but you decided to parse it as MW sense 2b and then complain that the sentence was incorrect.

OED:

1. totally or partially resistant to a particular infectious disease or pathogen.
2. protected or exempt, especially from an obligation or the effects of something.

Merriam Webster

1. : not susceptible or responsive

   especially: having a high degree of resistance to a disease

2. a: produced by, involved in, or concerned with immunity or an immune response

   b: having or producing antibodies or lymphocytes capable of reacting with a specific antigen

3. a: marked by protection

   b: free, exempt

So unless you pretend that MW’s 2b sense is the only valid one, the immunity is immunity.

If you have a sample of HIV at 37°C in blood, but with all the immune cells removed, it’ll still all become inert after around a week simply due to chemical reactions with other components of blood etc… It’s pretty comparable to a population of animals - if you take away their ability to reproduce, they’ll die of old age when left for long enough even if you’re not actively killing them.

Edit: fat-fingered the save button while previewing the formatting

• this is a shitpost community, not a biotech publication, so immune here means the dictionary definition, not any domain-specific technical jargon, otherwise people can’t make shitposts about diplomatic immunity
• lacking the receptor that HIV uses to hijack the regular immune response in order to reproduce means the regular immune response destroys it
• even in a normal person, after exposure, a lot of HIV gets destroyed by other parts of the immune system, often enough to eliminate it before an infection gains a foothold. Once an infection takes hold, it outbreeds the immune response as it’s the part best equipped to deal with a large viral load that it interferes with.
• if you’ve got the virus in your body, but due to the lack of the receptor, it can’t reproduce, then it doesn’t remain viable for very long as each viron accumulates damage over time, and ceases to function once it’s too badly damaged. People carrying a disease have enough viral reproduction going on to balance out the virus being destroyed.

Even if you ignore that there’s an entirely valid sense of the word immune that has nothing do do with biology (i.e. the one in phrases like diplomatic immunity), my original comment is entirely consistent with the dictionary definition of the biological sense of the word. There are probably sub-fields of biology where immunity is used as jargon for something much more specific than the dictionary definition, but this is lemmyshitpost, not a peer-reviewed domain-specific publication.

When a normal person is exposed to HIV, it reproduces inside of them, so can then go on to expose more people, and if there’s enough of it, infect them in turn (if there’s a smaller amount, their immune system will normally be able to clean it up before it gets enough of a foothold). If someone’s lacking the receptor, then no matter how much they were exposed to, their immune system will eventually manage to remove it all without becoming infected because it can’t reproduce. If they had a ludicrously large viral load, then there’s a possibility that it could be passed on before it was destroyed, but most of the ways people get exposed to HIV aren’t enough to infect someone who’s vulnerable, let alone infect someone else via secondary exposure if there’s not been time for the infection to grow.

People without the receptor that HIV targets are immune to HIV because of that, like how a rock is immune to verbal abuse or double foot amputees are immune to ingrown toenails. The immune system being able to kill something isn’t the only way things can be immune to other things.

That tests the AIDS immunity, but not whether there are off-target edits. IIRC, the mothers were all HIV-positive, so the children are all pretty likely to be exposed anyway, which was part of how he justified the experiment to himself.

If he got incredibly lucky, they’re immune to AIDS. It’s much more likely that they’re not and will develop symptoms of new and exciting genetic disorders never seen before.

The biggest problem was that the technique used is really unreliable, so you’d expect off-target edits to be more common than on-target ones for a human-sized genome. For bacteria, you can get around it by letting the modified bacteria reproduce for a few generations, then testing most of them. If they’re all good, then it worked, and if any aren’t, you need to make a new batch. Testing DNA destroys the cells you’re testing, so if you test enough cells in a human embryo to be sure that the edits worked, it dies. You can’t just start when the embryo is a single cell to ensure that the whole thing’s been edited in the same way as you need to test something pre-edit to be able to detect off-target edits.

It’s pretty easy to put something on the box like this can make your phone buzz if you forget to brush your teeth, and people who worry they’re sometimes forgetting to brush your teeth will see that as an advantage without necessarily realising that they need to give the manufacturer their email and the right to associate it with their brushing telemetry.

There are a far fewer pedestrians and walls and lamp posts and motorcycles in the air than on the ground, though, so there’s a lot more margin to be awful without endangering anyone other than your own family.

It might also be completely unusable if it’s going to be touched by human hands, as hands get sweaty, and sweat is salty water.

Obviously, most people don’t replace their TV every year, so it was years after new sales were mostly LCDs that most people had LCDs, but companies making content like to be sure it looks good with the latest screens.