I think they would say that their goal is to make the less-gross approach the path of least resistance (or at least closer to it, no tool can force you to solve the right problem). Or rather, that even when someone takes a short term approach, it's not that hard to fix because the system is more flexible overall. That would be my goal, certainly, if I were founding this company.
I can't follow all the chemistry but this seems like the takeaway, from the Nature paper (open acccess!):
> Regardless, confirmation of macromolecular organic matter supports the possibility that future optimized TMAH thermochemolysis experiments can liberate ancient biosignatures preserved in macromolecules on Mars (if present). The broad structural variety of organic molecules observed in situ from surface materials suggests some chemical diversity is preserved in ancient Martian sediments despite >3.5 billion years of diagenesis and radiation exposure.
Macromolecules, not just "organic" (which, reminder, does not mean "biological"). It seems like you can still get macromolecules abiotically, but it's a little more tantalizing.
- Water on Mars: confirmed 2004
- Organic molecules on Mars: confirmed 2018
- Complex organic molecules (e.g., DNA precursors) on Mars: 2026
We now know for certain that it is possible for complex organic molecules to be preserved for ~3.5 billion years on the Martian surface.
The big question everyone wants to know is if life ever existed on Mars. Now we know that it's possible for that question to be answer, since we have confirmation of complex organic molecules actually being preserved.
This legitimizes future missions/spending on life searching missions to the Martian surface.
Factors in. Not identical to. They might not have phrased that very well, but the point is that you don't need any relationship much more complex than personal acquaintance to fuel this kind of violence.
> Iran still has enriched uranium, nuclear facilities and now they even have put in the agreement a recognition of Iran's right to seek nuclear technology.
You can figure out the goal. What you can't figure out is a goal that actually had a snowball's chance in an oil fire of being achieved.
The idea there was bombing to support the popular uprising that does the actual work. I think that might have been the fantasy here, too, but it seems like the window closed.
90% of the article is about the scientific advantages. You've chosen to fixate on the "sexism" part which is, as other commenters pointed out, mainly there to explain why things are done this way today at all. I don't think it's the article that's the problem.
No you're right, the subtitle that says "It's all because of a Frenchman who decided it was more convenient – for men" was definitely me reading between the lines, I can't believe I even attributed a gendered slant.
Pardon me for paying attention to the actual article instead of the subtitle likely written by someone else. And it's not as if you can credibly claim it's not relevant, since the first thing we want to know about any stupid practice is why it got started. So unless you have evidence that it's incorrect, you're just getting offended at... actual facts.
It’s the one constant about this administration: you’re always wondering ”is this incompetence by not knowing what they’re saying or incompetence where they know what they’re saying”
reply