I'm not quite sure what kind of metric you're referring to, but Apple is simply centralizing data collection of its ecosystems. The incentive is more comfortable service interaction and less entities receiving information about you.
On the other hand, Apple is tightening its control over its own ecosystems as every interaction has to go through them. Moreover, they're inhibiting anonymous usage of services as more and more things required direct or indirect verification of the user. This entices the market to normalize the demand for unique virtual identities.
That seems like a pretty solvable problem - even for daycares. First time you’re late, 5$, second time 20$, n + 1 time = (n+1)*10. The incentive is not to make a habit of it at the very least because the costs will add up.
Haha, I guess that proves my point about discoverability!
First you hit "Start a review" when viewing a pull request. You can then click on any change and it opens a comment box - in that box, you add hit the button with a plus and minus symbol on it. It then adds the existing code in the box, and you can change it.
2) how would you guarantee that nearly 100% of the target cells get it. The disease is a dominant condition, and by virtue of its putative mechanism a minority of untreated cells could still trigger the problem (though presumably onset might be delayed)
3) I would worry that if you do the CRISPR cut in the wrong place, or at the wrong time, you could instead make the tandem repeats even longer which would make the progression of the disease faster.
4) Outright deletion of the gene is -- who knows. AFAIK all humans have some, low number of tandem repeats and the disease emerges when you have a lot of tandem repeats. IIRC the mouse tandem repeat KO gene model has no side effects but stuff like alzheimer's AB being protective of certain viral brain infections is coming out, so maybe there's some function there? And lab mice aren't really exposed to too many pathogens.
Not an expert, so experts please correct me if I'm wrong:
* CRISPR doesn't do all of the time what you want it to do. It is quite error prone. What's done usually is that you apply it to multiple cells, check each of them, and take the ones where it worked out. Usually only a fraction has the changes that you wanted.
* Many multicellular organisms like humans grow from a single cell called zygote. Furthermore, very early embryos consist of a ball of blastomeres that each, if you isolate them and put them into the right conditions, can form a full organism.
* So the most practical way right now of editing genome of mice or humans is to hijack that stage, to use either multiple zygotes or blastomeres (not an expert, not sure which of the two is actually used) and apply CRISPR to them, then take the successful results and gestate them.
* In mice as well as other animals like zebrafish, this kind of editing is pretty routine already. But in humans, it's never been done except for one Chinese scientist. We don't know at all whether there are any adverse effects of the therapy, something we overlooked, etc.
* Also, the gene can be identified prenatally in a sense that you sequence the genes of an embryo still in the womb but that is only possible at a much later developmental stage than the blastomere stage so your options of editing aren't better than the options you have in a living human.
* There is another option that doesn't involve CRISPR: If your parent has a healthy copy of the gene and a non-healthy one, one can perform IVF multiple times, take one blastomere each from the ball of blastomeres, test them for the bad gene, and gestate the embryos that have only healthy copies of the gene. If every at-risk patient gets such a therapy, this approach is enough to deal with Huntington's disease and many other genetic diseases but it limits you in animal or plant breeding to mendelian genetics, basically making your life harder than it could be if you want to combine multiple beneficial traits. Here, CRISPR based approaches give you a big benefit, as long as you can deal with the anti-GMO crowd.
IMO, $37 for what amounts to a flanged glass jar is ludicrous for many people. Even if it ends up cheaper in the long run. For what it's worth, I live with a couple roommates and they are on their third chemex, since glass breaks easily. Maybe our brand is bad. Maybe our coordination is worse.
Anyone with a background at Facebook definitely needs to be spoken with regarding their integrity. Obviously only a small subset of FB employees make the shitty decisions we see in the news, but it's very concerning to me that engineers still go to work there. There are at 2 or 3 other BigCos that pay comparably, and many others that pay a level down that don't require you to be complicit in unethical behavior of this scale.
Uhh, that's what we have been doing the whole time. That's the status quo. We're talking about changing it because it's caused massive societal problems.
I'm not sure exactly what GP meant, but I took the spirit of the post as more "I wish there wasn't so much wealth inequality that ONE person could own a superyacht. I have no problem with yachts in and of themselves."
So, it's OK for a group of, say 20 people to have enough disposable wealth to pool together to fund the amortized annual expense of buying and maintaining a superyacht.
But it's not OK for one individual to invest that money for 20 years and then buy it.
You're still not getting it. It's not about how many X owners it takes to pool the money together to buy something obscenely expensive and wasteful. It's about the wealth disparity that makes it possible for just a few people to do something like that, especially given that the wealth disparity is based on rent-seeking (and frequently borderline-fraudulent) behaviors.
My preferred world is everybody doing better, even if some can afford things that are "obscenely expensive" (good for them!), because I think absolute well-being is more important than relative well-being.
How about a world where everyone has basic needs met, but a few can afford a large yacht?
Or a world where everyone can afford a yacht club membership, but a few people can afford TWO large yachts?
jonnycomputer wrote "In my preferred world, no single person would be able to afford a large yacht."
I'll say it again: "What an awful attitude." It just proposes taking away from people who have what he thinks is too much, without any benefit stated or implied for anyone else.
Inequality, rent-seeking, and now fraud are all topics that have been added later.
I didn't propose taking anything away. I said that in my preferred possible world no one would be rich enough that they can individually afford such extravagances. I made no claim about this world, not did I outline how that state of affairs would have come about.
It's focusing on the harm to specific individuals rather than any benefit, thus implying you consider that change a benefit in itself, rather than a necessary harm that enables some other benefit.
It's like Hillary Clinton saying she'd put coal miners out of business - it sounds hateful, regardless of the intent.
Disclaimer: I eat meat, just less these days :).