Do you know if there’s an instance with working RSS that also shows inages from the tweets in the RSS? I couldn’t find any for months.

Thanks, it honestly didn’t occur to me. Cocks have larger tails, best I could come up with was great chick.

Thanks. It seems to be just whatsapp web in an app form, so I could probaby just go to my browser. But that’s still an interesting idea that never ocurred to me on phone.

Is there, by any chance, an alternative client?

I think Ra has a magic casting system that is a programming language.

Yes. But if you have many complaints from MANY MANY users, it may not mean anything serious, it could still mean a very small fraction have problems. Absolute number means very little without context. That’s the purpose of the previous comment. Please note how it doesn’t say anything about qualities of Windows.

I think you’re probably misremebering what you read, so let’s first set it right.

The time always depends on the observer. If you’re going at the speed close to the speed of light (let’s say 0.99c, that is 99% of the speed of light), the time will slow down for you from the point of view of others who aren’t moving. If you go this fast, it will look like you were slowed down to the others. You yourself will feel normal and everyone else will look sped up. This effect is the larger the closer to the speed of light you go. We’ll get to the speed of light and faster in a minute.

If you went to the moon and back at 0.99c, to everyone on earth, it will look like it took you just a tiny bit less timw then it would take light, I think 2.5 seconds or so. To you, it would feel much faster, I didn’t calculate it but let’s say 0.1 second. There’s no way you would come back to distant future of Earth after a single trip to the moon.

You could come back to the distant future if you went much further. If you spent a year at 0.99c, much more time would pass on earth. If you kept looking, you would spend a year watching earth at fast forward. In the meantime, earthlings will spend many years wathing you slowed down from their point of view. For you it would feel like a year, for Earth, it would feel like many years, because the flow of time depends on your speed and there is no universal reference time.

Now let’s get to the speed of light. First of all, it is impossible for anything with mass to reach the speed of light. As you approach speed of light, the amount of energy needed to accelerate increases and you need infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light, which you obviously can’t have. Massless particles, like photons, that is light, move at the speed of light. Hence speed of light :-) It is said that they don’t percieve time, they are sort of simultaneously everywhere along their path from their point of view. Easy to say, hard to imagine. But no dip is happening. From the point of view of someone not moving, just standing on Earth, if you are speeding up, you appear to be moving slower and slower and if you reached the speed of light, you would appear to stop moving altogether. From your point of view, you would feel normal, but Earth would be more and more sped up and then I guess you would be everywhere at once and time would stop to have a meaning? BTW, observing stuff would in fact be problematic, since you need light for that and getting light at the speed of light doesn’t quite work and there’s a bunch of interesting other complications even before that.

To get to speeds faster than speed of light is even more impossible. But there is a theoretical framework for particles faster than speed of light called tachyons. In a way, they are an opposite. They have to be faster, never can reach the speed of light and the closer to the speed of light they are (and therefore the slower they are), the more energy they need to slow down further. They are said to move backwards in time. They have not been showed to exist (once it looked like they might, but it was a technical issue with measurements). I know very little about them.

For the record, this is almost certainly a genetic defect of the father, some kind of dominant mutation. Nutrition and other environmental factors most likely didn’t play any role in a height difference this big.

There are two copies of each gene. Here, one of the copies got mutated in such a way that it caused the stunted growth of the father. Each sperm contains one randomly selected copy of each gene. Therefore half of the father’s sperms contained the mutated gene and the other half the normal version. There was 50% chance the son would be normal height and 50% chance he would be small like his father.

I actually know a family like this. Nothing fishy going on there, the mutation is well described and now new kids with the mutation get growth hormones during their growth to reach normal size.

It’s not so much about nuclear envelope and more about ends. DNA polymerase (an enzyme that builds new DNA) cannot copy the whole end - there are a few bases that should be at the end but cannot be added. Eukaryota deal with it by a complex mechanism (they have telomeres), but it allows for multiple chromosomes and therefore larger genomes. Bacteria have a circular genome instead, a circle doesn’t have an end, so they can copy as much as they need.

BTW, mitochondria and plastids, being former bacteria, also have circular genomes.

It says you still need eggs. Can you replace them and make it from blood, beer, flour and blood?

I use Pocketbook. It opens just about anything - epub, mobi, pdf, pdb, and many more formats. Just get a book anywhere and copy it via USB. Or send it as an email attachment to your special address and it will download automatically. You can even replace the reading app with another relatively easily, if you want.

A solution to this problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9pD_UK6vGU

I relatively often meet 4 of these:

• no speed limit (use the normal limit for this type of road)

• car tires may defy laws of nature (slippery road, usually followed by a sign saying it applies during rain)

• speed camera ahead

• no water polluting goods (not very common, but occasionally comes up. There is also no dangerous materials with an orange trapezoid instead of an ellipse)

I also saw don’t drive off the pier (around ferries), watch for skiers (in the mountains with cross-country skiing routes), and warning about planes, although in different design (around airports).

Is it better than using 25 % less salt?

I didn’t read the original paper yet, perhaps it’s there, but it isn’t in the linked article nor its source Ars Technica article. Can authors themselves upload their papers to these archives, and if so, how to do it correctly to make it findable both by DOI and other means? Does anyone know?

Wow, thank you, this is a great source! So less than 90% of the income is used to run the companies and do all the R&D. Honestly, that’s less than I thought and shows how greedy they are. If I read it right, they are more profitable than other large companies. Wow. So a state-owned non-profit pharma company could in theory produce new medicine 10 % cheaper and still be fine. Provided that state-owned company could be as efficient as a private one…

You don’t need profit in the sense of making lots of extra money compared to how much money you actually put in. I would be very interested in how much net profit is compared to gross in relative numbers. It’s a lot in absolute numbers, but I suspect not so much in relative. The problem why drug development is so very expensive is that you don’t just pay large sums for the drugs that are developed, but also for all those that are not, because they prove not useful during the testing. And there is way, way more than the successful ones, perhaps 100 to 1? I don’t have numers at hand. So in the end, you have to charge a lot of extra money above the production cost if you want to have enough money to develop any drugs at all.

Of course, that isn’t true for old drugs. Which is a reason why generics are so much cheaper. And also why patents need to exist.

I’m sure pharma companies abuse the system as much as they can, but not as much as it might appear at a first glance.

A state doesn’t have this kind of money to burn. If they did it, the money would have to come from somewhere. So either you increase taxes, decrease spending elsewhere, or start a business making a lot of money. Such as, say, selling the newly developed medications at a markup… It’s sad, but I’m not aware of a better way.

That being said, the cost of medications in the US is utterly ridiculous.

Bigfoot. He can never get a good picture, that’s why he looks a little different. Ghost is clear, I think.