ejstronge

if it did I would have thought it would have appeared in the past 5 billion years or so

It may have appeared and been outcompeted. That doesn’t suggest its (artificial) reintroduction would again be outcompeted

Organizations aren't limited to a single country. My current client has employees in most of, if not every, time zone across the world.

In a single legal entity?

At any point in time a US based customer might invite a EU based customer, so looking specifically at US jurisdictions is irrelevant.

What case law are you considering when you insinuate that Slack must review the retention of records between users of a Slack business customer?

but in other situations there may be legal restrictions on reading employee-to-employee conversations.

In which US jurisdictions can employee-to-employee records (from employer-owned communication media) be denied to the employer/customer but maintained by an unrelated third party?

I'm not a woman, but I wonder how necessary pap smears (one of them most invasive procedures to which women are subjected) are if everyone's vaccinated against HPV? https://www.cuimc.columbia.edu/news/cervical-cancer-screenin...

It will continue to be necessary because there are more strains of HPV than those that are targeted by vaccines.

The way this article is broken into sections is a bit misleading - the recommendation for cervical cancer hasn't been annual screening for a long time. This is acknowledged in the text, but even there is unclear.

> as a sibling commenter writes, well-studied cases of this are so rare that

And yet not a single cite in sight. A random commenter on orange site is not evidence

At a certain point, one has to take on the obligation of self-education.

Hogwash.

From the website link you pasted: "Test-Specific Technical Issues - Standard tests (such as PCR or in situ hybridization) may not detect HPV types not included in the test panel (rare or classic non-oncogenic variants)."

There are plenty of papers on HPV independent cervical cancer based on actual gene expression methods published in reputable journals in the last 30 years.

You don't understand the field, so you don't know why the gene expression does not establish the presence or absence of HPV but instead can be used as an argument for the absence of HPV.

EDIT: Also, a fundamental point of misunderstanding - cervical cancer is not a 'new' disorder, so unless you have an explanation for why the 1999 article is wrong, we can't simply discard its result and favor a next-generation sequencing article.

Spontaneous mutations? Which no matter how much you carve out modifiable risk factors will always be a thing. At least 5% of cervical cancers are HPV negative

Random mutations causing cervical cancer essentially does not happen - as a sibling commenter writes, well-studied cases of this are so rare that they’re below our sensitivity of detection/technical error rates.

This is what I mean when I say we try to apply our intuitions to medicine - they’re not reliable and the truth is idiosyncratic.

Because our prior for cervical cancer being caused by HPV is so incredibly high, we would require overwhelming evidence to reject the hypothesis that any new case is due to HPV. There are ways to do this, and, should they be attained, would be published in a reputable journal based on their novelty.

One of the rare examples of a mental health condition being virtually completely eliminated is that of General paresis of the insane, a symptom of late-stage syphilis.

I think a better example is the very recent (i.e., in the 2000s) discovery of anti-NMDAR encephalitis which can very closely resemble schizophrenia [1].

In syphilis, there were at least other manifestations of disease that can (and were) known, unlike this totally unappreciated mechanism (which better resembles Barry Marshall and H. pylori).

1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551672/

You can develop cervical cancer via some other route, but the vast, vast majority of cervical cancers are caused by HPV infection.

What are these other ways? There's an intuition that bodies are like computer programs that can fail in unpredictable ways, but this is usually false and belies a failure to see links between 'novel' and previously described mechanisms.

No the context going out of control is overblow. Lemme example why. First you need to work at feature level. It shouldn't be too large of a feature in one go.

As a meta point, why write ' Lemme example why.' ?

If someone is still with you at this sentence, that person was ready to understand why.

Otherwise, it delays (and thus endangers the visibility of) whatever your explanation was going to be.

Here's a list of all the biosimilar products in this space:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12401705/#s4

As an example, courts ordered the Associated Press allowed back into the White House press pool after the Trump administration attempted to remove them. You or I would not be allowed to just show up at the president's events to watch/listen in person. That is a special right.

This was overturned.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/22/business/media/appeals-co...

I actually think the opposite is true. TV did not exist in the same way 50 years ago, so journalists played a more important role in transmitting news.

Maybe you mean that those journalists were more specialized than the writers of today?

It seems that there may have been more journalists in the 1970s (when we consider people who call themselves reporters and work in 'news').

1972 - ~39,000 ( https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/occupational-outlook-han... ; a great resource to find out about what journalism was like)

2022 - ~17,000 ( https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/oes273023.htm#nat - search for Newspaper, Periodical, Book, and Directory Publishers. If you want to add social media companies one needs a reasonable way to discount media streaming services. At any rate, this doesn't match what was being done in the 1970s so it's immaterial to your argument)

I likely have read at least one of the articles you were citing (or similar work) and my sense was that information was obtained later that was unclear at the time of the event. I see your point - especially when a journalist writes about an area where I have personal experience - but I guess I don't equate this to a decline in journalist quality given the confusion around an event like this.

I think it was just yesterday, I saw an article about an ICE raid of the Samsung plant in Georgia. It was a pretty long article, and even the tone of the article was pretty level. That said, there was a critical and very important piece missing from the article altogether... "Why?" As in what law(s) were broken and how/why the raid was used. TBH, I don't know that a raid was necessary over revised negotiations between DoJ/ICE, Samsung, Korea and the people in question... That said, the fact the article clearly didn't even attempt to report the ICE reasoning was pretty damning of the author and the site.

Or maybe this was a rhetorical point? Even today, there are articles that are trying to piece together who informed on the plant and what the basis for an ICE raid was. It seems you and the authors retain a similar understanding of the situation.

WSJ and the like just hire for pedigree. You end up with careerists writing generic articles, and injecting political opinion into everything

I think your comment implies that journalism in some previous time did not 'just hire for pedigree' and 'end up with careerists.'

When was this time and who were the specialist writers from that moment? How can one write anything without taking a political stance? We make much of the odd era of doublespeak we endure (when is a 'special military operation' a 'war'?). But it's hard to imagine that there has ever been a time where even the selection of a descriptive phrase carries political weight. My imagination may be limited, I suppose.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your argument and you mean that content meant for general consumption has always (read since its inception) been 'generic' and with '[injection] of political opinion.'

This is an area I work in professionally so I keep up with the technical side of things.

once you start adding more than one item to a cell it doesn't always work out.

Very true, but the amounts of money at stake would justify the relatively inexpensive cost of hooking cells up to the already-available ER/TR-responsive gene elements.

but I don't believe any before have contained these immune escaping edits

Hard to say, I'm not an expert on immune escape. It's an old idea, however, so I imagine it's been used in other pre-clinical or Phase 1 settings.

I believe all of those treatments are cancer treatments which allow for a different level of risk

I imagine you're speaking about allogeneic treatment? Either way, this isn't true at all - here's a list of current treatments for diabetes alone:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12401705/#s4

This is very encouraging, but will take a long time to get to any type of usable treatment because these cells are literally made to evade the immune system they run a whole bunch of other risks. Also cell therapies right now are one of the weakest markets in Biotechs due to the level of costs to develop. This is slightly different since it's Allogenic, but the market seems not very invested in cell therapy.

If we're controlling the cells' genomes (which we are), we can add any sort of killswitch (see another comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45220068 ) that we would like, and this would function better than relying on host immune surveillance. The opposite could be done, making insulin release dependent on the presence of a harmless drug, e.g., insulin release can only happen if a designer steroid molecule is present in the blood.

There are already cell therapies that envisage permanent implantation of modified cells, so I am not sure why a long delay for 'any type of usable treatment' would occur. The structure of this need not be analogous to a stem cell transplant; you could imagine injecting new cells intramuscularly every few months.

The costs to develop this are incurred during development (unlike the autologous therapies that require extensive, expert-level analysis for each new patient). I'm not sure that we can compare the current levels of investment in autologous gene editing to this product.

You may not know this, but pre-eclampsia is not a synonym for hypertension. Instead, hypertension is a manifestation of preeclampsia.

The baby aspirin is not for hypertension (it does nothing for hypertension). Its goal is to prevent changes in placental vasculature that may lead to severe pre-eclampsia in those already at risk for pre-eclampsia. One clinical sign that demonstrates risk for pre-eclampsia is high blood pressure.

You wouldn't say excess alcohol consumption during pregnancy is only up to the mother's decision about her own body when there are adults walking around with terrible lives because of fetal alcohol syndrome.

I would - because the alternative means we are locking up current human beings to act as incubators for potential, future humans

Yeah my wife is also pregnant and sometimes it is really tough on her but she doesn't use any medication other than baby aspirin for blood pressure. The alternative is exercise, anti-inflammatory foods, and also realizing that it isn't just your body anymore and you can't hurt somebody else's chances for a very small amount of pain relief.

It very much is still your wife's body - what other sentient entity is available for consultation?

I also am not sure if she is seeking professional medical advice - 'baby aspirin' is not a blood pressure medication, full stop. If this is based on non-medical doctor advice, please do consult a fully-qualified obstetrician.

Edit, just because this is very worrying to me, for later viewers, aspirin is an NSAID and its use should be weighed similar to that of other NSAIDs in the context of pregnancy. Consider this web page:

https://www.fda.gov/safety/medical-product-safety-informatio...

First, this is different because this was not what was agreed when Intel sought the grant. So I reserve the right to see as ‘bad’ a coercive action.

Second, from your article:

‘ Commerce expects "upside sharing will only be material in instances where the project significantly exceeds its projected cash flows or returns, and will not exceed 75% of the recipient’s direct funding award." 'NOT A FREE HANDOUT'

Democratic Senator Jack Reed praised the profit sharing plan, saying chips funding is "not a free handout for multi-billion dollar tech companies.... There is no downside for companies that participate because they only have to share a portion of future profits if they do exceedingly well."’

Clearly, there was a cap on repayments, but there is not one on giving away equity

There's no reason to re-invent the wheel - ipcamtalk has a comprehensive set of explanatory posts. Don't buy Reolink, avoid Amcrest - Loryta (rebranded Dahua) and Hikvision are the strongest, but there are other strong options, especially on the refurbished commercial camera front.

I highly doubt there'll ever be research in this area, but I'm very curious about whether it'll ever be possible to induce schizophrenia for a time, similar to how psychedelics or dissociatives can induce altered mind states.

It is not possible, by definition; here’s a portion of the DSM 5 definition of schizophrenia:

“ The disturbance is not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, a medication) or another medical condition”

Hard to find a publicly accessible DSM link, but here is an excerpt

https://floridabhcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Pages...

I imagine many people will react only to the headline and not read the article [...]

I saw this line in the article: "Meta tells The Verge that it’s not currently training its AI models on those photos, but it would not answer our questions about whether it might do so in future, or what rights it will hold over your camera roll images."

It would seem important to share this with people who may 'not read the article'

The US certainly extradites loads of people from other countries who still reside there and only broke laws either “online” or through transactions involving the US

This further weakens the dishonest posture that tourists are not subject to US law

trump estimation so far: 81-103 biden estimation: 14-28 You are incorrect.

You are clearly partisan. The GP says nothing about the number, but is instead the impact.

You should also consider normalizing the number of injunctions to the number of executive orders per term.

It’s curious you don’t link to a source even though you pasted something that contains references - I suspect you know that you are misinterpreting this willfully.

The author of the clause didn't think it applied to the children of aliens, so it doesn't seem crazy to me. > Howard said that the clause "is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States."[30] He added that citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons"[30]—a comment which would later raise questions as to whether Congress had originally intended that U.S.-born children of foreign parents were to be included as citizens.[32]

tourist parents here for a few weeks (for example) aren't subject to the jurisdiction of America. It's a valid argument to make, even if you come down on a different side

This ‘jurisdiction’ claim essentially only applied to people who had a diplomatic status while in the US. A traveler from Canada has no special right against being prosecuted (just like you would not were you to go to, say Britain).

A governmental figure from Canada would have protections - we would need to interact with another sovereign to hold them accountable.

This really has nothing to do with tourism, outside deceitful assertions on television.

Regarding Britain, here’s an example of someone not being subject to the jurisdiction of a country after committing a serious crime: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/harry-dunn-uk-anne-sacoolas...

I hope this clarifies your misunderstanding about the meaning of jurisdiction.

SOTA seems to use huge population data to infer causality within each linkage block of interest in the genome.

This has existed for at least a decade, maybe two.

There is a concerning gap between prediction and causality.

Which can be bridged with protein prediction (alphafold) and non-coding regulatory predictions (alphagenome) amongst all the other tools that exist.

What is it that does not exist that you "found it disappointing that they ignored"?

An analysis is not "news".

The analysis refers to things that just happened in May. 'New' things that happened in May.