pistachio trees grow on polluted land though, without passing the arsenic to the nuts in lethal amounts. google states they can grow up to 1000mg arsenic/per kg soil.
If you were to compost the sargassum, then grow pistachios on it until the arsenic level gets too high to kill the plant, you would at least be a step closer and it would pay for itself via the produce.
No reason for gorilla-arm when touch is an alternative interaction mode and not a required one. You still have trackpad and keyboard. You can dynamically switch modes depending on the action.
Gorilla-arm was a fear based on the naive idea that if you had touch, you would be required to only use touch for every action.
Is apple going to be so restrained to keep the design of the OS as a mouse first experience or are they going to cripple information density so I might be able to close a window with my elbow?
People act as if Chromebooks with touch screens aren't already considered a huge UX upgrade over Chromebooks without. Use your finger where it makes sense and the mouse where it doesn't. Literally nobody gets tripped up over this in practice.
Chromebooks run Android apps natively, so you can flip the screen around and use them as pure tablets or just use tablet apps in laptop mode just fine. For math, you can just write directly on the screen. In schools, kids playing Blooket/Gimkit/Kahoot on touchscreen devices crush those using a touchpad.
Not all professionals require enhanced processors. Also lots of people want better screens and more ports. Don’t let your assumptions limit you imagination.
I think there will be be app integration, but hopefully no App Store. We know that apps can work on HomeView using CarPlay. Not sure that is sufficient long term, perhaps just to jump start things. They may need to enhance that library to allow more kinds of apps to work with HomeView.
Right now, I think they are bringing out an MVP and waiting to see how people react to it and what kinds of things turn out to be useful. When they launched the Watch, no one was sure what kinds of things we would want to do on it. It took a while to see what was useful. I think a model where apps on your phone provide HomeView widgets like the Watch might be better than writing apps specifically for such a device.
Sure, but it’s weird to consider a device to be good value when the reason for that value is features you hope will launch in future updates maybe years down the line.
Most of those are alternate words, not alternate spellings.
It would be helpful to start with some of the worst of the offending spellings such as the “ough” mess. And maybe remove some of the silent b’s with which we were debted by 18th century philologists.
There are still a lot of other mosquito species. removing just the few that carry human disease will not have a major impact on creatures that eat mosquitoes.
The mere existence of other things that we call mosquitos does not mean they are all interchangeable as a food source for the animals that eat them.
Is your level of knowledge on this just "there are other things called mosquitos ergo it's not a problem," or do you have deeper affirmative knowledge that the animals that eat these mosquitos also eat those other mosquitos, and that those other mosquitos can increase their population to replace the lost food source?
Most things that eat mosquitoes are actually in the business of eating any flying insect that fits in their mouth. I'd be a bit more worried about, e.g. a species being the only pollinator for some plant, but that's pretty unlikely. Do the studies, sure, but don't expect any bombshells. And if aedes aegypti or any of the other big disease-causing mosquitoes had such a role, I'm pretty sure it would have already been found and trumpeted to the heavens.
> The idea that ecosystems carry plenty of backup, so if a small number of species become extinct there is little harm, has been greatly overestimated, according to the largest global study of its kind.
The fact you can't even confidently say whether one of those species is a sole pollinator of a plant or not indicates that your comment is still just a stack of assumptions.
And yours is still just fearmongering supposition, with, in my opinion, even less basis in reality. Go find some actual research on the ecological roles of aedes aegypti and anopheles if you want to get out of the loop. :)
Do we not know because people haven't gone looking, or because they did go looking and didn't find it? I'm guessing it's the latter, in which case it kinda strengthens the case that there probably isn't some critical role. These are some of the more-studied animals on the planet.
Pointing out risk is a kind of fearmongering when it's technically real but too small to be worth worrying about. Asteroid impact is a real risk too.
I find analogies like this revealing (in the negative sense) of the level of thoughtfulness of bio-engineering advocates. Do you actually think this is an apt analogy? If so, you are not even remotely understanding the problem in front of us. If not, then are you just disingenuously deploying it and you’re unable to conjure up a more apt analogy?
In either case, it’s good evidence as to why I’m not comfortable accepting your prior stack of assumptions. The un-evidenced assumptions that come from a person who thinks asteroid strike risk is remotely similar to gene drives are frankly completely dismissible on their face.
In any case: Yes, you’re right that looking a lot and not finding anything does strengthen the argument there’s nothing to be found. How much? How much certainty do we need? Are there other cheap vectors by which to gain more certainty?
Acting like we have these answers and then saying “hopefully there no pollinators & it’s like an asteroid strike risk!” is seriously discrediting.
Is there a standard of evidence that would convince you it's ok to eliminate aedes aegypti? How much more evidence would it take? Or is your answer "no" regardless?
(And the asteroid strike thing was only an analogy for remote risk and the definition of fearmongering, not biotech in particular.)
The best evidence there is so far is that of the limited tests we've done on islands, and that gets pretty close to convincing me.
An answer like "we should roll out limited tests and incrementally understand the impact" would be a good one.
"there are other things called mosquitos" is not a good one.
Deciding here, without sufficient evidence, whether I'm OK with eliminating aedes aegypti would be frankly bizarre and totally unnecessary.
Similar to the prior point: the fact that advocates try to advocate for the end state and not, you know, propose ways to de-risk incremental learning, is discrediting.
> An answer like "we should roll out limited tests and incrementally understand the impact" would be a good one.
Luckily this is in progress and all we're likely to see for a bit. It's at least good to hear that it's possible to convince you.
Anyway, you're awfully concerned with "discrediting". I'm not pretending to have credit. I'm just a guy who tries to learn stuff in between surviving. But as long as we're on the topic, your consistently antagonistic reads of my comments don't do you any "credit" either.
If you recall, my very first question to you was whether you have actual knowledge of the underlying facts or are just making assumptions like "we call other creatures 'mosquitos' so their predators can probably just eat them."
Instead of responding "no, I do not know," you responded with an additional set of unfounded assumptions and then accused me of fearmongering for asking literally the most basic epistemological question there is: "do you know this, or are you assuming this?"
Throwing your lot in with "let's do irreversible extinctions of some species based on my zero expertise" doesn't really deserve a generous read, I'm afraid.
It's okay (in fact, desirable) to simply not come to a conclusion on questions where we don't have enough information yet.
That is completely different from the system management software that handles the drivetrains, braking, etc. Toyota has been good on system management. Just because those both use code, don’t confuse the hardware management code with the Infotainment code.
reply