The first weeks after a sperm fertilises an egg is a period of dramatic change - from a collection of indistinct cells to something that eventually becomes recognisable on a baby scan.
Instead of a sperm and egg, the starting material was naive stem cells - reprogrammed to gain the potential to become any type of tissue in the body.
Despite the late-night video call, I can hear the passion as Prof Hanna gives me a 3D tour of the “exquisitely fine architecture” of the embryo model.
The hope is embryo models can help scientists explain how different types of cell emerge, witness the earliest steps in building the body’s organs or understand inherited or genetic diseases.
There is even talk of improving in vitro fertilisation (IVF) success rates by helping to understand why some embryos fail or using the models to test whether medicines are safe during pregnancy.
Prof Alfonso Martinez Arias, from the department of experimental and health sciences at Pompeu Fabra University, said it was “a most important piece of research”.
The original article contains 817 words, the summary contains 174 words. Saved 79%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Me: . o O (Why would anyone claim that truth makes the world worse? Oh! It’s someone from Hexbear trying to make the world as shitty as possible. How utterly expected.)
At least it will be free so anyone interested can watch it directly and not get someone else’s biased interpretation
Some people will naturally only want the lazy option, but I think a large number of people from across the political spectrum will watch at least some parts of the trial
Lmao when was the last time the american public watched a presidential debate on its own. There’s a reason you have such a large amount of infotainment that cuts those things down to cute soundbites.
China is all aggressive because they know it’s now or never. Even before the bad news with their economy it was already a foregone conclusion beforehand.
Everyone knew their population would decline. Then their comparative advantage disappears. Their advantage is a shitload of people, even with a lower GDP per capita it’s still significant as it’s 4x the population as the next country (besides India, who are on an even lower GDP per capita right now)
Due to the sheer numbers they can use their internal market as political leverage. Disagree with them and no money for you.
There’s a few skirmishes but I think Putin has made Xi think twice. Although I do believe China can sustain quite a bit of losses if they do go to war before their advantage of many people disappears.
Firstly they have excess males so theoretically even if they lose excess soldiers it wouldn’t affect their birth rate as the issue is lack of women not men.
Might be a two eggs in one basket outlook for them, gain a bit of territory and rebalance their gender ratio.
We can only hope Putin’s war has made Xi think twice whilst we bide our time whilst their population decreases.
It was decades ago but Burger King was a bit of a staple for me for a few years when I lived close to a franchise operator that was consistent. It has been awhile and I knew things had gone downhill and some of the franchise operators are very shitty but I was shocked last time we went. The restaurant was filthy and the tables and floors were covered in food. The burgers looked to be thrown together out of bin leftovers. Can’t say I blame staff for the lack of enthusiasm given their employer has a known history of wage theft. We couldn’t tell the differences between the more expensive special and regular whopper so took the mess to the counter to ask what the fuck we were given and why it looked nothing like the photo. The whole family swore off them for life. Never going back.
Total exceptions? No. But many states still allow people to get reduced sentences via the gay panic defense for killing LGBTQ people. That, and some politicians are encouraging hate crimes against them with hateful rhetoric about them being “groomers” and whatnot.
But many states still allow people to get reduced sentences via the gay panic defense for killing LGBTQ people.
You say that like it’s explicitly allowed by the state. It isn’t. It’s a legal defense lawyers use in court. Whether or not it’s legitimate is determined by a jury.
Are other countries juries exposed to our media ecosystem (in the same way) which the US government supports and which pushes vile transphobia constantly?
don’t know what? laws that criminalize being queer should be stricken from the books and the people who do hate crimes should be punished. both of those elements are being rolled back in the US and you’re being obtuse.
Meanwhile in reality, there is still plenty of shit on the books that will be enforced again if the conservative Supreme Court changes precedent and new laws are being passed with the ultimate goal of exterminating trans people.
You say that like it’s explicitly allowed by the state.
It is. Keeping it a valid legal defense is a policy choice. Some states banned it, they chose to. Other states have not, they decided not to. That’s politics.
You literally can, just like any number of other valid bases for objections to arguments put forward. If the judge rules it to be such a defense, it would be struck from the record and the jury instructed to disregard it, and if the lawyer keeps on it, they would be held in contempt of court. Furthermore, if it is plainly a case of such a defense and the judge lets it fly, the prosecution can claim mistrial.
Perhaps there are other ways of banning it, but that is the obvious one in the American framework.
legal and extralegal actions by the police are both effectively legal in the US because we effectively don’t prosecute police. as the laws illegalize queerness, what actions the police are permitted to take expands.
“Effectively legal” is not remotely the same thing as “legal”. Do the cops kill all sorts of people unjustly? Yes. That’s not the conversation we are having right now. The conversation we are having pertains to being queer in America and it’s supposed dangers. And not just “dangerous” but dangerous to the extent that a country issues a warning to a group of people about literally just entering an entire country of 300 million people.
To treat it as a valid legal defense is an abomination and judges have countless times ruled in favor of the perpetrator on just the basis of that defense.
Do you understand how precedent works in the US court system? I mean, I fully agree that US judges and laws are corrupt, but it doesn’t change the fact that those laws and judges are still upheld by the state
We’ve already been over this several times now, there are no homophobic laws in the US.
The topic of conversation is a warning to “queer” people about going into the US, as if it is more dangerous than the country they’re leaving. So yes, it matters.
Breaks my heart. Humanity sucks. History will not and should not be kind to our modern civilization. We’re speedrunning destroying the planet and causing unthinkable amounts of suffering in the meantime.
Based on witness testimony, when he arrived to wreckage, found people were moving bodies from wreckage, sounds like someone wanted visual confirmation.
bbc.co.uk
Top