Mouse models are rapidly becoming obsolete as it's becoming easier than ever to model entire, differentiated tissues grown from red blood cell-derived adult stem cells.
It's also now possible to do clinically-useful testing of targeted treatments using genetically-edited control tissue cultures against unedited tissue cultures.
The point is that it's better to test something that is as close to the patient as possible, not guess with other species or even other people whom express genes differently.
FYI: making a new mouse models requires lots of chopping off heads of mice whom don't possess the desired gene. While transgenic, highly-edited living models might be nice, there's probably a more humane/simpler/reproducible way to do the exact same thing.
>>Mouse models are rapidly becoming obsolete as it's becoming easier than ever to model entire, differentiated tissues grown from red blood cell-derived adult stem cells.
No they aren't. Transgenic mouse models are a $billion industry. We do not understand biological mechanisms nearly enough to not use live animal models. We are not even able to recreate single cell organisms with our level of knowledge and engineering.
>>FYI: making a new mouse models requires lots of chopping off heads of mice whom don't possess the desired gene. While transgenic, highly-edited living models might be nice, there's probably a more humane and simpler way to do the exact same thing.
Ah, the real root of your argument. Do you even know what the word humane means? I work in a labroatory and the animals are treated better than the people. Yes, a lot of mice are killed.. but for a reason. You say there's probably a simpler way to do the exact same thing, but there simply isn't. I wish more people were actually educated in this matter, but emotional responses tend to get more results.
Not only that .... chopping off heads isn't how mice are terminated, from what I've been told by someone who worked in fetal development research on mice.
I always assumed that the sacrifice method depended on the research. You might liquefy them in a centrifuge, or pith them with a probe, or asphyxiate them in pure gaseous nitrogen, or flash freeze them in liquid nitrogen. Whatever makes sense for the study.
But if the animals in question are not part of the study at all, I don't see how it matters much. Maybe there's a little mouse guillotine. Maybe one person on the team owns a reptile pet that is very well fed. The reason why rodent models are used in the first place is that they're mammals, easy to care for, breed, and handle, and no one really cares if they die by the millions.
If they were outside the lab, they would likely get poisoned or crushed by snap traps. (That's better than what a cat would do.) Cuteness won't save you from my wrath if you eat my food and then poop in whatever you left behind. At least the ones that died in the labs had real jobs, instead of living hedonistic freeloader lifestyles inside someone else's couch.
I work for the Stanford Med School, so where do you work?
But regardless, you're rationalizing your own biases and agendas on outdated techniques and racing to the bottom with a disrespectful, ad hominem approach. How pleasant and humane of you. Maybe you should look to the future instead of attacking what isn't in your narrow focus, because you come across as a troll.
Hippies often did the same thing. It's pretty dumb to just throw compounds in your body without having a guestimate about their effects.
In the future, medical clinicians won't have to guess as much because adult stem cells can now be created from red blood cells, allowing personalized medication with a petri model of actual patient tissue, to screen problems like interactions and allergies before administration.
Work-life "balance" isn't... there's a finite budget of seconds that goes to this or that; so it's how you spend them, how impactful are their results... whether it's enjoyed / "success" by whatever is your interpretation of it's meaning. That said, maybe some people find some reward while simultaneously killing themselves to fit in like Walmart executives (whom jockey to arrive earliest) and newbie startup founders (hopefully they keep enough equity and retain/sustain passion to ship something people love and don't shut/meltdown when they succeed out of fear of the unknown) ... the two former conditions aren't necc. mutex. (It's only lack of self-awareness anticipating likely outcomes that would be a failure.)
It's not how early one comes in or late, how may hours, ... these are all "process people" behaviors that aren't focused on the content impact of their effort.
Finally, inspired by Sir Branson's take on work-life... it's the same thing, act in a globally-consistent manner. Much easier than the insecure, naïve person trying to wear "boss" or "worker" costumes... it's value-subtract business theater.
I could just be old or completely full of shit, either is fine.
There is a strong incentive for SN to stay anonymous now: extortion, GBH threats, kidnapping, tax evasion, etc.
This could be some guy feigning humblebragging to fool prospective customers, or the vaguest individual Wired decided to hoist the label onto because it garners eyeballs in a Daily Mail way that's hard to repute.
The raid is explained because many governments want evidence for tax evasion and evading the conventional banking system... control SN = control BTC.
Many governments are interested in finding Satoshi. They need a scapegoat to pin this bitcoin thing on. They still believe finding him/her might be effective method of getting rid of bitcoin. It's like trump wanting to go ask bill gates about locking up the internet.
i admit i don't have conclusive proof. however, is it really 'ludicrous' to speculate that those in power seek to destroy bitcoin in any way possible? especially when taking into account how vocally anti-establishment the bitcoin community has become.
> is it really 'ludicrous' to speculate that those in power seek to destroy bitcoin in any way possible? especially when taking into account how vocally anti-establishment the bitcoin community has become.
No one is that afraid of the bitcoin community, or of bitcoin itself. The bitcoin fringe is only novel in their application of the blockchain towards the problem of reducing the risk in organized crime. The world has heard the anarchist, anti-bank rhetoric before, and for that matter, from groups that actually blow up banks and murder people to further their goals.
There seems to be no evidence of any government seeking to "destroy bitcoin in any way possible." One would expect there to be fewer bitcoin based companies openly operating if that were the case. Rather, it appears that governments have reacted to bitcoin by defining it in terms of their existing regulatory frameworks, and deciding whether or not, and how, it can legally be used and taxed.
It's as ludicrous as any other baseless, unfounded conspiracy theory. What you are doing looks an awful lot like rationalization, and despite it's name, it is not very rational at all.
Couldn't that be the heart of why Seinfeld doesn't play university campuses anymore and Bill Mahar's critique of us millennials as pampered p%ssies? An inability to hear differing viewpoints without them being shouted down and Yale Halloween costume girl screaming at guy she helped elect? It cannot be a legitimate, honest academic environment when the groupthink, thoughpolice are in charge, or when students are merely customers to appease at every moment... respectful debate and challenging of views, assumptions and ethical rationale gets lost.
Doesn't it seem currently (as also dramatized by SP) to be a war of emotional extortion of whom can most, disproportionately bully others with their micropain and force the rest of us to change our language every other week and walk on eggshells? (Sure, real sensitivity to prevent actual offense; and address actual bullying.)
"of whom can most, disproportionately bully others with their micro pain"
That reminds me a great deal of the situation at the "Twentieth Century Motor Corporation" in Atlas Shrugged, when the workers were paid according to their need- they focused on needing more.
There is a subtle danger in only selecting candidate (people) whom think, act of look like you... the venture may end, not for a lack of talent or capability, but for a lack of ideas or questioning the normative, cultural convention.
Hire tortoises, hedgehogs and hares, introvert and extroverts, peacemakers and activists ... so long as there is respect, civility and productivity, because it's the "pulling" away from the center of gravity and institutional momentum that leads to exploring other great opportunities of venture successes that weren't originally founders' core product.
