Is there, by any chance, an alternative client?

Yes, but I didn’t write anything about buying. The comment I replied to was only about reading, which I thought may be excessive.

Is it wrong to enjoy art made by bad people? I think it’s a very complicated question and the answers will definitely have a lot of variation between people. What if it really is a good art? Or just enjoyable? Should everyone avoid it? People still listen music by Michael Jackson, for example, are they bad because of it?

My own approach is that qualities of what someone creates don’t need to be inseparably tied to the personality or views of the author. Everyone can enjoy what they like without the obligation to find out details of the author and adjust their preference based on that. It’s fine to make them aware of the problems, it’s not fine to make them feel bad because they like something that is not wrong on its own. If you dislike the author enough for it to spoil their works for you, good for you. I also feel this way about some authors. But don’t require it from other people.

That’s my take. I’m curious, what’s yours?

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.

But there are eukayotic parasites. They are even closer to us. This on its own is not an explanation.

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.

I’m afraid that you don’t quite see all the complexity involved. I’m not saying I see all of it, but I can see there is more to it than you think.

What about bacteria? Not only don’t they don’t often use sexual reproduction, so they don’t need a pair of parents to produce offsprings, but they exchange plasmids and therefore DNA with little regard for species.

Plants are a complete mess of genome duplication, aneuploidy and whatnot. In these aspects, they are sort of scary to me.

Also, what about formation of a new species? Do you think there is a clean-cut time when they stop producing offspring? Also, what exactly do you mean by fertile? Where do you get a partner to test if the offspring is fertile?

These are just a few problems that came to my mind right away. I’m sure there’s loads more. I’m afraid that the notion of well organised, easy to categorise world just doesn’t match the real world. Species are more or less a continuum. Incidentally, so is life. We have no good definition fornlife either. Just use whatever definition is useful at the moment and don’t forget to specify it when necessary.

Hasn’t Beal’s list been taken down quite a while ago? I remember making a copy of it before they removed it. It was a great source, but sometimes it needed some context. I think all of Frontiers in ended up on the list for reasons, but their review process was mostly alright, for example. It was this kind of lack of clearly definedrules and explanations that let them to taking the list down. Is it back up?

There is also undewater hockey. Two water hockeys to offset the lack of fire hockey?

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.

I read about such experiments some time ago. If I remember correctly, after being forced awake for some time, some people stopped being tired and had to be forced to sleep. I also believe there are individual differences, so while some people in the discussion describe their own interesting experience, keep in mind that others might react differently.

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.

Identification of species and their relatedness has not.been done on morphological, but rather molecular basis for quite some time. In molecular terms, they are slightly modified grey wolfs. BTW, dogs are all one species, all very similar even on molecular level, and yet look at their morphology…

It isn’t great when a doctor goes to fetch their colleague to have a look while examinig you. But of course that after all the same boring stuff, they are excited about something unusual. I heard about an ophthalmologist who, out of all her carreer, was most excited about solving someone’s issues by finding crabs in their eyebrows.

Also older than the rings of Saturn

That’s great. But I know a european patient who’s been taking it for well over a year for free from a local healthcare system, so how is it first?

Well, they were eaten as medicine for centuries. Not to mention as a paint and possibly for fires…

BTC? No way, that’s way too sane. It’s going to be DOGE.