bhauth
Looking first at figure S3, nothing stands out. The most important figures here are A, B, and G-I. G-I are showing the % of sequencing runs that gave an unexpected base at I-Ppol cut sites, I-Ppol alternative cut sites, and 100,000 randomly selected sites. There’s a little bit of variation in the ICE samples at canonical sites, but I consider this pretty convincing evidence that the ICE system is not particularly mutagenic.
You should reconsider that conclusion. Double-strand breaks cause an increase in mutation rate. This is a known fact.
The experiment design is weird and the supposed results contradict a lot of other things.
see also phonons
I previously wrote a post that answers this question.
You only need a majority of voters, who would then vote for local government that would negotiate a mutually-beneficial deal. Not every single person.
People can already build a single normal house on a normal lot well enough. The people who want to massively increase density want big apartment complexes built. Big projects.
residents made the areas valuable by doing things they’ve since disallowed
It’s not mainly the buildings that make an area valuable, it’s who lives there. If there’s a problem in how appreciation is distributed I’d say it’s that non-resident property owners capture some value that they don’t deserve to.
If developers need to compensate nearby property owners for negative externalities imposed on them, then who compensates the developer for the positive externalities they cause on properties the developer doesn’t own? Because if the answer is “no one” then this is a pure disincentive on development
...governments do? It’s common for big commercial/industrial projects to get big incentives from city and state governments.
Right now builders face an enormous number of veto points in any construction process someone once decided that this makes it possible to be used as an illegal apartment
People vote for ideological anti-development hardasses because other people kept getting bribed to look the other way while developers got special permission for an apartment next to your house, or because houses in the area got split by 10 guys.
If increasing density in a populated area has some costs to current residents but is worthwhile overall, it should be possible to pay off the existing residents to allow it. What I see instead is that developers consider that too expensive to make development profitable, but can bribe politicians/officials for less, and YIMBYs are useful patsies for this.
When I’ve mentioned this to YIMBY people, the response I’ve gotten was basically: “Those people in high-value suburban areas don’t deserve to live there the way they do.” But it’s the existing residents who made areas valuable.
the reward for playing the game is more game … It’s just the same thing over and over until you die. You don’t get out by winning; you get out by stopping.
What does this say about what it means for someone to be “qualified” for a position? What does it say about where you should expect to find the smartest people?
That has all been considered extensively before and this post isn’t a good place to discuss it. Prizes have been found to be generally worse than patents and research funding.
Right. “Having a nucleus” is a pretty big difference.
these multiplex CRISPR edits of wood trees to have a 229% yield increase for paper-making
It’s possible to use breeding techniques—and these days, you can do “molecular breeding”—to get a wide range of cellulose-lignin-xylose ratios. Anything outside the naturally existing range is going to be quite bad for plant growth/viability. Also, a 229% increase must have been from a particularly low baseline, much lower than anything currently used for making paper.
This is something I looked into a bit when I was pondering candidates for biomass → chemical conversion.
Note that the “bridge RNA” method doesn’t currently work in mammals. The team involved is trying to use AI to edit the enzyme involved so it does, but that might not be workable, due to differences in how DNA is packed and anti-virus defense systems.
What exactly is the difference that’s needed from current large cruise ships? Is it size per se? Independent production of food and fuel? Production of trade goods?
In general, things with a higher value per mass have less price variation across countries, because transport costs are less important, but less competition and price transparency, because they’re more specialized and lower-volume.
Maybe we should take a step back and consider what your higher-level goals are here. I’m not sure what they are. The possibilities that come to mind are:
build large stuff out of pykrete because it’s novel
build large stuff out of ice because it’s large
establish a community separate from existing governments (seasteading)
make more land so there’s more land overall
If you want to argue against the very existence of the patent system, you should make your own post for that. This isn’t the right place for that.
I think there’s some underlying misunderstanding of material science here. You have some fibers, OK, and they have some amount of net strength. Distributing them in ice or whatever at a really low concentration doesn’t increase the total amount of strength those fibers have. It’s not better than putting those fibers together with less filler, unless:
you specifically want only a little bit of extra tensile strength for a lot of material
you want to keep viscosity of a thermoplastic or resin sufficiently low during processing
you’re getting much better dispersion at lower loading
Adding sawdust to ice, you’re not going to get more additional strength per wood than just using good lumber or plywood.
something to be said for UHPC concrete megastructures if you can scale up and vertically integrate the manufacturing
it seems some people agreed with you about that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIQrGfV9oA8
Engineering toolbox lists it as 20-40 MPa
...do you think all concrete has the same strength? Here is a paper with “concrete” that has 800 MPa compressive.
So once it gets to say −40 Celsius it has a compressive strength of around 60 MPa
If you care about creep, ice at −20 C shouldn’t have >1 MPa on it.
Measured compressive strength of Pykrete was much lower. It took me 10 seconds to find this paper, there’s some data for you. 20 MPa with 14% sawdust, but creep would obviously happen at lower stress.
For 50 MPa concrete you basically need to add 1% of additives that are maybe $3500/ton.
For much higher strengths you start needing expensive stuff, eg silica fume.
No, but these tweets describe the basic concept: extension of AlphaZero to train on theorems in Lean automatically converted from natural-language proofs.