The following submission statement was provided by /u/LiveScience_:

Submission Statement -

>For the first time, scientists generated stem cells from bats that can give rise to any type of cell found in the animals' fuzzy bodies. These cells, the researchers say, may help explain how bats can carry so many viruses that are lethal to humans but cause the flying mammals no harm.
>
>...the newly generated bat stem cells are very exciting in that they offer scientists new opportunities to study basic bat biology and the animals' odd relationship with viruses.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11ats76/in_a_1st_scientists_grow_stem_cells_that_could/j9txow6/

Sounds like a pressure group and public shaming needs to start, especially because leaks can be externally and independently verified by satellite.

This is ridiculous. Starship is too complex and expensive a system to ever do what is contemplated, if it ever even works, which I doubt (see Soviet N1 history). Sad we have a media that consists of clickbait shills.

Tesla was there first but the legacy carmakers are catching up quickly. They're like Netflix - huge stock valuation based on the idea that being the first big disrupter matters when the barriers to entry aren't that high.

There's nothing special about Tesla when Hyundai and Volkswagen are already making electric cars that are as good or better and others are not far behind. These companies already have the capacity, the engineering staff, etc. and they aren't run by sociopath dude bros. Tesla's real value is a fifth of its current market cap at best and most of that is the energy side. That's why I expect them to eventually sell the vehicle side to the Chinese.

Submission Statement

This looks like a much more palatable way to do brain-computer interfaces than the radical surgery techniques some like Neuralink have suggested.

It's interesting to wonder how quickly this might be commercialized. As the article points out, there are many companies around the world trying (with various degrees of success) to bring human-body/electronic interfaces to market, especially for the control of prosthetic limbs.

Yeah it’d be valuable to have an archive of first hand perspectives for future historians, or just regular people interested in researching their family trees. If people aren’t talking to you it doesn’t matter, because it’s not you and it’s not conscious and bored or lonely. There’s no really downside other than cost really

The good thing is that we are seeing some response to years of campaigning e.g. less soldered RAM for example.

Which company are you leasing with and did you also buy management with hardware monitoring?

Not in Europe.

No, if you lease computers when on fails you get a same or next day swap out.

But that would be an argument for making sound recordings of people while they are alive, not so much for trying to create an AI version of them complete with deep fake voice capabilities.

> safety is a really stupid thing to complain about

I'm not complaining, I am explaining why things change over time, and why old things become obsolete, and not due to a conspiracy by company employees.

For example - current thinking is that anytime you hit your head while wearing a safety helmet (e.g. from a bike or motorbike) you should replace the helmet, as it's designed to collapse and withstand only one blow.

Is that a conspiracy or due to increased safety expectations?

[deleted]

I think that's irrelevant. Your industry sets those standards, and safety is a really stupid thing to complain about.

Although, I will say that all that is again caused by unrealistic expectations of growth. Liability is a force that has to be overcome, but it is every time.

I would love a phone like that, but I'm not paying $650 for a fucking phone lol. That's absurd. If a phone is over $200, I'm not interested.

It's quite easy. They have functional lists with 100 points marked. You have to agree to it at time of purchase.

Hahaha!! Humans are so self important... give me a break... In the grand scheme of things, it does not really matter, what matters is we live for the moment, to the fullest in peace and harmony with environment and others.

Define "working"

Think of every sneaky slimy way that could be misused.

Your car's head gasket is mixing coolant and oil like a toxic vinaigrette, but the radio still plays music and the brake is holding the car firmly.

Also, your 200 feet past your oil change, so your contract is void.

One: that’s what insurance is for.

Two: Upgradability assumes I’m talking about something that is still in development, not a mature technology.

Three: that’s recyclability which is a different attribute.

That episode was ROUGH.

Not in Europe, here you have to prove it's not user damaged but you can't open it first. With the lease and insurance model it might still end up as "user-damaged".

Not really because when the product fails the responsibility changes from the user proving it's not user damaged to the company proving it's still working to get next payment.

It has a place, many people’s phones are part of a subscription service, it’s quite common for cars and leased fleets of laptops in large organisations.

In warranties the burden of proof is on them by law, at least in the US. That doesn't stop companies from doing shady shit like this mate.

The model you propose seems to be the same as leases. Where you can lease a new phone with a mandatory insurance, the insurance replacement.

That’s just a product as a service model and already exists.