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.

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.

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

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

Nobody really thinks singularities exist. It’s only what comes out from our math. That’s also how we know our math is wrong, we’re just not sure yet how to do it better.

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

Oh no, not Jet! If you really can’t live with just Viridis and insist on some kind of spectrum, at least use Turbo, please.

Cool, so far, I only heard about “dy”

I use Pocketbook. It opens just about anything - epub, mobi, pdf, pdb, and many more formats. Just get a book anywhere and copy it via USB. Or send it as an email attachment to your special address and it will download automatically. You can even replace the reading app with another relatively easily, if you want.

I realised I have a sort of explanatory image at hand.

It has a part that is embedded in a mitochondrial membrane and works as a rotor. The other part is sticking out from the membrane and is responsible for synthesis of ATP from ADP and phosphate. An off-axis part of the rotor pushes the stator, it changes shape and pushes ADP and phosphate together, until they fuse to ATP.

To make the rotor move, it makes use of membrane potential. One side of the membrane has a lot more H⁺ (just protons, really) than the other. The excess H⁺ want to go to the other side. The membrane doesn’t let them through. It is hydrophobic on the inside, so it does’t let through anything charged (like H⁺) or polar (like water). This is the potential and it has quite a lot of energy. ATP synthase lets the H⁺ through by binding them to the rotor in the membrane in a particular place and releases them in another in such a way that forces the rotor to turn almost a full turn before they can leave and stops it from rotating the other way. As mentioned, the rotation is transfered to the stator, changing its shape and thus creating ATP. As a side note, multiple H⁺ are bound on the rotor along its circumference, so each rotation is powered by the potential energy of multiple protons.

Of course, it’s a bit more complicated than that, but I don’t think there’s anything downright wrong or misleading in what I wrote. I hope I managed to make it understandable. Also, I recommend animations of the synthase on youtube.

Oh, thank you. I stopped reading when it started to talk about someone else 9 years later, I thought it would be some other controversy. I wish he crowdsourced the $150 though. I wonder how many citations it could have gotten…

And how did it end? Was it published? Did they get off the fucking mailing list? Wikipedia doesn’t say.

I think pokemon used to be an oncosuppressor gene, but since its mutations caused cancer, Pokemon owners threatened (or mayvbe even sued), until the name was changed.

I thought these were disproved by lack of gravitational microlensing?

I didn’t check the calculation, but I guess it assumes perfect conversion of motion to heat. But it’s good to know that if you can get a perfectly static chicken, you can hypersonic-slap it cooked.

Do they actually work? I don’t have actual experience, but I heard that they are only used by people who might benefit from them and thus the authors are automatically suspicious to the reviewer, plus you almost always cite your previous papers in a pretty obvious way, so it’s hardly blind anyway.

Cool, thanks for the info!

How does Plantnet fare in tropics?