Meriasek
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 16, 2020
Ask Bob about Delta v requirements or specific impulse and you'll get nothing but blank stares. "It would have been solved by now if it weren't for the subhumans."
Careercow Robert Chipman / Bob / Moviebob / "Movieblob" - Middle-Aged Consoomer, CWC with a Thesaurus, Ardent Male Feminist and Superior Futurist, the Twice-Fired, the Mario-Worshipper, publicly dismantled by Hot Dog Girl, now a diabetic
- Thread starter Enriku
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2020
It's like he saw Elysium and thought that was possible to take it one step forward.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2017
You know... I remember reading some historical media articles and old science papers etc about how, back in the 70s, there was real concern over global cooling.
You know what was seriously proposed as a possible solution?? Finding ways to pump EXTRA co2 into the atmosphere.
Now, I already know what a lot of replies are going to be but let's see how many read my actual point here: Let us grant that all the doomsayers about human influenced climate are 100% correct. Imagine then, if back in the 70s, people had listened to the CO2 idea. Just imagine for a moment, if there had been a serious government effort to pump MORE co2 in to the air 40 years ago.
We would officially be way past screwed, right?
So maybe - just maybe - we want to pause a minute and consider "wait, what happens if we set things up to be a lot worse in the future?" Maybe any long term plans should have an "undo" contingency as part of them, just in case we fuck things up really, really bad?
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2018
The article being referenced
Yale scientists restore brain function of 32 dead pigs
The image of an undead brain coming back to live again is the stuff of science fiction. Not just any science fiction, specifically B-grade sci fi. What instantly springs to mind is the black-and-white horrors of films like Fiend Without a Face. Bad acting. Plastic monstrosities. Visible strings...
bigthink.com
Yale scientists restore cellular function in 32 dead pig brains
Researchers hope the technology will further our understanding of the brain, but lawmakers may not be ready for the ethical challenges.
KEVIN DICKINSON
17 April, 2019
Still from John Stephenson's 1999 rendition of Animal Farm.
The image of an undead brain coming back to live again is the stuff of science fiction. Not just any science fiction, specifically B-grade sci fi. What instantly springs to mind is the black-and-white horrors of films like Fiend Without a Face. Bad acting. Plastic monstrosities. Visible strings. And a spinal cord that, for some reason, is also a tentacle?
But like any good science fiction, it's only a matter of time before some manner of it seeps into our reality. This week's Nature published the findings of researchers who managed to restore function to pigs' brains that were clinically dead. At least, what we once thought of as dead.
What's dead may never die, it seems
The researchers did not hail from House Greyjoy — "What is dead may never die" — but came largely from the Yale School of Medicine. They connected 32 pig brains to a system called BrainEx. BrainEx is an artificial perfusion system — that is, a system that takes over the functions normally regulated by the organ. The pigs had been killed four hours earlier at a U.S. Department of Agriculture slaughterhouse; their brains completely removed from the skulls.
BrainEx pumped an experiment solution into the brain that essentially mimic blood flow. It brought oxygen and nutrients to the tissues, giving brain cells the resources to begin many normal functions. The cells began consuming and metabolizing sugars. The brains' immune systems kicked in. Neuron samples could carry an electrical signal. Some brain cells even responded to drugs.
The researchers have managed to keep some brains alive for up to 36 hours, and currently do not know if BrainEx can have sustained the brains longer. "It is conceivable we are just preventing the inevitable, and the brain won't be able to recover," said Nenad Sestan, Yale neuroscientist and the lead researcher.
As a control, other brains received either a fake solution or no solution at all. None revived brain activity and deteriorated as normal.
The researchers hope the technology can enhance our ability to study the brain and its cellular functions. One of the main avenues of such studies would be brain disorders and diseases. This could point the way to developing new of treatments for the likes of brain injuries, Alzheimer's, Huntington's, and neurodegenerative conditions.
"This is an extraordinary and very promising breakthrough for neuroscience. It immediately offers a much better model for studying the human brain, which is extraordinarily important, given the vast amount of human suffering from diseases of the mind [and] brain," Nita Farahany, the bioethicists at the Duke University School of Law who wrote the study's commentary, told National Geographic.
An ethical gray matter
Before anyone gets an Island of Dr. Moreau vibe, it's worth noting that the brains did not approach neural activity anywhere near consciousness.
The BrainEx solution contained chemicals that prevented neurons from firing. To be extra cautious, the researchers also monitored the brains for any such activity and were prepared to administer an anesthetic should they have seen signs of consciousness.
Even so, the research signals a massive debate to come regarding medical ethics and our definition of death.
Most countries define death, clinically speaking, as the irreversible loss of brain or circulatory function. This definition was already at odds with some folk- and value-centric understandings, but where do we go if it becomes possible to reverse clinical death with artificial perfusion?
"This is wild," Jonathan Moreno, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, told the New York Times. "If ever there was an issue that merited big public deliberation on the ethics of science and medicine, this is one."
One possible consequence involves organ donations. Some European countries require emergency responders to use a process that preserves organs when they cannot resuscitate a person. They continue to pump blood throughout the body, but use a "thoracic aortic occlusion balloon" to prevent that blood from reaching the brain.
The system is already controversial because it raises concerns about what caused the patient's death. But what happens when brain death becomes readily reversible? Stuart Younger, a bioethicist at Case Western Reserve University, told Nature that if BrainEx were to become widely available, it could shrink the pool of eligible donors.
"There's a potential conflict here between the interests of potential donors — who might not even be donors — and people who are waiting for organs," he said.
It will be a while before such experiments go anywhere near human subjects. A more immediate ethical question relates to how such experiments harm animal subjects.
Ethical review boards evaluate research protocols and can reject any that causes undue pain, suffering, or distress. Since dead animals feel no pain, suffer no trauma, they are typically approved as subjects. But how do such boards make a judgement regarding the suffering of a "cellularly active" brain? The distress of a partially alive brain?
The dilemma is unprecedented.
Setting new boundaries
Another science fiction story that comes to mind when discussing this story is, of course, Frankenstein. As Farahany told National Geographic: "It is definitely has [sic] a good science-fiction element to it, and it is restoring cellular function where we previously thought impossible. But to have Frankenstein, you need some degree of consciousness, some 'there' there. [The researchers] did not recover any form of consciousness in this study, and it is still unclear if we ever could. But we are one step closer to that possibility."
She's right. The researchers undertook their research for the betterment of humanity, and we may one day reap some unimaginable medical benefits from it. The ethical questions, however, remain as unsettling as the stories they remind us of.
Researchers hope the technology will further our understanding of the brain, but lawmakers may not be ready for the ethical challenges.
KEVIN DICKINSON
17 April, 2019
Still from John Stephenson's 1999 rendition of Animal Farm.
- Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine successfully restored some functions to pig brains that had been dead for hours.
- They hope the technology will advance our understanding of the brain, potentially developing new treatments for debilitating diseases and disorders.
- The research raises many ethical questions and puts to the test our current understanding of death.
The image of an undead brain coming back to live again is the stuff of science fiction. Not just any science fiction, specifically B-grade sci fi. What instantly springs to mind is the black-and-white horrors of films like Fiend Without a Face. Bad acting. Plastic monstrosities. Visible strings. And a spinal cord that, for some reason, is also a tentacle?
But like any good science fiction, it's only a matter of time before some manner of it seeps into our reality. This week's Nature published the findings of researchers who managed to restore function to pigs' brains that were clinically dead. At least, what we once thought of as dead.
What's dead may never die, it seems
The researchers did not hail from House Greyjoy — "What is dead may never die" — but came largely from the Yale School of Medicine. They connected 32 pig brains to a system called BrainEx. BrainEx is an artificial perfusion system — that is, a system that takes over the functions normally regulated by the organ. The pigs had been killed four hours earlier at a U.S. Department of Agriculture slaughterhouse; their brains completely removed from the skulls.
BrainEx pumped an experiment solution into the brain that essentially mimic blood flow. It brought oxygen and nutrients to the tissues, giving brain cells the resources to begin many normal functions. The cells began consuming and metabolizing sugars. The brains' immune systems kicked in. Neuron samples could carry an electrical signal. Some brain cells even responded to drugs.
The researchers have managed to keep some brains alive for up to 36 hours, and currently do not know if BrainEx can have sustained the brains longer. "It is conceivable we are just preventing the inevitable, and the brain won't be able to recover," said Nenad Sestan, Yale neuroscientist and the lead researcher.
As a control, other brains received either a fake solution or no solution at all. None revived brain activity and deteriorated as normal.
The researchers hope the technology can enhance our ability to study the brain and its cellular functions. One of the main avenues of such studies would be brain disorders and diseases. This could point the way to developing new of treatments for the likes of brain injuries, Alzheimer's, Huntington's, and neurodegenerative conditions.
"This is an extraordinary and very promising breakthrough for neuroscience. It immediately offers a much better model for studying the human brain, which is extraordinarily important, given the vast amount of human suffering from diseases of the mind [and] brain," Nita Farahany, the bioethicists at the Duke University School of Law who wrote the study's commentary, told National Geographic.
An ethical gray matter
Before anyone gets an Island of Dr. Moreau vibe, it's worth noting that the brains did not approach neural activity anywhere near consciousness.
The BrainEx solution contained chemicals that prevented neurons from firing. To be extra cautious, the researchers also monitored the brains for any such activity and were prepared to administer an anesthetic should they have seen signs of consciousness.
Even so, the research signals a massive debate to come regarding medical ethics and our definition of death.
Most countries define death, clinically speaking, as the irreversible loss of brain or circulatory function. This definition was already at odds with some folk- and value-centric understandings, but where do we go if it becomes possible to reverse clinical death with artificial perfusion?
"This is wild," Jonathan Moreno, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, told the New York Times. "If ever there was an issue that merited big public deliberation on the ethics of science and medicine, this is one."
One possible consequence involves organ donations. Some European countries require emergency responders to use a process that preserves organs when they cannot resuscitate a person. They continue to pump blood throughout the body, but use a "thoracic aortic occlusion balloon" to prevent that blood from reaching the brain.
The system is already controversial because it raises concerns about what caused the patient's death. But what happens when brain death becomes readily reversible? Stuart Younger, a bioethicist at Case Western Reserve University, told Nature that if BrainEx were to become widely available, it could shrink the pool of eligible donors.
"There's a potential conflict here between the interests of potential donors — who might not even be donors — and people who are waiting for organs," he said.
It will be a while before such experiments go anywhere near human subjects. A more immediate ethical question relates to how such experiments harm animal subjects.
Ethical review boards evaluate research protocols and can reject any that causes undue pain, suffering, or distress. Since dead animals feel no pain, suffer no trauma, they are typically approved as subjects. But how do such boards make a judgement regarding the suffering of a "cellularly active" brain? The distress of a partially alive brain?
The dilemma is unprecedented.
Setting new boundaries
Another science fiction story that comes to mind when discussing this story is, of course, Frankenstein. As Farahany told National Geographic: "It is definitely has [sic] a good science-fiction element to it, and it is restoring cellular function where we previously thought impossible. But to have Frankenstein, you need some degree of consciousness, some 'there' there. [The researchers] did not recover any form of consciousness in this study, and it is still unclear if we ever could. But we are one step closer to that possibility."
She's right. The researchers undertook their research for the betterment of humanity, and we may one day reap some unimaginable medical benefits from it. The ethical questions, however, remain as unsettling as the stories they remind us of.
Fun fact: You wanna know how you can tell no one read the damn article? Because this article was written on 17 April, 2019, meaning this isn't news in the slightest. This is just more I fucking love science type bullshit.
>See headline about reviving dead pig brains
>Don't read about how there's no function
>Takeaway that you'll soon have your own pig brain put in a jar!
Bob's face when
MarineN*423543
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2017
Dont forget the mario statues
Meriasek
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 16, 2020
Bob is practically a pig (uncultured swine at least), and his brain is mostly non-functional anyway. So to him it's immortality.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2019
The idea that Bob, a man who can only afford a basement in a Boston suburb, could afford a Manhattan 1 bedroom, even at a 10-20% discount is fucking hilarious.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2017
Funny, there are rumors deblasio is planning exactly that.
I wonder how much the homeless pay in taxes....
Wow, Bob, almost starting to get the basics of economics there...
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2017
Oh, Bob. Oh, Bob. Please. Please, please, PLEASE move to Manhattan. You will find the death spiral absolutely delightful, whether it's the collapsing restaurant industry that'll prevent you from stuffing your facehole, the scrofulus subway system that acted as a coof superspreader almost equal to Cuomo's nursing home policy, the boarded up stores where you won't be able to buy your plastic crap, or just the crime -- the soaring crime, the increasingly vicious crime. We just had some poor kid in The Bronx get stabbed then burned to death. Then there was the guy who got disemboweled one night because he looked at a crowd of ferals the wrong way. Or the old lady who got shoved to the ground and cracked her skull by a mental patient -- oh, we have so many mental patients wandering the streets! You'll fit in fine, no matter how garish your Mario shirt.
I'd give it six months before he moved back to Boston or wound up on a slab.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2019
Why do I have this mental image of Bobo getting his ass handed like that Fax machine from office space. Then he sitting in a therapist's office and just repeating "PC load letter" over and over while hugging a Mario Plushie and sucking on his big thumb?
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2019
As if Bob would ever move more than three miles away from his mommy. He only made the trip to Mexico because he got to go with her.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2020
You could put homeless people in there
Bob what if the government decided to put some homeless people in the house above you? Whoever you rent from moves out and that space is now open so Bawsten decides to put a few homeless guys in the house above you.
You okay with that, Bob?
I bet you will grip that pistol you supposedly have a little tighter after you barricade the basement door. Of course you will not be able to bring that pistol to Manhattan.
I am not saying all homeless people are violent criminals and drug addicts but a lot seem to be violent criminals and drug addicts.
Also the idea that he could even afford a studio at a 20% cut is laughable. He makes what nothing from YT?
So, $3,033 from Patreon(fucking seriously 1181 people support this knob?) So Patreon is taking between 5-12% right? Let us hit the middle and say 8% because Bob is a real Pro. Brings him down to what 2790ish?
If you are self-employed you should be holding at least 30% but being that Bob will be residing in NYC he will be paying NYC wage tax which adds more. I would say 40% would be a safe hold. That brings him down to 1674.
Take the 20% discount bringing rent spend to 1440ish if he did not drink or eat.
That allows Bob to live on the outskirts of Harlem(not where I would want to be these days) or the edge of Washington Heights where I know I would not want to be.
But...Bob does eat and drink...Gotta figure $50 a day to keep him that fat...That is 1500+ per month.
Wait...
Is Bob getting handouts from his family?
Does Bob have a job outside of angry Twitter ranting and bi-yearly Big Picture releases?
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2019
Like most lefties, Bob can’t work a calculator. He’s also led an extremely sheltered life and has not even a passing familiarity with life outside his basement. It’s not that deep.
RandomBattles
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2020
Not to mention that Yahtzee can talk fast and be understandable and likeable.
MarineN*423543
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2017
make sense, is not that dumb to have a tugboat, but wouldnt surprise me if he has one
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2019
He doesn’t have a tugboat. What’s interesting is that Chris got a free fucking house when his grandparents died. Did Bob get a cash lump sum for his lumpy ass? If so, he already blew through it all if (as he claims) he’s being hounded by bill collectors.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2014
The system is broken but not that broken. He's not eligible because he can work. He has a job right now. He can't plausibly claim to be too disabled to work unless something happens to him to make him disabled and he stops working. If he suddenly starts telling the government "Abloo bloo bloo, I'm so depressed (or whatever), I can't work anymore" they're going to be very skeptical. If he wants a tugboat at this stage, he needs to get in an accident or get committed to a mental hospital or attempt suicide or something and he needs a doctor backing him up.
MarineN*423543
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2017
or a dad with connections
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2014
Bob's dad is dead so that's not going to happen either.
Laughingjoke2
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2019
Out of all Nazis Blobby reminds me most of Ernst Rohm a fat faggot even the Nazis wanted dead.
- Status