https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tg4UEwT4Hao

"here is the money I owe you, yeah so you can pay the bills."

Everclear has an unwitting ability to juxtapose sweet happy melodies with sad lyrics that is unparalleled imo.

"oooh I know we can never look back."

You DO realize that I'm looking forward to it so you absolutely have to show up?

Thankfully there are a lot of opportunities for gainful employment in pharmacy in the Phoenix metro. Can't wait to move 1600 miles to dump to a whole new crowd.

You graduate in the spring so you get to move to Phoenix in June?

I wish. We got a while to go, but I would definitely do internships in AZ if it were possible

Have you been to Phoenix? You should definitely visit first. In the middle of summer. (yeah, yeah, it's a dry heat, I know)

Collectively I've spent a couple years of my life in Arizona. Longest individual stint was 10 months taking care of my then 88yo+ grandparents.

Any predictions for tomorrow?

I think it's been long enough since an organic Nobel. I'm joining the C-H activation bandwagon, but concede that Crispr may be too big to ignore.

Tomorrow (Tuesday) is physics, Wednesday is chemistry. Here are a couple of websites that predict the winners:

https://clarivate.com/2017-citation-laureates/
https://www.wired.com/2013/09/predic...-nobel-prizes/

I'm kinda surprised not to see the LIGO guys on this list, that experiment is a real tour de force. Maybe it's too early, they want to see a few more gravity wave detections before committing?

I remember regularly going to this Tower Records (3:04) on Sunset Blvd. I guess the sun always sets, no matter the day.

The Wired article is from 2013 and is probably out of date. Click chemistry is useful but not sexy, I would be surprised if that ever got the nod. The Clarivate article is based on citations, I think they got the right answer using the wrong metrics.

I think things like LIGO suffer because each subsequent event, although adding to the statistical certainty, becomes less important. If they don't award it soon it may be difficult to justify a contribution in the past year.

Crispr and C-H activation (and the Heck/Suzuki/Negishi prize from a few years ago) suffer from a similar but opposite fate, by the time it's clearly a game changer there are so many people using it that it's difficult not to award it to 20 people.

Sorry about that out of date article. But at least I got LIGO right. Since I'm on a heater, I'll take a shot at Chemistry here and go with Crispr. My logic is that I know a little bit about Crispr from popsci articles, whereas I know zero about C-H activation.

If I were a gambling man, I'd say on merits alone Crispr is a heavy favorite over C-H activation. Even nanotubes is probably favored.

But because the definition of chemistry is so broad, they usually try to hit each subdiscipline every so often, and it's high time for a non-biology, non-materials, good old fashioned organic chemistry Prize.

CRISPR is just ridiculous

HUMANS HAVE GONE TOO FAR

Just kidding I throw my vote that way though.

"so an infection not a phase" - Layne Staley.

"flying high again" - Ozzy

check engine light came on today, but then it turned off a few hours later.

----

rip musical heroes.

----

can't play cards cus my brain is on fiya
swear it man, ****'s burnin like a tiya
can't cut it out and I think it's gonna pop
so I went to the doc and Leo said "let's make it stop."

JkJK was some lady. Urgent care place, mighty shady.
so I wrote this rhyme for you, all the best to 2+2, Aaron Double youuuuu? Yeah even you.

(bass drop for dramatic effect)

so now I got some horse pills yeah, aint no whiskey in my stills whaaah
But I'ma keep it on, till the day I'm gon.......

(pop)

In all seriousness I think it's worth discussing whether that's actually true. You just know there's some ******* in North Korea (or similar country with high technological capability and zero moral/ethical standards) that's currently using Crispr to engineer a superhuman. American and European and Japanese scientists were like HOLY **** WE CAN CURE GENETIC DISEASES and some dickhead is like HOLY **** I CAN CREATE GENETIC DISEASES and is going to ruin it for everyone.

In my not expert opinion, here are 3 technologies that we as humans lack the ethical means to deal with and we may see real consequences from screwing up.

• Gene editing
• Nano technology
• AI

You want to make children more... or mine/theirs?



Maybe our one hope is that single genes don't control most thing so it takes a long time to figure out how to get effective results?

I doubt NK has the proper technology at this point but it's probably not hard to get there. Internet can teach you a lot of 'tings mon!

Like how to be a mad scientist with the ability to modify a human's genetics. Really a ****ing scary thought- think about how much trial and error is gonna be necessary to truly understand how some gene expressions will be affected by ****ing with the basics.

Biomolecule visualization eh

FYP

I think my hope is more that scientific ethics moves faster and less that science moves slower.

Humans are inherently social creatures and society has a really strong influence on science on a philosophical level. That we've set up a society where the ratio of non-military scientists to military scientists is a good thing. It sets expectations that science is for the benefit of humankind, rather than the political dominance of a single nation. And we saw this in the Cold War days where Western scientists consorted with the dirty commie scientists. It's a lot easier to cooperate when the goal is flying a machine 4 billion miles to see if there's water on Titan.

The problem is that there are these fringe scientists, isolated from the world community, who learn the scientific techniques but don't get to participate in anything bigger than pleasing their military superiors (or acquiring money). We can't undiscover CRISPR or the atomic bomb, but we can have robust public discussion about the ethical implications of science so that at least our scientists grow up with a solid ethical foundation.

As an example, I'm neither entirely for nor entirely against the W-era ban on stem cell research. I think it's very good to openly question at what point "these embryos will go to waste" turns into "we can make extra embryos since they will be put to good use." It was a disaster that one political party was oblivious about the potential benefit of multipotency, and the other refused to consider the difference between multipotency and pluripotency. It was a conversation that could have been precedent-setting (and used for the Crispr debate) but was ultimately derailed by scientific illiteracy and partisanship.

/rant

lol reminds me of the South Park episode with the mad scientist who was making animals with extra buttocks.

Serious question: insert something about sociopathy and something else about being a clone either being aware that you're a clone or not and finish with a question mark?

Yes I realize that's very abstract but I'm curious about how the necessary realization that religion shouldn't matter to the functionality of a clones personality. Could one function in society? Depends on who you clone I suppose.

I think they should give the Nobel to whomever perfects the monkey with 5 asses.

For example, I was raised catholic , then turned Tao, then I decided that I needed to allow myself to believe in Jesus. Without that permission, I couldn't function spiritually. I would think that a clone would have feelings that no naturally produced human ever has.

It's difficult to assess just based off the knowledge that no one has ever been able to copy or program a brain.