They don't feed algae to the synthetic meat cells.
The question is whether it's worth the cost and whether the blood is actually relevant for flavor development (it isn't).
No, it's relevant for the growth of the meat cells. They need all the proper nutrients. Also, these nutrients are then transformed to the nutrients in the final meat product. For instance, vitamin B12 in meat is required to make the cells grow (it's a vital part of their energy system). The muscle/fat cells don't make B12 themselves, it comes from the blood and is actually made by intestinal bacteria. When we eat the meat, we ingest that B12 again. If you grow meat in a petri dish, you need to add that B12 (there is no B12 in algae, for instance). That's just one example. Real blood contains many other nutrients as well that are necessary for the cells to grow.
The main issue with synthetic meat at the moment is texture
For you maybe. I care more about the nutritional value.
They don't need to think. They just need to drive. In fact, we don't want them to think like humans,because we don't want them to make our mistakes.
we won't have that until we figure out how our brains do that
Nope. We just need to see what mistakes they make, and then come up with a fix. Just fix one mistake at a time, and keep doing that until it's good enough.
The technology is improving every day, and while they'll have problem with some difficult corner cases, they'll make up for that with much better performance in other situations, like not getting distracted by a phone call or a dropped cigarette lighter.
It's only a matter of time before the overall accident rate is lower than human drivers.
Oh? Have there been some recent famines that I managed to miss?
No, you forgot to fast forward to the future. When I said "support", I meant it in a sustainable way. As long as we're taking more fossil fuels out of the ground than we're putting in, we're not doing it in a sustainable way. Same goes for fossil aquifers, topsoil, and phosphates to name a few of the many things we're depleting.
Well, to be fair we cannot duplicate it now but that isn't evidence that we never could do so.
The important part is to realize that the industry has no incentive. Look at baby formula. Everybody is apparently happy with current product, even though something simple as fatty acid profile from breast milk isn't duplicated. Instead, industry uses cheapest oils they can find to meet minimum standards.
I agree, maybe with billions of investment, we can make an expensive duplication of real blood. In practice, they'll make something that's as cheap as possible that does the job well enough that people aren't dying too soon after they eat it. Preferably addictive.
Synthetic meat is just silly. You have a bunch of muscle cells, and you feed them nutrients that they can live and grow on, and then you eat those cells. Why not skip all of that, and just eat the same nutrients yourself ?
Real meat makes sense, because the muscle cells get fed real cow's blood, with immense complexity of nutrients that we cannot duplicate.
Pretty easy answer. Apply the brake. If there's a safe and legal way to swerve around the obstacle, do that, otherwise just stay in the lane and keep braking.
Of course, realistically speaking, the chance of suddenly encountering a stalled car, a group of people, and a cliff on the freeway is pretty slim. The lidar/radar systems would have seen the obstacles much earlier.
Slashdot Mirror
The data wasn't created by anyone, it's just raw data representing something that happened.
So if I strap a GoPro to my helmet and I bike around the world, I have no copyright on the video ?
If they ever get to a point where they need money to keep the lights on, I'm sure Amazon will chip in.
No we're good. Look at Boston Dynamics company policy statement. It says it right there: "Don't be evil".
And we evolved into omnivores mostly because gathering plants and fruits was easier, safer, more reliable, and a more dependable source of food
Try gathering plants (let alone fruits) in the northern latitudes.
So it doesn't exist in a practical sense. Also it requires fetal blood to grow, which we only have available because people eat regular meat.
1) humans have difficulty digesting algae
They don't feed algae to the synthetic meat cells.
The question is whether it's worth the cost and whether the blood is actually relevant for flavor development (it isn't).
No, it's relevant for the growth of the meat cells. They need all the proper nutrients. Also, these nutrients are then transformed to the nutrients in the final meat product. For instance, vitamin B12 in meat is required to make the cells grow (it's a vital part of their energy system). The muscle/fat cells don't make B12 themselves, it comes from the blood and is actually made by intestinal bacteria. When we eat the meat, we ingest that B12 again. If you grow meat in a petri dish, you need to add that B12 (there is no B12 in algae, for instance). That's just one example. Real blood contains many other nutrients as well that are necessary for the cells to grow.
The main issue with synthetic meat at the moment is texture
For you maybe. I care more about the nutritional value.
Why don't we crack down on people watching sports on TV ?
They don't need to think. They just need to drive. In fact, we don't want them to think like humans,because we don't want them to make our mistakes.
we won't have that until we figure out how our brains do that
Nope. We just need to see what mistakes they make, and then come up with a fix. Just fix one mistake at a time, and keep doing that until it's good enough.
The technology is improving every day, and while they'll have problem with some difficult corner cases, they'll make up for that with much better performance in other situations, like not getting distracted by a phone call or a dropped cigarette lighter.
It's only a matter of time before the overall accident rate is lower than human drivers.
Ahh, but methane is a MUCH more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
That has already been discounted in their numbers (look at the numbers in the column called "radiative forcing")
Oh? Have there been some recent famines that I managed to miss?
No, you forgot to fast forward to the future. When I said "support", I meant it in a sustainable way. As long as we're taking more fossil fuels out of the ground than we're putting in, we're not doing it in a sustainable way. Same goes for fossil aquifers, topsoil, and phosphates to name a few of the many things we're depleting.
Ok, in that case: there's actually very little evidence of causal effect between lack of fiber and bowel cancer.
What's wrong with synthetic meat?
It doesn't exist yet.
Well, to be fair we cannot duplicate it now but that isn't evidence that we never could do so.
The important part is to realize that the industry has no incentive. Look at baby formula. Everybody is apparently happy with current product, even though something simple as fatty acid profile from breast milk isn't duplicated. Instead, industry uses cheapest oils they can find to meet minimum standards.
I agree, maybe with billions of investment, we can make an expensive duplication of real blood. In practice, they'll make something that's as cheap as possible that does the job well enough that people aren't dying too soon after they eat it. Preferably addictive.
Did they also assume that the 10B would be living in the same kind of house as the typical American/Brit, and drive their SUVs to work ?
According to IPCC, CO2 contributes 3.5 times as much as methane. And only part of the methane comes from cow farts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The ground beef industry uses the waste products from the fancy cuts of beef industry. It's an almost free product.
The earth could easily support ten times current population if people stopped eating meat.
Total bullshit. Meat makes up a small percentage of all the resources we use up.
Even without meat, we can't even support current population.
There's actually very little evidence of a causal effect between fiber and bowel cancer.
Also, don't have pets. A lot of meat is grown specifically for pet food.
And don't eat too much. Eating more than you need is a total waste of resources.
Synthetic meat is just silly. You have a bunch of muscle cells, and you feed them nutrients that they can live and grow on, and then you eat those cells. Why not skip all of that, and just eat the same nutrients yourself ?
Real meat makes sense, because the muscle cells get fed real cow's blood, with immense complexity of nutrients that we cannot duplicate.
It's not really fair to add up the miles of all humans, when they are all independent.
By the way, did you know that me and Usain Bolt together have won 8 olympic gold medals ?
Pretty easy answer. Apply the brake. If there's a safe and legal way to swerve around the obstacle, do that, otherwise just stay in the lane and keep braking.
Of course, realistically speaking, the chance of suddenly encountering a stalled car, a group of people, and a cliff on the freeway is pretty slim. The lidar/radar systems would have seen the obstacles much earlier.
You can argue that Waymo and Tesla's goals are different, but which one has driven more miles is not up for debate.
Depends on what you mean by "driving". The Tesla system is a glorified passenger.
No, I said "small changes to the environment".