• seth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    183
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    He owns a yacht. I’d be interested to hear of a single yacht owner who is a decent person. I’m not sure one exists.

    Edit: Thanks for the cool examples of decent people with yachts!

    • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Some people live on yachts and that’s their entire home. So like a 70,000£ yacht, then like 300£ a month in slip (berth) fees, including electric and whatnot. I strongly considered it. It’s roughly the same cost but better than caravan living, IMO.

      It’s a decent alternative to a landlocked home.

      But yeah, millionaires with yachts are a different thing.

      • seth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        That’s a good use case. I’d be interested to know more about the idiosyncrasies that come with that lifestyle, like if they go out to sea when a storm is expected, or just weather it out in the harbor.

        • psud@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          7 months ago

          They are almost always better in their dock, specifically boats optimised as condos are terrible at sea since open ocean is not in their design brief

          Perhaps they might be better up river as far as they can go

      • 768@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        39
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Noah would’ve been a genocide-complicit, doomsday cult prepper, similar to those who build private libertarian cities on the ocean or some planet as a climate adaptation strategy.

          • danc4498@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            Not sure if you read your history book (the Bible), but he only brought 2 of everything. Including mosquitoes, flies, tardigrades, etc. Everything else died.

            • letsgo@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              7 months ago

              Not sure if you read your history book (the Bible), but he brought seven pairs of clean animals and birds (Gen 7:2-3).

            • Ashyr@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Yeah, not sure if you’re intending to be combative, but not every Christian believes that flood narrative is literal historical account.

              I was just being a little silly.

      • Notyou@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Wasn’t he the one that banged his daughters? Idk there was a few of those types in the bible.

        • SlikPikker@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          Lot.

          And actually, to be “fair” to him, his daughters raped him.

          As written it’s not strictly his fault. Even if his parenting skills clearly lack.

          • brisk@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            As written the only person who could have communicated that story is Lot himself. Coming out of the desert with only your two daughters and two babies seems like it might be good motivation to embellish

      • seth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        That’s an excellent exception, and quite interesting. Thanks for the link!

      • The Bard in Green@lemmy.starlightkel.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        My cousin did this with her wife and they are very decent.

        The thing was a floating money pit though and was usually broken down and was sometimes uninhabitable because of various issues.

        Then the hull got damaged in a storm when waves banged it against the dock over and over again.

        Now they own a nice little house.

    • lad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      7 months ago

      My ex-teamlead owns a yacht (if he didn’t sell it). The catch is that yacht is worth about $40 thousands, not $4 millions.

      Also there was a person in USSR who built a yacht and circumnavigated the Earth on that, not everyone who do own a yach own that luxury slab of floating gold

        • lad@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          Somehow the response got lost 🤔

          It did float even though it was not new and not spacious. Then again, there are sail sport yachts that may be even cheaper but can’t be used as a home or to navigate an open water.

  • qyron@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    180
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Nestlé has been patenting human milk proteins for decades. To my understanding, this prevents other companies to add such molecules to baby formula, even if somehow methods to synthesize said molecules were developed.

    That is a scary notion, a malevolous intent and a gross outcome.

    • ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      67
      ·
      7 months ago

      These shouldn’t hold up. Wouldn’t the prior work of thousands of generations of mothers invalidate such a patent.

      • Darkard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        109
        ·
        7 months ago

        “Excuse me madam but do you have a license to use those tits? No? Didn’t think so. The content of those bazongas is Nestle property. I’m afraid I’m going to have to clamp those nipples until such time as the proper Bandonkadonk subscriptions are paid”

        • shinratdr@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          i got this new legal drama plot. basically there’s this patent infringer except she’s got huge boobs. i mean some serious honkers. a real set of badonkers. packin some dobonhonkeros. massive dohoonkabhankoloos. big ol’ tonhongerekoogers.

          what happens next?!

          lawyer shows up with even bigger bonkhonagahoogs. humongous hungolomghononoloughongous

        • zaphod@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          As long as the tits aren’t used for commercial purposes you don’t need a license. Anyway, I doubt that in Europe you could patent any naturally occuring molecules in any kind of milk.

          • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            7 months ago

            You can patent pretty much anything in Europe.

            However, enforcing those patents is a completely different affair.

            • zaphod@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Maybe some countries’ patent offices don’t take their job serious, but in general there are loads of things you can patent. For example basically anything naturally occuring is not generally patentable, but you can patent methods for synthesising or extracting naturally occuring things.

      • Capricorn_Geriatric@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        Imagine Nestle executives finding a time machine and going to all of history’s most famous persons’ mothers and telling them how they can’t breastfeed their kids.

        Someone should definitely write a book about that

  • moog@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    105
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    “…he sought funding from the private sector to start Celera Genomics. The company planned to profit from their work by creating genomic data to which users could subscribe for a fee.”

    Fuck this guy

    • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      7 months ago

      He also had a history of being screwed by people. The guy did a lot of good work, and arguably his attempt at patenting it was instrumental in preventing it from being patented. I don’t think that was his intention, but good came from it.

  • IzyaKatzmann [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    For folks that don’t know, Venter had a company, Celera, they competed with the Human Genome Project (HGP) run by the US Gov’t. They developed interesting techniques to sequence, I believe they are credited with shotgun sequencing.

    How were they able to compete?? The HGP published all their work openly, Venter and co used the freely accessible data alongside their own proprietary methods to try and sequence the human genome first themselves.

    If I recall correctly it was considered a tie and they both jointly published the first sequenced human genome in Science.

  • Sloogs@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Surely there has to be a cost to the infrastructure of publishing and curation though. And possibly all the work of setting up and organizing the peer review process. So they probably charge the institutions or authors submitting the paper instead of their readers. But perhaps we should treat scientific journals as a public good, like libraries, or at least have a publicly funded option. Or have universities and institutions fund it for the public good.

    • jol@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      7 months ago

      But it’s mostly a scam. The costs don’t remotely compare to the revenue. Reviewers time is not paid, and there’s a price to both publish and access. It’s all about the prestige to publish. If you contact the author directly they’ll typically gladly send you the article for free.

      • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 months ago

        Not to mention that system started about four centuries ago, long before the Internet was invented. I’d assume that back then, the costs and effort of operating a journal really did justify the prices they charged.

      • Sloogs@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Oh absolutely. I agree. I don’t think anyone’s disputing that something about it needs to change. Even given that things cost money to run, for profit journals that can basically act as gatekeepers means there’s also going to be excessive price gouging and profiteering and that needs to change.

        • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          The issue is partly that, over time, private entities are going to price gouge or take similar measures (see: “enshittification”) in order to keep growing as profit falls over time. That’s just how the profit motive works, it eventually optimizes everything for profit, not just what you are comfortable with having turned into a vehicle aimed solely at making money.

          So yes, this and many other important things should be treated as public goods.

  • pokemaster787@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    7 months ago

    What even is this argument?

    “Scientists who say they can’t afford to do X should do X”? Does he think this makes him sound smart?

      • Knusper@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Hmm, I have no expertise in this field. I recently read that aging happens, because when cells replicate their DNA a gazillion times, then sometimes they introduce slight inaccuracies or mistakes, which I guess, means tons of tiny chunks of our body will have slightly different DNA from what we got born with…?

        From the little I’ve just read about telomeres, it sounds like they help to prevent some of these mistakes. Is that you mean?

        • Sabre363@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          7 months ago

          IIRC, telomeres are essentially the self-destruct button for DNA. They get shorter everytime DNA replicates and when they are all used up, DNA stops replicating and the cell destroys itself. The telomeres help prevent too many mutations from building up or cancer from forming.

          They was some research on animals that indicates that resetting the telomeres can extend the lifespan of the animal. But, without the telomeres, cancer and mutations eventually kill the organism.

          • Knusper@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            Interesting. Yeah, it sounds like the only real way to prevent aging, would be to create a clone of yourself, let that clone grow up until their body is fully developed and then organ-harvest them to replace all of your organs one-by-one, until you’ve eventually ship-of-theseus-ed yourself. Well, and repeat that process every thirty years or so.

            Certainly not quite as sexy of a process as some skincare lotions promise…

            • Sabre363@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              You would never be able transplant the brain, and it’s still subject to the mutations and telomeres. The only way would be to transplant the personality Altered Carbon style or completely cure brain cancer.

              • Knusper@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                Yeah, that’s true. Maybe you could pull off two or three cycles without hotswapping the brain, but eventually you’d have to rejuvenate yourself by just teach everything you know to one of your clones.

                …which sounds an awful lot like just having children. 🙃

                • Sabre363@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  I wonder if it would be possible to transplant to transplant the brain in pieces over several cycles? That way the brain could eventually be replaced by dupli-babies. Memory might become problematic though.

  • jadelord@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Well, he does have a point though. #OpenAccess

    Footnote: Yeah, I saw that he had done some bad faith research, but remember open access is for everyone in the world, not just free rider corporate shills.

    Footnote 2: If it is not feasible to go for gold OA journals, please go for green route: publish in closed but allows authors to put it up on preprint like arXiv.

  • Sanyanov@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    As a person who just paid a fuckton of money to publish in open access (literally half an hour ago), that HURTS.

    Open Access is good, but first we have to abolish an entire publisher industry that lays insurmountable costs - either on readers or researchers themselves. Their work is not remotely worth that money. By making it a public good, we can cut down on so much unnecessary expenses.