Like go through IVF so that their children don't have to.
masterspace
joined 2 years ago
The fact it is so prevalent in the gene pool suggests there may be some benefit we are unaware of. Further study is needed.
No it doesn't. That's not how evolution works. It is not perfect, it does not march towards good, it rolls random die and sees if that leads to having kids or not. If you get old enough to have kids and have them procreate it very much stops caring.
Edit: and it doesn't 'cause', it puts you 'at risk for'.
And I said that the mutation causes massive increases in the rate of breast cancer. Which it does. Read more carefully if you're going to try to be pedantic.
That is what the gene does, the mutation does the opposite and causes massively increased rates of breast and ovarian cancer.
Yes, congratulations. Can you name a benefit of having the BRCA mutation?
If you had it, and you gave it to your daughter, how would you tell them that they have cancer because you thought the idea of using IVF to select against it was icky?
It's already starting to happen and it's not this crazy mass casualty event you make it out to be.
People regularly do IVF and screen out embryos that have inherited horrific genetic diseases, or say, genes that they know make out highly susceptible to cancer.
It doesn't mean it will inherently lead to a slippery slope. This article is literally about how the UK needs to update its laws to prevent people from getting IVF done there but getting the genetic analysis done elsewhere and then ranking their options based on that to avoid the UKs current laws that would prevent a UK clinic from ranking them like that.
This is asinine. Diversity is a strength, that doesn't mean that horrific genetic diseases that cause enormous pain and suffering are.
You say "marketing person" or "marketing quote" as if that means nothing - reporting factual information from them is standard practice in all news. Maybe there should be literally nothing posted by any news website in the world then?
Bruh, do all the news sources you read just repost marketing statements? I don't think you realize what an own-goal that statement is.
Journalism involves reporting on true information, including determining whether or not information is true, or likely to be true, it's not just reposting corporate fluff.
In fact, why even post reviews? Obviously nobody wants marketing fluff like "phone has 12GB RAM", those damn capitalist corporations are faking that too, there's only one person in this world who's woke enough to understand that. These idiots should realise that [phone 2025] is obviously going to be better than [phone 2024]. Maybe those scrubs should realise that before writing a sham of an article.
Here's a fun fact for you: there's a fundamental difference between reposting a claim someone else made, and evaluating and testing something and making your own claim about it.
So it does quote someone who's quote you are going to ignore because you don't like it. Genius, absolutely genius.
No, I'm ignoring it because the author of the piece is trying to get engineering, manufacturing, and costing information about multiple different products from multiple different brands, based on an off hand comment made by a marketing person from one of them about one of their products.
Yes because the author is obligated to report this when writing the article by going undercover as a Chinese defector, working up from the factories, becoming CEO of China and then finally putting this information out to public. Who would have thought becoming an Android news reporter requires such sacrifice. No wonder no one wants to work in this field.
Maybe "Android News Reporter" isn't a job that attracts the best and brightest from journalism school.
It has information on THREE brands with three different technologies attempting to make a change, with information about multiple variables about why they think they can replace Corning. I didn't realise the author had to create a new Wikipedia before putting this out. Maybe he should've started a GoFundMe?
No, it has "information" that three brands are sometimes not using Gorilla Glass in some of their phones, it then has a marketing fluff quote from one of them.
Lmfao bro,
article CLEARLY states and in house glasses are SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive than Gorilla Glass for some manufacturers.
no man, it does not. It quotes a single Chinese manufacturer's spokesperson who said that off hand about a single type of screen. It has no information on whether or not that's actually true for Honor, it has no information about whether or not that would be true if they produced their screens at the same scale as Corning or whether they expect production to get cheaper, and it doesn't mention anything about literally any of the other brands or any of the the other in-house screen technologies in use.
This is a nothing article with no real substantive information or answer to the question.
The answer is undoubtedly 1. cost, and/or 2. trade war.
-
As the article notes, Gorilla Glass is expensive, companies would rather not pay for it and use older versions in cheaper phones, quite frankly this is a plausible enough of a reason to not even bother writing the "article".
-
If the author had wanted to spend another minute thinking about it before posting, they might've realized that Corning is an American company, and Chinese smartphone makers might be hedging their bets and investing in in-house / in-country alternatives in case they get cut off by the petulant child of a country that is America.
You're literally just describing this meme.
When you don't know shit you think it should be simpler, when you slightly understand it then you end up using technical terms because you know those terms apply and aren't confident enough to replace them, and then once you know enough you get confident just describing everything as bags within bags.