And the income gap is caused in part by the education gap which is caused by the housing gap because schools are funded by property taxes.

There are a lot of systems that need to be fixed.

I will gladly listen to you ramble about your niche interest but only if it is somewhat similar to one of mine.

Another solution then: automatically download/cache a user’s most frequently played tracks. I know downloading is a premium feature or whatever but they should consider it if it would save them money.

They’re measuring how many people can pass through a fixed point in space in an hour, not how long it takes one person to get from point A to point B.

So not really time or energy, but quantity.

What’s not clear to me is whether these edits will be passed on to future generations of trees. I think that’s usually not the case with CRISPR, but this article is talking about “breeding”, so maybe it is the case here. The phrase “building a better forest” is particularly disturbing as well.

My concern here is basically that we don’t want to be replacing wild forests with genetically engineered monoculture. Replacing millions of years of evolution and biodiversity with 1 or 2 “optimal” genetic lines leaves the population vulnerable to things like disease and environmental changes. A diverse population is much more resilient against these dangers, since the differences in individuals may allow some to survive where others couldn’t.

So as long as the usage is limited to specific tree farms, it’s probably no worse than other modern agricultural practices. I just hope they don’t want to replace wild forests with CRISPR trees.