Breaking Them Up
I'm sorry, the opener alone is fucking weird. You don't get to show both of your parents, show their intimate life details, and then show a kid who looks nothing like either of them like that's somehow a valid reason for this movie.
Breaking Them Up
Though breaking up a couple is a dangerous endeavor, if you think you really belong with a person who is in a relationship with someone else, then it's worth giving it a shot. To break up a couple, you have to proceed with caution by first planting the seeds of doubt before making the break-up inevitable. If you want to know how to do it, just follow these steps.
Invite friends or family over to help break them in. Put on your favorite tunes, rock, repeat and thebefore you know it the break-in period will be over and your speakers will be performing at theirmaximum potential.
"Every act of creation," Picasso famously noted, "is first an act of destruction." googletag.cmd.push(function() googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1449240174198-2'); ); Taking this concept literally, researchers in Canada have now discovered that "breaking" molecular nanomachines basic to life can create new ones that work even better.Their findings are published today in Nature Chemistry.Evolved over millions of yearsLife on Earth is made possible by tens of thousands of nanomachines that have evolved over millions of years. Often made of proteins or nucleic acids, they typically contain thousands of atoms and are less than 10,000 times the size of a human hair."These nanomachines control all molecular activities in our body, and problems with their regulation or structure are at the origin of most human diseases," said the new study's principal investigator Alexis Vallée-Bélisle, a chemistry professor at Université de Montréal.Studying the way these nanomachines are built, Vallée-Bélisle, holder of the Canada Research Chair in Bioengineering and Bio-Nanotechnology, noticed that while some are made using a single component or part (often long biopolymers), others use several components that spontaneously assemble."Since most of my students spend their lives creating nanomachines, we started to wonder if it is more beneficial to create them using one or more self-assembling molecular components," said Vallée-Bélisle. Graphical abstract. Credit: Nature Chemistry (2023). DOI: 10.1038/s41557-022-01127-4 A 'destructive' ideaTo explore this question, his doctoral student Dominic Lauzon, had the "destructive" idea of breaking up some nanomachines to see if they could be reassembled. To do so, he made artificial DNA-based nanomachines that could be "destroyed" by breaking them up."DNA is a remarkable molecule that offers simple, programmable and easy-to-use chemistry," said Lauzon, the study's first author. "We believed that DNA-based nanomachines could help answer fundamental questions about the creation and evolution of natural and human-made nanomachines."Lauzon and Vallée-Bélisle spent years performing the experimental validations. They were able to demonstrate that nanomachines could easily withstand fragmentation, but more importantly, that such a destructive event allowed for the creation of various novel functionalities, including different sensitivity levels towards variation in component concentration, temperature and mutations.What the researchers found is that these functionalities could arise simply by controlling the concentration of each individual component. For example, when cutting a nanomachine in three components, nanomachines were found to activate more sensitively at high concentration of components. In contrast, at low concentration of components, nanomachines could be programmed to activate or deactivate at specific moment in time or to simply inhibit their function."Overall, these novel functionalities were created by simply cutting up, or destroying, the structure of an existing nanomachine," said Lauzon. "These functionalities could drastically improve human-based nanotechnologies such as sensors, drug carriers and even molecular computers." (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle ).push(); Evolving new functionalitiesJust as Picasso typically destroyed dozens of unfinished works to create his famous artworks, and just like muscles need to break down to get stronger, and innovative new companies are born by eliminating older competitors from the market, nanoscale machines can evolve new functionalities by being taken apart.Unlike common machines like cell phones, televisions and cars, which are made by combining components using screws and bolts, glue, solder or electronics, "nanomachines rely on thousands of weak dynamic intermolecular forces that can spontaneously reform, enabling broken nanomachines to re-assemble," said Vallée-Bélisle.In addition to providing nanotechnology researchers with a simple design strategy to create the next generation of nanomachines, the UdeM team's findings also shed light on how natural molecular nanomachines may have evolved."Biologists have recently discovered that about 20 percent of biological nanomachines may have evolved through the fragmentation of their genes," said Vallée-Bélisle. "With our results, biologists now have a rational basis for understanding how the fragmentation of these ancestral proteins could have created new molecular functionalities for life on Earth." More information:Alexis Vallée-Bélisle, Functional advantages of building nanosystems using multiple molecular components, Nature Chemistry (2023). DOI: 10.1038/s41557-022-01127-4. www.nature.com/articles/s41557-022-01127-4Journal information:Nature Chemistry
Teenager Damien wants only for his parents to be happy. But after he discovers that his parents are a bad match, he joins forces with his best friend Erin, deciding to match them up with other people.
In this post, we are going to learn an addition mental calculation strategy in order to be able to add two numbers, breaking them up into hundreds, tens, ones, etc. We can do this by breaking up just one number or breaking up both of them.
One of the most prominent arguments for breaking up the largest tech companies is that such a move would increase competition. Advocates of this argument are driven by three interrelation notions. Many believe that competition is lax simply because of the presence of large tech firms. If government were to impose sanctions, the market would be more competitive. And smaller firms would innovate more and consumers would benefit, especially when it comes to privacy.
All together, these angles of platform competition make competition asymmetric, eroding the possibility of using simpler analytical tools applied to traditional markets. Consider a platform with two sides, users and advertisers. If users experience an increase in price or a reduction in quality, then they will exit the platform, reducing overall participation. Since advertisers value the platform because they can access users, advertiser demand will drop even if the prices they face stay constant. As a result, user demand will fall further because the total amount of content has dropped, making the platform less valuable to them. (Research on magazine price changes confirms this theory.) Small changes in price or quality tends to have a much bigger impact in chasing off both groups from the platforms than one-sided goods. Because of their two-sidedness, platforms also tend to have less power over pricing than one-sided companies, lessening their power over consumers.
The most forceful advocates of breaking up big tech think that this goal can be achieved by simply cleaving off platforms like Google and Facebook from their ad networks. While that approach may technically be possible, there are a number of reasons it is unlikely to produce either a more competitive environment or promote greater value for consumers.
While breaking up the largest firms might not create more competition or output or even lower prices, both the affected company and the broader industry would change. For firms, being under the watchful eye of the government would cause them to second guess their moves, leading to a decline in innovation. Productivity would drop as teams and technology stacks would be broken. And while more entities would exist, there would be such tight interconnection between the newly separate companies that they might as well be one, as they are now.
Others, however, attacked corporate abuses practiced by those they called "robber barons." The large corporations sometimes sold their products below cost until they drove competitors into bankruptcy or forced them to merge. Once a dominant firm eliminated most of its competition, it became a monopoly that could charge whatever prices and pay whatever wages it wanted.
Despite his generally pro-business outlook, Roosevelt disliked the corruption and arrogance of the new class of super rich. In 1902, public demands for "trustbusting" (breaking up the monopolies) prompted him to file suit under the Sherman Act against the biggest railroad trust in the country.
Even so, by the end of his second term, Roosevelt remained convinced that federal regulation of big business was the best way to tame the trusts. Filing lawsuits against individual monopolies to break them up was a costly and slow slog through the courts, he believed. Besides, he held the view that "good" monopolies benefited the public with efficient distribution of new products.
The following year, the Supreme Court finally decided the Standard Oil and American Tobacco cases that Roosevelt had initiated. The justices found both companies were guilty of monopolization in violation of the Sherman Act. It ordered them broken into numerous independent firms.
Roosevelt accepted monopolies as an inevitable part of a modern economy. He proposed, however, a federal commission to regulate them by inspecting their accounting books and setting maximum prices on their products. He also wanted to impose rules for hours, wages, and working conditions. Roosevelt declared that "the enslavement of the people by the great corporations . . . can only be held in check through the expansion of governmental power." 041b061a72