linuxmemes

what other DATA formats do you know that can adapt to changing OS by itself, and over time develop new features? All decentralised, and open source.

Also, as a biologist, there are really cool error correction mechanism. And even systems to detect if there are too many errors and self delete the corrupted files to be replaced by neighboring cells.

Plus a shit ton of metadata, to track it all.

It's like this because it allows you to live enough to procreate. Who needs all that if it just needs to keep you alive for 30 odd years.

This made me laugh. I have a disease that is basically caused by the DNA repair machinery being unable to count when it attempts to repair a congenital mutation, adding an extra phrase to the DNA sometimes. I often wish I could just open up the damn source code and fix it.

DNA is not meant to be stable, it is meant to mutate and evolve, also it wasn't invented, it manifested itself out of chaos. One reason why understanding it is so hard. It is not made like a machine, it doesn't have neat parts with clear roles or categories. It's sort of pure chaos all sort of working together in a giant orchestra without categories or bounds.

If you switch your view from the level of the organism to the level of the gene, genes do have backups everywhere. You could call every instance of a gene in every organism a 'backup' of the others.

As individual organisms, we also tend to look at genes and evolution from the perspectives of individuals. But for genes already established in a population, preserving any single genome (carried by a single individual) isn't very important. Genes work instead to increase their overall frequency throughout the population.

So to adapt the technological metaphor, maybe you're better off looking at the entire gene pool as your system instead of the organism.

I kind of suspect life wouldn't exist today if it didn't make the occasional error. Although I believe DNA does have rudimentary correction mechanisms: each strand is paired up with its negative and duplicated chromasomes will have 2 chromatids. In those cases there are kind of 4 copies. Sometimes errors are corrected by using the other chomatid as a template. However, not all that useful before the chromosome is duplicated.

At some point the data has to be copied for reproduction, so DNA must be writable at least for new copies, but that's part of what makes the copying process so vulnerable. However, I do agree that it's too easy to trigger a write, and while histones reduce writability, they also reduce readability.

Evolution doesn't iterate for complete optimization, only to the minimum of what an organism needs in order to survive and procreate.

Are you saying spaghetti code isn't all bad? Finally someone validates my open source projects 😅

Because the random alterations create variations that allow survival of the species, not the individual, in changing conditions. For an example of what happens without that, just look at bananas. Without any evolution through DNA alteration during procreation, a single disease van wipe them out across the globe. Happened once and the current strain is being wiped out by disease, though more slowly due to human intervention, as we speak.

He's got the AUR in his veins

Rewrite it so that it compiles to RNA (via LLVM ofc)

It's not clear apparently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA.
Although OP seems to confuse non-coding DNA (the ~98%) and junk DNA. Some non-coding DNA has clearly identified roles, so it should be well below 98% of junk, and there's a lot left to explore.

It's more controversial at least now. The debate now focuses on whether "biochemical activity" is equivalent to a "useful function".

Please enjoy this copy pasta from another comment I made:

My brother in Christ, the joke is life wouldn't work without this "junk" DNA. And if Arch users were to get rid of this "bloat", they would literally dissolve.

spunchbob funny

The joke is too obscure for you.