7) Mitochondria (and chloroplasts) have double membranes, exactly like they would if they were smaller cells engulfed by the host cell.

8) There are multiple examples of ongoing endosymbiosis where the engulfed cell remains a true symbiont, not yet an organelle. Paramecium bursaria is my favorite - a ciliated protozoan with blue-green algae symbionts.

Bonus: there is evidence for secondary and tertiary endosymbiosis too.

If you haven't already read "The Ungoverned" I recommend it as well - although much shorter it's effectively the second part in a trilogy, bridging the two novels and featuring the same main character as "Marooned in Realtime".

I had to read the book a couple of times before I completely understood this, but I'm pretty sure there's an implicit metaphor that ties the two plots together, and it's about the feedback between technological progress and intelligence, and how physical constraints (or accidents of evolution) limit progress. The society of the Tines is constrained by their peculiar path to sentience - they can't split up pack members and they can't co-mingle packs without losing coherence. From their perspective, early 20th century electronics are the equivalent of neural prosthetics, and might as well be gifts from the Transcend.

> What I think will happen will be extreme concentration of wealth in a few places, and those will put up sky-high walls (literal and figurative) to block out everyone else.

That accurately describes the USA today (and has for many decades), and especially some of the wealthier parts like the SF Bay area.

USA has a long way to go yet. Think attack dogs, minefields and being shot in the back from watchtower for trying to illegally cross the border Berlin wall-style.

A public execution is ritual human sacrifice, the only difference is the label that Western cultures apply to it.

Do you have a more recent example than Vioxx in mind where your approach might have made enough of a difference to be worth the longer review process?

I helped with similar experiments at LCLS-I and the first half of this comment is correct. The chemical reaction is carefully timed on the order of milliseconds, so they get a series of snapshots of the reaction at a specific known state (but previously unknown structure). There isn't enough information in individual snapshots for the processing software to do very much with besides combine it with other snapshots (thousands of them).

Because raging against the spending habits of billionaires is always easier than self-examination and consideration of one's own wealth and privilege.

It's weird to me that we've completely normalized having to present ID to buy any medicine at all, especially one that has an excellent safety and efficacy record that I was buying without an ID for a decade. Why should I have to ask the government's permission to cure a runny nose?

The problem with Sudafed isn't that it's ineffective or unsafe for its users; it's that it has the same or higher abuse potential as codeine cough drops did. We took codeine completely off the market, but you can just go buy Sudafed whenever you want.

Significant numbers of people are not going to the pharmacy and buying Sudafed because they have a cold and consequently getting addicted to Sudafed, which is what had been happening with codeine.

It's clearly because you can make methamphetamine out of it. But you can also make methamphetamine out of other things which limiting access to cold medicine demonstrably hasn't prevented.

When Sudafed was put behind the counter, it was likely that a plurality of all Sudafed purchases in California were abusive.

More than likely, I would think, since plurality just means more than one.

But the justification is not the same. People were going to the drug store for cough drops and unintentionally ending up addicted to opioids. Nobody was going to the drug store for a decongestant and accidentally making meth out of it, and the number of people getting addicted to pseudoephedrine itself was neither large enough to justify the change, nor its explicitly stated rationale. Nor an effective means to bring it about if the claim that showing an ID isn't a burden is to be believed because it would have no effect on the small minority of people who might go to the pharmacy for a stuffy nose and thereby become dependent on pseudoephedrine, since they would still get it.

Meanwhile the stated rational of limiting availability of methamphetamine hasn't gone well either.

This before we even mention that the OTC replacement, phenylephrine, is not only ineffective, it's a more dangerous drug than pseudoephedrine from a cardiovascular perspective and the switch has plausibly killed some people.

> the relevant fields are controlled by different corporate interests

As opposed to governments, which are famously cautious about deploying destructive technology, and scrupulously avoid civilian casualties.

Didn't mean that - but rather that corporate players transcend governments.