If it’s easy to patch this out, I wonder if there will be manufacturers that will choose to do so for their official ROMs. It would be extra value for the brand, imho. A reason to choose, say, Samsung, over a Pixel phone, if Samsung were to patch this restriction out, for example. After all, they also have the Galaxy Store which is also offering apps that I doubt they’ll want Google to regulate.
Technically, even an optical port can deliver power. Light is just a particular form of electromagnetic wave that just happens to use another method of transmission (and you might need a different mechanism to transform its energy), but it also has an intensity, potential energy and resistance in the medium of propagation.
It might have been horse-drawn in the 1890s with color paint, and years later photographed with a modern camera.
I’d argue that the systemd trend actually is the one that’s change-adverse.
I remember that before systemd there was a lot of innovation when it comes to init systems… the flexibility of the script-based inits made it so most distros had their own spin. And there was more diversity in components that now are part of systemd. I’d argue that ever since systemd became the de-facto standard, innovation in those areas has become niche. Distros are becoming more homogeneous and less open to changes in that sense. Some components are becoming more and more interdependent and it’s becoming harder to ship, for example, Gnome, without systemd.
Yes… the thing is that with asexual reproduction you can reproduce way more and much faster… so even though each individual division might have less variability, you have many more generations of splits and a bigger population that ends up being forced to spread around more to different conditions and eventually leading to mutations faster than they would have otherwise.
Also, the ease of reproduction makes each individual more disposable, and at that point it doesn’t make as much sense to have more mechanisms to protect your genetic material from mutagens, you can just let the mutants die when they are not fit and produce new ones until ultimately you hit the jackpot and achieve a new resistance. This is what makes bacteria so adaptable, with new strains appearing every day.
I feel the question wasn’t so much about the sexual process (fusion of genetic information of two individuals) but about sexual differentiation (separation of this information into two parts) . At least, to me “uni sex” is not the same as “no sex”. These are different things, in biology you can find creatures that reproduce sexually but do not have sexual differentiation.
I mean, you could say there’s no inherent goal on anything, goals are always subjective/constructed, so from that perspective nothing ever makes sense.
But I think the question was how is it possible that sex differentiation could have contributed to make us fit and adapted even though in the surface it might seem to be more like an obstacle to reproduction (and thus, survival).
My guess is that specialization allows for higher level social structures that can more easily organize to survive. You have extreme cases with the bees, ants, etc. whose individuals can even have different sets of chromosomes and are very specialized for specific roles, making them so successful that you have them all over the planet for far longer than humans, millions and millions of years with hardly any changes.
deleted by creator