The book is better, but... yeah, this was my first thought too.

"The same thing we do every night..."

You should have read the paper (or at least the abstract) first, as they used macaque and human organoid models, too. :) But yes, the overall effects of the region of DNA in question (an enhancer) are fairly small.

The preprint is available here: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.04.10.588953v1....

> can say with reasonsble assurance that no one has measured and weighed more mouse brains than I have

Out of curiosity how many would that be? Thousands? Tens of thousands? How long does it take to measure a mouse brain? When you do it does someone remove them for you or you also have to remove them before measuring?

I guess that whatever recognises the enhancers must be conserved ish in mice for us to be able to drop this region into the mouse genome. That might be interesting alone apart from the functions of the frizzleds. Always a curious question about how much new “machinery” we have in humans, vs us being a specific configuration of common machinery (i.e., if we were to swap out introns/regulatory regions from a mouse with human, and assuming we don’t screw up any checkpoints, how far would it get with looking/acting like a human?).

I like this better than sharks though, sharks are terrifying enough without super intelligence.

Check out some of the timestamps in the links in last line of the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Agreed. But what can you do? People will comment what they will, and vote as they like.