If you want to insist on a definition that says egg and sperm cells aren’t alive, or aren’t an organism, you’re gonna have a hard time saying that a fertilized egg or an embryo are. They don’t replicate on their own, either, not without a very specific environment and set of stimuli.

An embryo goes from a single cell to multiple genetically identical cells, that is replication. Sperm cells do not replicate into more identical sperm cells, eggs do not replicate into more identical eggs.

Also, sperm cells DO replicate, to an extent. They undergo forms of mitosis and meiosis, during their growth. And an egg cell absolutely replicates. Like any other type of cell replication, it needs certain stimuli to initiate it. I.E. it needs to be fertilized.

I would argue that the mitosis process sperm cells undergo splits the cell into two genetically different cells and the genetic difference ia not a mutation so it's not replication. Egg cells don't replicate they don't copy their DNA, they fuse with sperm at which time they become an embryo and start to replicate.

You should probably read the articles before you comment on what's in them. It may also help to know what replication means.

“Any system capable of replication and mutation is alive” to Schulze-Makuch et al. 2002:

(3) able to replicate structurally distinct copies of themselves from an instructional code perpetuated indefinitely through time despite the demise of the individual carrier through which it is transmitted.

Forterre, Patrick, 2006a, “Three RNA cells for ribosomal lineages and three DNA viruses to replicate their genomes: a hypothesis for the origin of cellular domain,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(10): 3669–3674.

Yes an embryo does replicate. How do you think an embryo goes from one cell to multiple cells?

The definitions you provided exclude both egg and sperm from being classified as a living organism. They can not reproduce or replicate themselves.

When does "the science" say life begins?

You can place cameras anywhere, they don't need to be right next to what is being targeted. Nearer ranges will allow AI to misidentify at much higher rates than max standoff ranges of an AIM-120C.

The same argument you made about tarrifs can be made about minimum wage. Though I doubt you're concerned with buying power, you seem more like a everone gets the same thing type of person.

The tarrifs Trump used helped the US. US steal companies were increasing production while Europe was stagnant. If buying power was down production would follow, steal worker wages increased over that period too.

You don't have to completely offset wages with tarrifs just make the ROI on moving take 10 years.

The steal tarrifs Trump used led to increased production in the US while Europe production stayed the same. Tarrifs do not have to hurt buying power.

Based on your arguments I assume you're against minimum wage too.

Somehow tariffs are supposed to balance this out. Which is really the nonsense in all of this.

So you have no rebuttal to tarrifs stopping companies from moving manufacturing outside the US.

I read your non-response, which is why I asked how wages will stagnate to your response to tarrifs.

You must have missed the reply two comments up.

https://lemm.ee/post/47845390/16367562

Why will wages stagnante?

A rising tide raises all boats or in this case wages.

Without exploitable labor employers will have to pay employees more. Workers won't have to fight, they can do nothing and wages will still increase.

There was population growth in the late 1800s, it wasn't until the population got paid more that the economy took off.

The weapon of choice of long haired peaceniks.

I've always been a proponent of seizing assets from companies exploiting illegal workers. They are ill gotten gains.

Your insain belief that flying a Trump flag is somehow a threat is a testament to how disconnected you are from reality.

It's statements like that, that inspired so many people to vote for Trump.

The reason it is being sold off in the first place is the damage done to the families. Their opinion should have weight, if not outright make the decision of who wins the bid.

If the lawsuit awarded them ownership of the company that would be true. It didn't, instead infowars filed bankruptcy due to the lawsuit and a bidding process was established to sell the company.

What is known is the bidding process was changed 3 days before the auction and switched to sealed bids and that the onion had the lowest bid.

Now try a little introspection