so a quick reminder: this is not yet peer-reviewed, so there's some different expectations re: quality.
also let's be clear, i'm a hella biased reader, bc i don't trust the hype they're courting
One big concern: while their reference method seems reasonable for research uses, I'm thinking that if you want to claim you're cloning one, I'm sorry but you've actually gotta de novo that.
www.nytimes.com/2025/04/07/s...
www.nytimes.com/2025/04/07/s...
1) This shouldn't take too long
2) Oh no