Isn't this "Love Quest" by CWC?

That theme sounds familiar.

Rhythm Heaven mentioned, swell with the indescribable rage of not being able to beat remix 10 for the life of me.

I still remember the porn padory of this

it took me about an hour but i finally perfected that one

I stopped watching when I got to about episode 7 because the comedy just seemed to turn more childish and repetative with a significant turndown in action

sauce?

its in the description nigger

well, he just politely told the man where to find the source

>nigger
>politely
???

nah

It's not a tie, it's a nigga moment!

Sauce?

>>#89

Thank friend

fuck, spoilers man

In case you were wondering, yes, that's actually the plot of the doujin.

Here you go hitomi.la/galleries/330510.html .

Is there a continuation or chapter 2 of this?

Sadly, no.

saucerer is the best d&d class

what?

Its a pun

what the fuck is this?


is there more?

I find it beautiful that someone summarized that Doujin's plot in one of these.

do go on

Hnnng Valentine is the absolute best.

After playing for a long time, I feel like painwheen is a really technical character that takes time to get good at, however fortune is also technical and way better. robo-fortune + peacock + big band, however, is the cheapest shit in the entire game. Projectile spam is real.

Whoops wasnt signed in.

>>#160,

That may be true, but I've spent the better part of my life playing mortal kombat and, i guess more relevantly street fighter, so i took off on the hardest difficulty for story and it doesnt seem like even the ai can play it properly, i perfected painwheel

Play online, the community is small, but the people who remain are really good. Before my friend stopped playing, he used to do 70+ valentine combos like it was nothing.

Is it anything like mks online which was essentially people picking characters with 0 cooldown between attack and just spamming the fuck out of you?

I wouldn't say its like that, sure, there's always gonna be some people, but most are legitimately good at the game and play fairly. I have 47 hours in the game (almost entirely multiplayer) and I've had something like that happen maybe 1/15 people, but generally if I find a good lobby I stay in it, so like 1/50 games if that.

Like I said, though, robo + peacock + bigband is the worst, I tried out peacock and BB when he first came out and was able to wall people so hard that they couldn't attack me unless they were peacock too (because she has a teleport)

big band is cool though

Not saying he isn't. I run bigband, fillia, and beowulf

As bigband I support bigband

Peacock was who i did the story with, i mostly got it to play with a friend but yeah I'll check it out

I did the same with 2 friends.
If you or your friend are starting out and are struggling, try fillia, she's a fast-paced character, great for beginners. although it seems like you're fine.

As far as i know hes okay-ish he's played mk 9 and a the injustice (i think) game

Like kill with no non-shaved hits

HATE BABY

Well it looks like America is 63% white and Europe is pretty white so that probably explains it.

still demographically whiter than America

the series or the new movies?
because the series is indeed fucked up and plays with you but the ending of the 2nd movie gave me a dramatic boner, it was executed nicely

"Meet you Waifu in the After Laifu"

i have that much coding in a light mod... google.com , not our dna, i should step up my game though

Thing is, physics can be solved by throwing a couple water tight theories at it and calling it a day until techniques improve. Biology still has to think of ways to fix people, grow food and make drugs without knowing exactly how it's going to work when you inevitably have to put your sterile little creation into the writhing mass of a real biological system that is still largely uncharacterised. Sure, many of the major players are known, but it's the small players that are super important when producing anything in biology.

Nah, not really true. That may have been the case a decade ago, but not anymore. We know exactly what is in the gut and how it happens. The part that we don't quite know is exactly how the variances between the contents of people's guts affect them.

This is kind of on the topic and an interesting watch.

Sorry, but you are getting your facts confused. I have taken samples from numerous points on the digestive system and off of the skin and have been in a lab that went through and identified absolutely every part of it.

So here are the corrections to what you are saying:
1. The microorganisms can't be cultured properly, but we do know what they do. There are multiple theories about their origins with the most prominent being that they evolve independently in each person's gut in a convergent method. In other words, they evolve on their own but they pretty much evolve to get to the same purpose in each body, but this makes identifying what they evolved from difficult.

2. We do not identify unknown DNA samples. We identify RNA samples that we are not sure why they formed or what specifically they formed from, though we have a couple good guesses. This is largely due to the excessively long nature of these unknown RNA samples. They are too long to reasonably do much and are eventually just re-metabolized. So we do know what they are, we just don't know why they are. Most likely they are just a relic.

I do see where your confusion came from, however. "Biological dark matter" is far from a technical term and has multiple meanings. You basically combined all of them into one idea which is why you are not quite correct in your understanding of what each topic is.

First things first, the article you posted is sort of a summary of a larger research article. I say "sort of" because it focused in on very specific parts of the research that were not exactly the primary goal. This article basically explained the problem that the research was approaching without going too deep into what the research found.

If you are interested and up for a bit of a heavy read, here is the full research article:
mbio.asm.org/content/6/5/e01578-15.full

That said, here are my thoughts on the matter.

To begin, they used a bit of a different approach than normal to isolate the virome aspects present on the skin. This let them focus in on just that. The main reason that so much of the virome contained unidentified specimens was not that we have absolutely no idea what they are, it is that we do not know specifically what species they are and that identifying by family is a bit difficult to do with automated software like they initially were.

Even so, identifying based on family in viral stuff can be a bit iffy because a family can still be pretty different, especially in what they will inject into bacteria cells. That is the real source of the confusion about the microbiome. They are looking at a small enough scale that they are seeing the minor differences in the bacteria based on how they were infected by a virus. They say that it is possible this could improve a bacteria's antibiotic resistance, but from experience it really isn't likely to do so. It can basically cause a number of changes in the bacteria, but most aren't actually relevant. If the change is too large on the bacteria, the other bacteria around it are likely to just attack it. The virus would have to modify the bacteria in a way that is not noticeable enough to set off the surrounding bacteria or our immune system while being a large enough difference that it can actually do something different that doesn't just get the bacteria killed. Basically, they aren't very important. Our body has gotten good at dealing with the multitude of viral junk floating around.

The researchers recognized this and eliminated from their massive pool of microbes the ones that they had listed as unidentified but actually just had irrelevant differences. This reduced what they had by a whole lot.

They found that the bacteria infected in a notable way mostly disappeared between their sample times. This essentially means that even on a single person with the sample being in the same spot, the infected bacteria are most likely to just die off.

They figure that this is due to the "Short average path lengths suggest[ing] that the skin phage-bacterium community network is able to respond rapidly to perturbations". Essentially, the back-and-forth nature of the infectious virome and the microbiome is very short lived and anything that messes it up dies off with the rest of the back-and-forth "get infected then die" pattern.

My thoughts are that this is the primary reason that we haven't truly identified all of the little viruses. They aren't part of our body's repeating process and they mostly don't do anything before they die off. After that, who knows how long it will be before we encounter the same virus. The reason we have identified the ones that we have is because they are either in great abundance or they actually do something. However, that is not to say that we have identified all of the important ones. There are still sicknesses and diseases that we have not identified the cause of. It is entirely possible that they could be related to something like this.

I guess that was a bit more of a commentary-style pseudo-summary with my thoughts laced in. Strictly my thoughts are that this research was to get their modified method of looking at the way that viruses get into the bacteria on our skin. They really didn't find anything new other than that there are a lot of viruses around that don't do much to healthy people and that we haven't entirely defined.

This kind of study is actually pretty common. They do research that confirms something we already have determined in a different way than has been done before. This has two main purposes. The first is to solidify their research method as viable or to rebuke the currently accepted theories. Their research seems to imply that they want their same methods to be applied to sick and diseased people to check if their virome is different, but they hit a sort of brick wall. Their method looks so close at the virome population that it determines that the virome is different every time it is checked, even from the same healthy person at the same place on their body. To get around that, they probably are hoping that their method will catch on and the virome populations will get increasingly identified to the point that we can find definite differences in sick individuals.

It is something that holds merit, but that is difficult to approach because of the vast number of viruses that just aren't important.

So I guess maybe I was not quite getting what you meant earlier. We do know all about bacteria and what is most commonly thought of as the microbe population, but the virus populations are a bit iffy because it is mostly thought that the vast majority of them have little effect on much.

I hope that explained your question. If you want any clarification on part of this or I wrote something completely uninterpretable, let me know.