THis.. I was about to make a similar point; this conclusion reads like a job description for a technical lead role where they managed and define work for a team of human devs who execute implementation.
I recently started learning Rust so for my first non-trivial project I decided to build a system for real-time generative art driven by a DSL (defined with Pest) and interpreter that executes scripts for creating dynamic and interactive visuals. The goal is to make human-authored, interactive art more accessible than current methods like GLSL/ShaderToy but without going down the path of AI-generated content, although in theory there's nothing preventing users for using AI to generate scripts for this system. The project uses Nannou for graphics (via WebGL) and input handling (keyboard, mouse, MIDI, audio analysis). It will target WASM and I'll make it accessible as a web app where users can create and share their own projects. I'm also exploring community features to support collaboration and discovery. Still early days, but it’s been a fun way to get deep into Rust by building something creative and open-ended.
I read the question as it implies Evergrande is not a "China's property giant", which it definitely is. But I might read it wrong. I'll edit out my condescending tone.
Yes and it still doesn't quite explain things clearly. Mercury is an element so even if it gets broken down into other forms that are less toxic, isn't it still present and not "cleared" as the article claims? Are the new molecules less volitaile/unlikely to revert to their toxic organic forms or more liekly to drain off into waterways?
Organometallic mercury compounds are extremely toxic, so it seems the enzyme is converting the mercury to some inorganic salt with low bioavailability but yeah it appears it becomes less bioavailable but not much else is stated. It’s not removed so I have the same question you do about the possibility of another natural reaction coming along and converting it back
Methyl Mercury is one of the most dangerous forms, because it is volatile and easily absorbed (while liquid metallic mercury is relatively benign). One possibility for the fungus is phenol compounds. They are commonly used by plants to inhibit fungus so the ability to excrete/them would be generically useful to a fungus. Also, mercury phenols are notably quite stable.
And dimethyl mercury is even worse. There's a famous case of a chemist at Dartmouth who died horribly from a single droplet that permeated through a nitrile glove.
I think it would require machinery to dig up the whole field, process the soil and spit it out - which I think is no less expensive than using traditional chemical methods for binding the mercury in stable compounds.
Organic mercury compounds are extremely nasty byproducts of industry. Their badness is largely due to their high bioavailability i.e. they are readily absorbed into our tissues. Inorganic mercury salts, by contrast, tend to have very low bioavailability which limits absorption even in environments with significant background quantities. The toxicity is as much a function of bioavailability as it is presence in the environment. This fungus dramatically changes the bioavailability of mercury compounds in the environment.
There are many highly toxic elements in our environment that are effectively a non-issue due to low bioavailability. In one end and out the other with minimal absorption.
> Mercury is an element so even if it gets broken down into other forms that are less toxic, isn't it still present and not "cleared" as the article claims? Are the new molecules less volitaile/unlikely to revert to their toxic organic forms or more liekly to drain off into waterways?
I have zero specific knowledge, but I can talk about the kind of thing that's generally happening with poisons.
Mercury is extremely toxic. That is probably because various of your enzymes respond to it as if it were a different organic chemical, and use it as a building block in important molecules that they are responsible for building. (It might also be because mercury naturally reacts with important molecules, expelling important functional parts and taking their place. In either case, you're left with defective functional molecules that have useless mercury where they were supposed to have something important.)
Since mercury is an element, it can't be broken down into other forms. But it can be used to build compounds that include mercury atoms. You then have the question of whether these compounds are toxic in the same way that elemental mercury is, whether because they are still (wrongly) recognized as a substitute for something else, or because they still react with proteins to replace important parts of the proteins with mercury atoms, or because the compounds react with something else in the body in a way that ejects their mercury atoms (leaving those atoms free to do their toxic thing).
The goal would be to form mercury compounds that are (1) chemically stable, trapping the mercury atoms; and (2) biologically inert. Ideally those compounds would then either filter through the digestive tract and be excreted in feces, or they'd make their way into the bloodstream, get filtered out by the liver/kidneys, and be excreted in urine.
I'm less cynical than others here. They probably just wanted a job ad title that a) sticks out b) gets your attention by making you reflect on your own personality and c) entice you to click through to the ad and see what kind of jobs "gritty people" applying for.
As I write this comment almost everyone else in the thread is interpreting it to mean some variation of an abusive workplace environment. The guy you responded to is being more charitable and less cynical than that.
I think it's actually more cynical than the other comments, because in the case of abusive workplace environments, asking for "gritty" employees is a fairly honest thing to do, and gives a decent indication of what the company is like. Whereas the commenter here was suggesting that the term "gritty" is a nothing more than a meaningless attention getter, and thus totally insincere.
I can definitely say that for us, going from a company which was 95% in the office to 95% remote, the culture has been negatively impacted. Productivity might be on par or even slightly up but overall I believe most people are less happy.
IRL meetings are important - but you don't need them 3 days per week. My team has found meeting once per month, or even once per quarter is highly effective. We get together all day, have plenty of whiteboards, and even some team games. We make it fun and productive. It has been working extremely well.
We even fly in the folks who are truly remote - they don't live in the same metro area or even the same state. It's still a lot cheaper and more energy efficient than commercial real estate.
