2
$\begingroup$

in my question in here

one of the answer is merged or smashed together to the point i cant read it, is there a way to fix this? iam not sure this place is the correct place nor the word i use is correct for this.

here the image, since i think others dont get the same problem like me judging by their reaction.

enter image description here

i try to refresh, close and reopen, and wait till now to see is it will turn normal or not, but nothing change while Willick answer seems to be fine.

and feel fee to edit the tag to the appropriate one since i dont know much about meta tag or how this place work.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ This is likely to be an issue with your browser. What is your operating system, browser (including versions) and which zoom level are you using? $\endgroup$
    – Glorfindel
    Aug 9 '20 at 6:53
  • $\begingroup$ @Glorfindel firefox, i dont know about that, iam not a tech savvy never do any zoom either. this is the first time i see it like that. just now i try to zoom, it dont change, it still merged there. unless i mistaken what zoom mean. $\endgroup$
    – Li Jun
    Aug 9 '20 at 10:31
  • $\begingroup$ @LiJun on a desktop pressing CTRL+ and CTRL- increases and decreases the zoom, respectively. That should show the current zoom level somewhere too. $\endgroup$ Aug 11 '20 at 12:09
  • $\begingroup$ @Renan yeah i did that but nothing change, i kinda doubt this is due to browser though, because it only specifically happen to this question and to this answer user, i even try using different view like active, oldest, and votes but it still like that, the text goes past the line/border, meanwhile the rest seems fine including other user question including this answerer/user in other question. $\endgroup$
    – Li Jun
    Aug 11 '20 at 15:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @LiJun that answer had some really long links thrown in the body. I edited the links so that they are more readable. Does the issue still happen for you? $\endgroup$ Aug 11 '20 at 15:35
  • $\begingroup$ @Renan not anymore thanks, i guess its due to the long link then. $\endgroup$
    – Li Jun
    Aug 11 '20 at 15:36
3
$\begingroup$

This was caused by some specific links in an answer, when placed without markup. Only the answer containing the links was affected. I edited the answer so that the links were present with Markdown, i.e.: [link text](link url), and it solved the problem there. In order to allow for the problem to be debugged here, I am adding another answer with the text that caused the problem. Please see my other post in this question.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

This is a relevant excerpt from the post that was causing a layout breakdown in Firefox, so that the problem can be reproduced and verified in that browser.


By definition, bacteria are prokaryotic organisms. They are genetically simple (yes, that's a loaded term) and don't have a nucleus. Their existence is driven by replication. Most (with a few exceptions) are tiny compared to eukaryotic cells. So how would a simple prokaryotic organism make a complex eukaryotic cell?

This is not as bad of a question as it seems on first glance. Red blood cells in humans don't have a nucleus. There are very few cells that don't. They can't replicate on their own and derive from nucleated red cells that have their nuclei removed. Most bacteria other than Mycobacteria have cell walls to cope with osmotic pressure from their environment. Mycobacteria (https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Microbiology/Book%3A_Microbiology_(Boundless)/4%3A_Cell_Structure_of_Bacteria%2C_Archaea%2C_and_Eukaryotes/4.4%3A_Cell_Walls_of_Prokaryotes/4.4D%3A_Mycoplasmas_and_Other_Cell-Wall-Deficient_Bacteria#:~:text=Examples%20of%20bacteria%20that%20lack,to%20build%20their%20cytoplasmic%20membrane.) are often intracellular parasites and tend to have even simpler genomes than most bacteria because they are depending on their hosts for biosynthesis. So how does a tiny, super-simple cell become something immense and complex? There are also some big bacteria (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470015902.a0020371.pub2) but these tend to be highly specialized to exotic environments. For something as small and simple as most bacteria to make a red blood cell, they would need to work as a team. Many bacteria can organize themselves into multicellular structures that seem to carry out more complex tasks, but are generally not considered truly multicellular (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/lab-rat/bacteria-with-bodies-multicellular-prokaryotes/).

The biggest barrier in all this to having bacteria making blood is energy. The bacteria would not have the genome to make blood, or the manufacturing capacity to do so, but most critically there is no energetic advantage to making these huge, expensive, non-replicating red cells. Even if the bacteria could, they would need to be kept in a bioreactor of some sort with massive inputs of nutrients. Scientists certainly make genetically engineered bacteria that can produce large amounts of simple excreted materials, but the advantage is that the organism survives because the scientist "rewards" the species with survival for producing what they want.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .