pls respond

>>8192854

Are you asking if people should call nanobots "cells" when they do not meet any of the structural criteria for actual being a "cell"?

>>8193042

>>8193042
>when they do not meet any of the structural criteria

So you mean they are possible to make without the structural criteria of a cell?

That's what I'm asking

>>8193049
Look at the nanobot concept in your picture, does that look like a cell to you?

They have already used them on dogs with tons of success, and they are planning on testing them on a woman this year.

>>8193357
Do you think they will test it on a real human being soon after that?

>>8192854
Nanobots are so last decade. It's all about the picobots.

Bump

Anybody working on almost drexlerian stuff?

>>8195653
Bumping as well, very interested in this. Drexler is a god.

>>8193544
plankbots