- 12comments
- 330comments
- 65comments
- 299comments
- 113comments
- 240comments
- 3comments
- 27comments
- 92comments
- 11comments
- 90comments
- 727comments
- 34comments
- 26comments
- —discuss
- 105comments
- 75comments
- 119comments
- 213comments
- 17comments
- 43comments
- 208comments
- —discuss
- 297comments
- 41comments
- 45comments
- 11comments
- 70comments
- 15comments
- 80comments
Any article on this topic is unsatisfactory if it lacks a color photo.
There is a color photo, but the rose isn't actually blue.
Not actually blue though is it? Kinda purple.
I would've called it "a sickly kind of purple"
Source article is better, and refers to them as “violet-blue roses” https://www.suntory.com/sic/story/20260911/
Are the scientists color blind? The rose is purple.
Bad translation, see the other top-level comment with the origin link that referes to them as violet-blue.
« Hey Coop’! I guess Blue Roses occur in nature now! »
« Damn good news, Gordon! »
Finally! What we have all been waiting for. Phew.
I mean asking us to use different flowers to get our blue colours was just too much.
Weren't we the ones who breathlessly await any progress on the Riemann hypothesis? A theorem of pure number theory, with no applications.
Breeders pursued it as a challenge. Doing it via genetic engineering probably feels like cheating to them, but the biochemists do it to learn genetic techniques.
From the picture nobody is going to be putting these in a bouquet any time soon. But the accomplishment is neat. And even if it's not. I'm not gonna yuck their yum.
The Glass Menagerie by Tennessee Williams, anyone? :)