They’re creating cell sized bubbles out of cell like materials, and they’re able to get things inside them.
The opening paragraphs make it sound like they cells can split themselves, but what they’ve actually done is make a chip the can split them. Likewise construction of a cell is done entirely by chip fluidics to create what are afaict lipid bubbles, and they can use similar tech to force non spherical shapes.
Can you imagine in the future, we could have translations from logical code to biochemical pathways. You could specify the dependencies of a cell you are building in a similar fashion to (maven, npm, make).
Using bioinformatics data to configure your cells behaviour.
There would be compilation errors were cells would not be stable or materialise, and runtime errors in which a metabolic or other type of pathway fails, causing the cell to throw an exception (dies/ or emits other action).
I would truly relish the moment when my cell gets a virus.
My background is in Biomed but I joined the dark side and became a computer scientist instead.
ArXiv abstract here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.07430
Git repo here: https://github.com/marko-vasic/crnPlusPlus
Hope to see some interesting synthetic molecules published by you :-)
One time, though, I used ruby to scrape a chinese website where they made 'public' the genome of an organism. They clearly weren't interested in actually making it public (as the sequences were very hard to pull), and after we had gotten the data they made it impossible and took down announcements that it was public, so sometimes real computer skills are welcome!
And if you response is that the rest of the organism fulfills the self replication process through sexual reproduction, then why can't these cells being assisted by an outside process like the splitting chip be considered alive in whole like an animal is?
That's right, they aren't. You hair and fingernails aren't alive either. Nor is your clothing despite the fact that that too is part of the human phenotype. 
> why can't these cells being assisted by an outside process like the splitting chip be considered alive in whole like an animal is?
Because the splitting chip isn't produced by the cells, it's produced by humans. Take the humans away and the whole process comes to a grinding halt.
But of course you'll need some transcription enzymes to make RNA and then proteins, and plenty of raw amino acids floating around.
Let us ask a different question that may suggest a possible answer.
How many different dynamic manufacturing processes occur inside a supercomputer as compared to the number of different manufacturing, transportation and communication processes that control those manufacturing and transportation processes occurring within any single living biological cell?
Mycoplasma mycoides only has 525 genes and we can cut tha down to 473 and end up with something that self replicates. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2016/04.... (I find it amusing how breathless they talk about the fact their where some unknowns in that list rather amusing.)
Within each manufacturing process, how many different kinds of steps are there and how "complicated" is each step (the required processing that is required to do that step)?
What kind of dynamic manufacturing infrastructures are created and then taken down within the cell for each of these processes?
In some ways we better understand how super computers are made, but we can also far more easily replicate cells than a supercomputer. So, again supper computers are more complex.
In terms of the minimum amount of information to turn raw matter into a simple cell, again super computers take more information.
I suspect you want some sort of third definion where cells are more complex, but that’s more begging the question than how things actually are.
It is not about simulating processes, it is about doing those processes.
Protean folding is very complex to simulate. But, so is even a hydrogen atom starting from quantum mechanic equations. Saying we can abstract away that hydrogen atom does not mean the complexity disappears. Further from a QM standpoint protean folding is really slow, it's a complex dance like plate tectonics even if it's blindingly fast from our viewpoint.
Building a core cell always intrigued me as an undergraduate and I was often interested in the bare minimum (DNA-wise) lab manufactured bacterial strains that were used in experiments.
I don't know the answers to any of these but I think that a comparison of complexity should take more than one metric into account
To give their life worth, some arrogant economists/finance people think they do have control. But they don't.
What make you think that a gold standard would be intrinsic to the value of money?
Nowadays the value of money is represented by peoples debt, i.e. work that will be done in the future.
Printing money just lets the government increase inflation. It doesn't destroy value, it just "steals" from the people, espacially those with much savings.
Don't forget, the dollar in your pocket is just a piece of paper.
EDIT: Yes, it is all a con job. One day we will realise.
Money used to be like this before the Gold Standard was removed. When that happened, money lost its true value. Off course, money people could get creative then.
Now the whole system relies on the population simply "believing" that fictional and unlimited entities (dollars) are valuable.
Side Note: The reason why humanity has chosen gold to obsess over as an ultimate form of money, is not relevant to the fact that it has been, is, and always will be. See: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-china-and-russia-are-b..., for one of numerous reports of governments buying up as much gold as they can.
Though its an interesting question.
That's a bold claim given how evolution routes around failures.
Mary: "But to make all these pseudo-cells reproduce at room temperature, we had to mimic properties of the polio, smallpox, and ebola viruses, professor! What if it gets out of control?!"
Professor Devin Daylooded: "Don't worry, Mary Goodsave. You may be a super-intelligent grad student who sees things I don't, but I will ignore your cautionary message which even the audience understands because I can easily incorporate controls or a kill switch that renders the cells harmless."
(the molecules that suddenly appear/disappear are just moving in/out of the plane of view; a camera focus/blur effect would have been nicer, I think)