Cancer can be cured in a lot of cases, its just so damn expensive and the treatment is beyond torturous that some patients cannot handle it. Stem cells are amazing. But we need cheaper technology to replicate them into the cancer destroyers they need to be, as well as find ways to ease the pain of that internal battle.
Please tell me more about these “cures” you speak of. Because to my knowledge, yes we are good at getting patients into remission, we do not have “cures”
Coupled with the fact that treatment is often life altering in and of itself
We also have therapies based on monoclonal recombinant antibodies conjugated with chemotherapeutics. Simply put, we can produce antibodies that are specific for markers present in the surface of cancer cells, and we can attach drugs that can kill those cells. The antibody part is what makes this type of therapy very effective (you target only cancer cells, and not healthy cells) and also very expensive.
Semantics. Cancer is uncontrolled growth of cells. Treating it is killing/removing the cancer cells. Problem of course is you are never sure if you got all of them. If you got all of them you are “cured”. If you didn’t you are not cured in case the remaining cells manage to grow and spread again. We don’t talk about “cure” because of course it is impossible to verify if 100% is gone or not.
Why is it 'of course impossible'? Couldn't we someday have nanobots or other tech that could screen all your cells and be able to indicate whether any cancerous cells remain?
If we were able to find cancer cells with a precision down to 1 cell, killing them would be trivial. There are lots of cells in a person. It's possible we will get there someday. I think bioengineering is the most likely route. I.e., design a virus to specifically target the type of cancer cell you mean to eradicate.
Strictly speaking, no impossible from our understanding of physics, but also an enormous scientific and engineering problem. research into that would take away from people working on more reasonable approaches today.
No. It's hard to get even small molecules where we want them in the body, there's no way that the gigantic molecular clusters called "nanobots" could reliably get access to every single cell. (What may be possible is using things like the Moderna cancer vaccine to make your body an inhospitable environment for the growth and multiplication of the cancer cells.)
I don't know about "cured" but I've been cancer free for something like ~27 years.
With childhood cancers some of them have very high rates of "cure," but it is true that the impact of the treatments (at that time at least) follows you for life in various ways. The more modern immunotherapies and such seem potentially much better than chemo if they can be turned into successful and consistent approaches.
Burn (radiation). Cut. Poison (chemo). Your picks for cancer. IMHO Eat less. Remove all sugar and vitamins. Go a week without food. Give your body time to kill the weak cancer cells before they grow exponentially.
Steve Jobs is rolling in his grave at this atrocious design. Apple is lost without his vision.
The hard corners when its folded is a huge design breaker. The whole thing is THICK when folded. Jobs only added the bezel because it competed with the cases wrapped on phones. I don't see how any case will work on this behemoth.
I've seen what happens to the fold crease after a year, its a bit noticeable. It will degrade the prestigious quality of the brand.
Lastly, this copies all other fold phones. I'm surprised is all.
... and there is some of that two-sided market effect that (1) people who want to publish a model will publish on HuggingFace and (2) people who look for models will look at HuggingFace. Even if HuggingFace is poorly run in the future it will be hard to dislodge.
I find it useful, and use it almost daily. Helps answer "how to" questions for working on my house, development or just general questions. If I need more info, I just look at the links or videos which are also right there.
In web development, you mostly deal with data, sometimes you need to group that data, and some of these algos can help with that.
Most useful when you work with large datasets, if you can reduce a workload that takes hours into minutes or less, congrats, otherwise, you are forced to wait the hours. Either way, job security.
[1] tells me a $350k mortgage with a 10% deposit, paid off over 15 years, costs $2,585 per month. That's $31k a year.
That kind of income with that kind of house price should be pretty comfortable, given you don't mention supporting a family. If your non-housing bills are costing $109k a year, there's a good chance you could reign in your lifestyle choices.
Don't forget real estate tax and sales tax. In some places, real estate tax is about 20-30% of the rental cost. Sales tax is as high as 10% in some places.
But that's not $140->$70 after tax, that's $140k->$70k after tossing $24k into retirement investment savings, another $5k into healthcare savings, possibly another $1,500 towards healthcare premiums (huge amount of variability there), and then finally taxes.
Until it isn't because enough people realize it is inherently flawed and will never result in stability and they would rather die than relegate themselves, their children, and all their later generations, to indefinite servitude of an outdated economic system. Provided we don't kill our world first in our pursuit of endless profit growth.
> I'd much rather deal with some less stability and have a lot more resources
This strategy works so long as you're in the group of people who do indeed have "more resources," but breaks down if you're marginalized in any way, or if you don't want to support the exploitative system.
That is what people always says about their current culture or economy or political system, even as they are on the very edge of systemic change. And quite frankly to me that just reads like an excuse to not do or try anything so people can kick the can down the road, benefiting themselves at the expense of many others both currently and in the future as things deteriorate further.
it is if that's all people do, but I think it is a necessary step to realize that we do live under a system that encourages an amoral allocation of resources. If people only ever shrug that off or treat it as intractable it will never change. Some would argue that it cannot be changed, but I think that just means they haven't read history.
Brother lately I’ve only been putting groceries on credit cards and you’re right, they’re not a fixed cost. They’re a variable cost that just keeps going up.
You are getting down voted, but it's true. They (WEF-types during their meetings you can watch on youtube) telegraphed it during/soon after the entire Covid lock downs that they intended to make large structural changes to society and the concept of ownership. They didn't make this secret or anything. Heck some sold books on the subject.
Most of what the WEF discusses is how to gain more technocratic control over democracy. You know, for the benefit of everyone...
I guess people think that there is the need for an centralised evil being responsible to coordinate an attack on society and they feel that the comment is a paranoia attack.
It is nothing like that. We can see how equity firms risen again buying certain types of businesses and change the structure of prices. The incentives to do it wrong are all out.
People still think that Microsoft layouts were an unfortunate unpredictable movement given market circumstances when every regulatory organisation pointed that it would be exactly what they would do.
People also think that putting their money in such companies because they have money back is an endless loop of free money and that money is an infinite resource.
Not one or two only have discussed how they should start licensing their products as a new business model. What people thought that would mean? How selling the product does not give the buyer the ownership? How is that not taxed differently?
The essay was a thought experiment based around the popularity of the so-called "sharing economy" at the time, not a WEF strategy document and certainly no government's policy.
Even the author of the piece said it was not a description of her vision of the future, but intended to start a discussion about technology.
But it's been picked up by wackaloons around the world as part of some overarching conspiracy theory.
it's because it's so easy to simply blame the ills of society on some illusory few pulling the strings behind the scenes. It used to be the migrants, or blacks, or the chinese (still is apparently) or the japanese...and now, it's the rich/shadowy figures etc.
The actual truth is that the collective actions of everybody leads to certain outcomes - today's outcomes. It can't really have happened any other way.
Please don't dilute the argument by comparing racial groups with the ultra-rich.
The (ultra-)rich form a class in the classical Marxist sense - a group whose interests naturally align, and they work together to further their interests.
There is deliberate government policy behind what's going on with housing - free money for the rich, which they can in turn invest into speculative assets to make yet even more free money.
Then they ensure that their money has weight by putting said money into housing, pricing out common folk, and building new units to serve as price control to preserve the value of their assets.
Then it's a good thing that the World Economic Forum are not government and do not have lawmaking powers. It's essentially a lobbying firm. I wouldn't worry too much about random slop they publish.
But you see that everywhere.
You buy the hardware but the company may block your property totally or partially.
You buy a car but pays to use heated seat? Who eats this thing that you haven't paid extra for the seats. The costs are just sunk in other parts.
You buy a movie but it can be revoked.
You buy an smart tv that can have features revoked.
You barely can pay your rent because now everyone needs to rent because no one has money to buy except equity firms.
There is no need for "they" to be a centralised being. It is just happening. Doesn't matter who or if there are a "they".
We live in a world where people think that the homeless man is the enemy because people are to simple minded to not understand why there are incentives to keep make it worse and worse.
They are the proponents of The Great Reset. Here’s an excerpt from a book I read:
‘As Hitler declared in 1934, “The German revolution will be concluded only when the entire German Volk has been totally created anew, reorganized and reconstructed” (cited in Koonz, 2003, p. 87). The “Great Reset,” announced by World Economic Forum (WEF) director Klaus Schwab, son of Nazi industrialist Eugen Schwab, attempts the same thing on a global scale, promising to “revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country [ . . . ] must participate, and every industry [ . . . ] must be transformed” (Schwab, 2020).’
The book is:
Wall Street, the Nazis, and the Crimes of the Deep State
reply