bruce511

Progress in fighting cancers has been enormous over the past couple decades. But there are challenges when developing new therapies.

It should be noted that "cancer" is not one thing. The term covers a range of different "diseases". Treatments, like "chemo" are also very varied.

For starters the current treatments (chemo, radiation, surgery) (and soon immunotherapy when the patents expire) are very effective against a range of different cancers. The most common ones (prostate and breast) have survival rates exceeding 90% if caught early.

For all cancers treating early is a good thing. So any novel approach has to be "compatible" with existing treatments. Bacterial experiments (on sick humans) for example are not compatible with chemo. To suggest a patient not take chemo is ethically hard.

So yes, there us a cohort like your father who are effectively post-treatment. The cancer is advanced and may have morphed into multiple different cancers. There is naturally an inclination to "try anything".

Unfortunately these patients make terrible case studies. They are typically very weakened, with multiple organs under attack, and the immune system generally low. So, layman's example, introducing a bacteria into such a person may kill the cancer, but would likely also kill the patient.

Remember that every "fail" is recorded against that drug or method. Having all your patients die tends to reflect poorly on a drug, even if those patients were already terminal. And, to be honest, if they're already terminal the chance of a new therapy working is pretty low.

I sympathize with you, I really do. I know this is not an easy time. There is of course a desire to try anything.

For others reading, early detection is key. Visiting a Dr at the first stage of trouble is something we all can get better at.

I can speak to this somewhat. My panels are on adjustable frames. Typically I switch from flat (summer) to tilted (winter).

As always ymmv and depends somewhat on your location. I'm around 30 degrees from the equator.

During summer, lying flat gets a lot more power. And more importantly the start and end of the generating period is longer. Ie the panels get more sun in the morning and evening thankfully they were tilted.

In winter the sun is more "from one direction" and obviously is lower on the horizon.

While not in motion, or while in flight, it's not really an issue.

Takeoffs and landings are the biggest risk times (and also the best proximity to Fire and Rescue). In hot environments reducing heat load in the plane can definitely improve comfort. Bummer about missing the action though...

Yes, that's a factor as well. If you're opening a door (or emergency exit) you should look first to see if that side of the plane is on fire.

But obviously you can open it to look, and there's only a small number that would apply to.

So it's a factor, but the primary reason is being able to look in.

There will of course always be different potential uses for land. And there are up and down sides to every argument.

It's easy though to dismiss options which don't benefit me personally. If I don't cycle then money spent on cycle tracks is wasted. If I don't golf then I'll lean towards non-golf options.

Incidentally it's very seldom local users who are lobbying for more local low-cost housing. That typically reduces neighborhood property values.

Equally having green spaces is something that drives up property values etc.

And yes, creative use of effluent would be nice. We should be able to recycle grey water into toilets etc. But that is an infrastructure change, so not easy to implement.

Yes we need public green spaces. And yes we need sports fields and golf courses and so on. It's not necessarily an either/or situation.

Regulations require that window shades be up (open) during take off and landing.

I was sitting next to a passenger once who was asked by the steward to raise the window shade.

While doing it, they asked "why". Answering for the steward I said "it's so Fire and Rescue can see into the plane if we crash". (Which is true, I used to work at airport fire and rescue.)

The steward looked at me with a "that's not helpful" look. My bad :( .

Although I think it's still useful for people to understand things are done for their safety. Not that we expect to crash, and most don't, but every little thing that might improve survival is done. That encourages rather than discourages me.

The amount of water used is somewhat less important than what the source of the water is.

And it's important to understand that "using water" isn't like "using coal". In other words, while coal can be burned once, water is in a cycle that means water can be "used" infinitly.

But back to the source. A golf course near me takes effluent water (ie treated sewerage) destined for pumping out to sea. They spread it over a large piece of land. What is not consumed by plants, or evaporation, ends up in an underground aquifer.

So it "uses" a lot of water. But it's not using tap water.

Obviously this is not true for all courses. Hence the issue of "source", not "quantity" is material.

Only a small fraction of current flyers get window seats. And the view from the isle seat or middle row is non-existent.

And that's before we talk about night flights when there's nothing to see, flights over water when there's nothing to see and so on.

So yes, I'm sure some people like windows. But the majority have demonstrated that they're just fine flying without them.

Imagine you are on a beach. It's dinner time, so you need somewhere to eat. Fortunately there are 1000 restaurants available, all serving the same menu. 50 new restaurants open every day. And 50 close.

Sure, if you look really closely , there are differences. One chef uses more salt. Another is faster, but makes more mistakes.

You could of course evaluate each one, carefully deciding which one is best for you. Then after weeks of evaluation you could finally get a meal. 3 days later all the restaurants change their menu.

Into this mix comes a new entrepreneur. Look at all this activity, so he opens yet another restaurant. Then wonders how to get more customers.

Back to your problem. How do uou stand out from the crowd? A better question might be why did you join the crowd in the first place? I mean, you gave it a fair shot. Haven't gone viral in 9 days? That must be disappointing.

On the other hand most businesses take years to earn trust, build confidence, aren't in an over-hyped space, and of course even then, most fail.

Good luck.

We live in a world with cognitive dissonance. We have to because if you don't you'd go insane.

This article is perhaps a good example of that. On the one hand live in public (post blogs, use the same avatar on multiple sites) but at the same time try and control how that publicness is consumed (humans only, no AI).

Right now, whatever you make public is in AI. Whether that is on HN, or your blog, or wherever. You may not like that, but public is ultimately public.

Ironically a blog post about leaving some service because they used the marketing phrase "AI", is immediately added to the AI training corpus.

AI is just the latest tech in a long history of ranting against change. I'm old enough to remember "old people" ranting against computers (paper and pencil is real!), then phones, then internet, then smart phones.

People like to rent. People don't like change. We want privacy but post all the time. We don't want to be tracked, but carry a tracker. We live in a dissonance world.

>> Maybe publishers should JUST pay authors WELL, and get a book every 2-3 years

There are a couple problems with this approach.

Firstly, while the median income is 20k, the book business is like films or music; ie not evenly distributed. At the top end are a small number of successful authors. They effectively subsidize the publishing house while the house throws advances at authors hoping for the next big whale.

Many books never earn back their advance. Meaning if the author was paid out of royalties they'd make less, not more.

Making advances bigger would result in fewer advances. The pot of money is finite.

This is all happening in a market where supply is unconstrained (everyone thinks they can write), and demand is very limited.

And before we discuss the value, or lack thereof of having an intermediary at all, it should be noted from your link that the median for published authors is higher than self-published authors. So clearly they seem to be making authors more valuable.

In truth of course, most (published) books aren't terribly valuable. Like music and movies most float to the bottom.

So no, the answer is not "pay authors more".

I always find this line of thought interesting. Because it implies the manufacturer has all the power. But they don't. The consumer does.

Ultimately the manufacturer wins the horse-shoe battle because they are cheaper. And the consumers in the village prefer cheap shoes to locally made (expensive) ones.

Fundamentally consumers like cheap stuff. Manufacturing shifts happen because as soon as there's a cheaper output, you've won. Consumers will reliably switch to cheap. At the start there may be some brand loyalty, there may even be a quality difference, but both those erode quickly.

Lots of people promote the idea of buying locally, even if it's more expensive. But it's a hard message to sell, and a tough one to buy. I'm sorry for the blacksmith, but times are hard and I need my horses shod.

It's easy to blame capitalism or factory owners or foreign cheap labor or any other convenient political scapegoat. But the root of the problem is consumer preference for cheap (even if inferior) to the exclusion of everything else.

This is perhaps culturally most evident where the premise above is false. In the US for example food is low quality, but plentiful. In Europe food generally costs more, but is of a much higher standard. Portions are smaller. Quality is more important than quantity.

This is not by accident. Europe has deliberately fostered local food markets, local food production, and promoted a narrative around history and good production. Cheap food is available, but quality food has a strong foothold.

I think this is the key metric. Get people in the door.

Sure you can jack up prices on food and drink. Sure you can fleece the people who do come, but everyone who stops coming "because it's too expensive" is lost forever.

The alternative is to create a space people want to come to. Yes sell food & drink. Being "good value" helps that. Being expensive fights it.

While yes, the flashy electronics is cool, do people come for that? Does it make it more fun? I just saw the ball with my own two eyes. Does an animation make it better?

What brings in a family? Work colleagues? Teenagers on a date? What brings in more competitive folks? Is there progression? What makes my friend group go once a week? Why do housewives want to hang out there at 11am? How to catch the bored teenagers at 3pm in the afternoon?

It's not even just about bowling. Can you create a space people want to come to?

Oh I agree. The US is not doing the same thing as China at all.

China is spending its money developing manufacturing of goods the world wants. It has targeted markets and the govt is spending money in those markets. The markets they have chosen have huge economic and political value.

By contrast the US has chosen to spend its (govt) money on the military. Because, you know, national security.

The US is spending just as much money as China, but focused on different areas. Your complaint (if there is one) is that China chose different markets and didn't "play the game" (as the USSR did) and base their economy on flashy weapons.

Since the collapse of the USSR in 1990 its not clear to me why US spending on military continues to grow. It's not fear of attack; there is no threat to the US itself. It has to be a desire to project power and influence.

And yet the very limitations of that goal have been exposed in 18 months. The dismantling of USAid (or more accurately the manner of the dismantling) has destroyed 75 years of goodwill. Coupled with punitive tarifs (which are paid for by US consumers) they make the US an unreliable trade partner.

Then the war in Iran showed the very real limitations of the military. To be fair they're currently being lead by incompetence, with no clear goals or strategies. But it reinforces the point that all that military money is wasted when even simple conflicts are lost. And it further drives home the limits of that power projection in unpopular conflicts. A lesson, it would seem, the US wishes to re-learn all the time.

China it seems has different ambitions, and a very different strategy. And I get why you might not like that, because maybe (just maybe) their strategy is the smarter one in the long run.

I don't know what it's like in Scandinavia, but here, as an employer, I would see it as a positive. Something you can use as a differentiator when interviewing.

Recent graduates often underestimate what really matters to employers, Stability.

Obviously I'm not expecting people to necessarily stay 40 years in the company, but it costs a lot of time effort and money to add a new person to the team. I'd like you to hang around a bit to make that worth it.

Having children makes fathers less "flighty". You're less obsessed with "building a resume" and more interested in the stability of the paycheck, stress-free working environment and so on.

Yes, you'll still leave for a better job, more pay and so on. But it'll be more calculated and less impulsive. Which gives us more opportunity to match your needs with my needs.

In other words the maturity you learn at home translates into more maturity in the office as well.

When interviewing for jobs, lean into words like maturity, responsibility, stability and so on. These things matter.

I'm not sure I agree. In the aircraft industry especially the US has strongly pushed for exports. Overseas programs (TRS2, Avro Arrow) were terminated for political reasons (and replaced with F111 etc). More recently see F35 impact.

That's before we discuss the advantage Boeing has in the commercial market thanks to DoD contracts.

Your link shows that the US exports the same as the next 20 countries added together. That suggests some market dominance.

I also suspect these numbers do not include "military aid" - where weapons and munitions are "given" by the US to Ukraine wherever[1]. (But they may, I don't know.)

I agree though that the primary benefit of this is not "sales". And even if it was these aren't consumer goods. So it's not easily compared to China's approach. I'm not suggesting it's a terribly good subsidy. But it's still a subsidy.

[1] there are a lot of political benefits to be gained by having bases in foreign countries, or by port visits by US ships. Unfortunately most of those benefits have been eroded in the last 2 years. The gutting of USAid (which saved basically nothing), leaving the WHO, the tarrif nonsense, bombing Iran - all have destroyed a benevolent reputation 75 years in the making.

Arms, weapons, fighter jets and so on. The US sounds a trillion $ a year subsidizing the military industrial complex.

The US chose their market (arms). The Chinese chose consumer goods. Go figure.

I think "why" is a good question. And frankly for 99.9% of people the answer is "no reason".

One has to differentiate between "computers as a tool" and "creating computers".

I drive a car. It's good transport. If it breaks I take it to a mechanic. If I bash it I take it to a panel beater. I don't care about engine specs. It's a tool to do a job.

100 years ago if you owned a car you also had to be a mechanic. My father built his own car. Enthusiasts will wax lyrical for hours on engine upgrades.

In the same way, when I was young, the market for computers was basically the "creatives". There wasn't much software to buy. Most (PC) computers got built from parts. You could swap out each part at a time. You set IRQs manually. Good times.

But those products didn't suit the everyman. That only happens in the late 90s. Since then most users are "consumers" not creative.

The creatives still have lots of tools to learn (more than I did). But they will never be more than a tiny tiny fraction of the population.

There definitely were machines in (larger) businesses before the personal computers of the 80s, but the scales are different.

There were around 650 000 PDP machines produced. By contrast Commodore 64 made over 12.5 million. VIC 20 another 1.5. Zx Spectrum about 5 mil. Similar for the Apple 2. IBM pc made 7.5 million by 1987. BBC Micro another couple million.

And of course yes, these were the first "home" pcs. So as I said, before this time the machines were locked away and only used for "real work". PCs were "everywhere". We had a computer club (with 2, count them 2 machines).

Of course, compared to now they were rare. But my generation entered the work-force and spent the 90s "computerising" businesses. Not the giant corporates but the millions of regular businesses. I wrote software but it was common to have to supply hardware to go with the software.

It certainly was fun being around as an entire industry was birthed. It was very dynamic, things moved quickly, and there was a lot of "keeping up".

We saw it again with web, and then mobile, but they were less exciting in many respects.

There was this era in the late 70's and early 80's where this story is ubiquitous. And while we are all in our 50s or later now, it's interesting that we were essentially the "first generation".

When I went to work in the early 90s we were already the "old guys". Out in the real world everyone[1] who could use a computer at all was under 30. And we'd all cut our teeth on Apple 2's and Spectrum and Commodore and BBC and so on.

[1] yes there were folks from before that saw a PDP or whatever but they were rare, and usually either deep in academia or IBM etc.

Marketing is the hard part. Ideas are trivial. Code is easy (and now with AI trivial.)

Most humans do the easy part first. It's the most fun. Lots of people can play a guitar. Only a tiny fraction market enough to make any money.

If you want success (in anything) learn (and do) the hard part first. Every product idea starts with 3 basic questions;

A) who is this for?

B) how do I reach them. Prove it by getting 10 names, email addresses, and nominal deposits.

C) can my target market afford this? Poor people need private jet transport, but that market cannot afford that product.

Writing the code is the last thing you do, not the first.

Assuming of course your goal is to make money. I make ceramics for fun, not to sell. I get the joy of making and using my own pots. It's a hobby, not my day job. I'm not interested in marketing or selling them. And that's perfectly OK.

In SQLite the max int is 64 bit. So a rather large number (about 9 billion billion, aka 19 digits). That's a lot of rows to add.

I would suggest if you are storing that much data, SQLite may not be the correct engine. (And you probably shouldn't be using an Int primary key.)

It's a good question to ask, but probably not a concern for most of us.

I agree. In the long run some AI providers will be "greener" than others.

Once AI becomes a commodity this is the sort of thing that will become a differentiating factor when consumers choose one over the other.

Neither the power, nor cooling, requirements are necessarily environmentally harmful. As always ymmv.

First water; there are plenty of places on the planet where water is bountiful. If you site a data center well (say on a big lake in a rainfall area) then water is not an issue. An "using" water in this way doesn't affect water scarce areas.

Equally lots of electricity can be generated in environmentally harmless ways. Solar, wind, hydro are all clean. (Hydro depending on how and where.)

Yes, in the long run, it may make sense to put data centers outside the US. Norway for example has no problem cooling things down. And hydro is abundant.

Plus, water "consumption" is also variable. Water is used for cooling, but is not necessarily "lost". Its "used" in the sense of "made use of" but may also then be "used for something else".

Using this quirk allows for "hiding" data in the database. Because data after the nul is more-or-less invisible to generic dbBrowser type programs.

If you suspect it is happening you can read it (by casting the SELECT as a BLOB, but obviously that's not a common pattern.

Personally I've never done it, and clearly it's not something useful for security, but it does open the door to interesting meta-data storage opportunities. Again with the proviso that it is "untrustworthy".

>> you delete an entity and it's unique ID gets reused? Is that a good idea?

That's default behavior, but it can be altered when creating a table. See;

https://sqlite.org/autoinc.html

Sure, a battery isn't available to everyone. But I is available for many.

One would have to do the math, cost of battery versus 24kw free daily. But clearly for lots of people the math will work.

A side effect of policies like this is effectively getting people to invest capital to time-shift elec usage. That's good policy. Reducing the peaks in consumption solves other problems.

Ahh, so the 30c rate is locked in for everyone? So they've basically price-shifted the elec so it follows production cost better?

Even if you're not home I'm thinking there are a number of ways to make use of the free elec. Hot water geyser seems like the obvious first candidate.

I'd also think heating (in winter), cooling in summer. Even if you're not there in those times, the effects will be evident for many hours after.

For those who have programmable washer/dryers or dishwashers it's also good. Even ovens on occasion.

I get that not everyone is best placed to take advantage of this, but equally improvements don't have to be an "everyone or no one" option.

Can you elaborate on the higher elec prices for the benefit of those of us not in Aus? Is that because of the smart meter requirement?

From the article; this applies to NSW, South Australia and part of Queensland.

So yeah, not universal yet. But the precedent means it's moving in that direction. If WA homes end up producing lots of solar at midday then this opens the door there as well.