I’ve been quite curious about Cancer since losing my mom to it two years ago. I’m currently infatuated with the idea that Cancer my well be parasites reaching various stages of killing the host.
Parasites, their preferred habitats, diet, chemical excretions, breeding and life cycles in general has been enlightening. Could some seasonal allergies or colds be the Jarisch-Herxheimer reaction to parasites… these are the kind of questions I find when not looking.
I guess the biggest question I have is, why if after countless autopsies that confirm the deceased had parasites do we not investigate this subject more? Humans are one of the rare species that don’t receive preventive treatment or screenings for parasites. Cattle, fish, birds, pets, all manner of zoo animals… but not humans?
Because cancer isn't a parasite. They are your own cells, just with various mutations. A parasite is a foreign living organism that lives off of another, for example, a parasitic worm. Anyone can easily confirm cancer cells are genetic mutations to your own by doing a genetic test - and in fact this is done regularly, it's called a germline and somatic genetic test, which can help identify if certain drugs would work well on the cancer. This is a form of personalized medicine.
My description that “Cancer my well be parasites reaching various stages of killing the host” wasn’t great.
> They are your own cells, just with various mutations.
Could parasite eggs lodged deep inside tissue for a long time (a fusion or sorts) not produce similar results? Have any studies along those lines been done?
EDIT: Could the chemical signal they excrete to keep the eggs dormant or the chemicals they excrete at time of death cause a mutation or other illnesses?
Any reason why we don’t treat humans with preventives or do screenings for parasites? I remember reading that it’s estimated that 80% of the population likely has some kind of parasite. I not trying to drift off subject. It just seems to be a gaping hole that the medical industry has no interest in.
A lot of things can cause cancer. For example, prostatitis and inflammation likely cause cancer, and likely are also correlated with it metastasizing. (I'm not claiming it's the cause or a sole reason but the evidence suggests it increases the risks.) I've never looked into parasites but it's possible parasites are associated with an increased relative risk of cancer, and the mechanism of action would probably be inflammation.
My guess is people are in effect checked for parasites by way of annual bloodwork and annual checkups. If someone started losing weight, for example, they'd go see a doctor who might investigate for parasites if the symptoms point to it. There is probably not much reason to do an annual parasite-specific test in people. Livestock cannot talk to us about their symptoms, and eat all sorts of crap, so there's some important difference there.
> Livestock cannot talk to us about their symptoms, and eat all sorts of crap, so there's some important difference there.
My understanding is that parasite eggs can live outside the host for months if not longer (surviving long winters, etc) and can be smaller than the eye can see. They’re effectively unavoidable and that a healthy immune system keeps them in check.
> they'd go see a doctor who might investigate for parasites if the symptoms point to it.
I am really struggling to see any interest in the subject and very little data. From what I’ve seen doctors are fairly dismissive even when the patient brings it up (although this appears to be mostly hearsay but again to little data on what would seem to be a fascinating subject for researchers).
Sadly, armchair authoritarians often clamor for escalating punitive force on non-violent, non-criminal, peaceful protestors even when it's completely unnecessary and increases danger of physical harm for all involved.
I don't see towing all the trucks to impound and arresting the drivers as "violent and destructive" (unless the drivers force it to be so). I especially don't see it as more violent and destructive than parking a bunch of trucks in places that massively disrupt traffic for weeks.
Oh you mean the mandates the Supreme Court just struck down?[1]
I am vaccinated but I stand with my brothers and sisters who demand a choice. Had it been mandated and had I known then what I know now, I would have not taken it.
State level mandates are considered to be constitutional, it's the broad federal mandate without employment specialization that wasn't considered constitutional.
This isn't moving goal posts but providing context.
> These are luxuries not rights. You don't have the right to go to a bar.
Does that mean that the government has the right to deny the population anything not spelled out as a right in the constitution? That sounds unlimited to me. Don't western governments usually have their responsibilities a bit more narrowly defined?
Granted covid is an emergency. I guess the question is how big an emergency something needs to be before allowing the government to place restrictions that would otherwise be unconstitutional. Reasonable people differ on their opinion of the tradeoffs involved, especially as we move through time.
The way to approach these questions is from the rights of the workers.
The people who work at the restaurants have a right to a healthy and safe work environment (this is why smoking was banned in restaurants).
These worker rights trump the "right" of someone to be able to go to a restaurant in a way that puts workers' health at risk. The reasons is because that worker has no choice, while on the other side, the other person has choices of: 1) get vaccinated or 2) feed themselves by making a sandwich at home.
Your example was interesting. There are more laws protecting worker safety than there are laws protecting restaurant patrons.
For the purposes of covid I'm not sure if that is a black and white situation legally, at least in the U.S. Neither the rights of workers or patrons are spelled out as constitutional rights, because the constitution limits the government. This even kind of came up in the Supreme Court, which said that OSHA does not have the right to mandate vaccines in the name of workplace safety.
But doesn't the degree of danger and the trade-off involved in lockdowns matter? There's been a lot of mitigations against covid, some which make more sense than others as we've learned more, some that have costly effects - both financial and otherwise, especially for young people. Some look at the total count of 931k dead in the U.S. and want to do more. Some look at the same number as 1 out of 350 of the population, skewing old and unhealthy, and think we've done too much. We don't close restaurants for the flu, which kills tens of thousands of people.
I don't think this comes down to just a workplace safety issue. I think the degree of danger is quite important, and honest people have very different opinions of the risks and tradeoffs involved. The degree of danger and the mitigations required to make a difference in that danger are better known and quite different than two years ago. That is why there will be more and more calls to remove the existing mitigations.
I've always felt we should have put more effort into supporting those who are feel they are vulnerable, rather than punishing those who are not.
I've felt especially bad for young people who are at minimal risk from covid, having their lives turned upside down, who will inherit the extra trillions of dollars of debt all this will have cost.
”How do I supply documentation to vindicate my posting relating to the Duncan Hines 1940 Travel Guide that highlighted travel accommodations that banned ”Restricted Clientele” which refers to Jews and Blacks?”
When RESTRICTED CLIENTELE was searched for there were 456 results that were shown. The meaning of restricted clientele meant that Jews and Blacks were not welcome at those establishments which were scattered across the Country.
The reasons people seem to be dancing around is censorship. Woke ideology on one side and the CCP on the other. That’s an extremely narrow area to work in.
I don’t see this movie as an outlier. TV and Film have been in trouble since BLM and now with China buying AMC, the prospects don’t look good.
As as a (former) movie goer I’ve seen nothing but shit for the last 2 years. I now suspect shit is the new normal. I’m not paying for shit… it’s that simple. In other words, I agree with you.
What does this have to do with the movie? Even if I could imagine a scenario in which the argument would be relevant, I don't understand what you're specifically attacking here.
Something trans related maybe? Dunno. Woke movie making is super annoying but I didn't get any of that from the new Matrix. Maybe because all the characters were chosen in 1999 before CRT took off, maybe because it just wasn't necessary. As a kid Morpheus/Fishburne was perhaps the coolest black man I'd ever seen, the casting was perfect. The man managed to somehow carry off both radiating gravitas and also this almost child-like naivety and belief in Neo.
The new Morpheus was just nothing. What a waste. Really, the casting in the original was one of the things that made it. Agent Smith, the Architect, each of these actors looked and sounded like their character. The casting in the new Matrix was just all over the place. Never did care for Trinity though.
> Woke movie making is super annoying but I didn't get any of that from the new Matrix.
New Neo is blue haired girl. New Trinity is tattooed girl. New Neo and New Trinity are not yet lovers (which appeases the CCP) but the final scene shows them embracing behind Old Neo/Trinity.
I don’t think I read that wrong and thought it was pretty obvious?
So your guess is that no movies from here on out are going to feature lesbians because of CCP, and you assumed everyone else would have made this connection and would immediately notice girls with tattoos, blue hair, and connect this with both ultra-left and chinese overlords!? And the apparent lack of these qualities compared to previous movies that might have featured slightly less subtle hints of gay sex is where you draw the line?
That's a pretty tenous connection imo. You might as well pick any arbitrary thing you think is declining, financially I guess, and point to wokeness or the CCP as the cause. Is there something specific you saw in the older movies that you think is missing because of that stuff, therefore the movie is bad and wokeness is responsible?
I claimed censorship is the cause followed by identifying the censoring parties.
I can imagine areas where censorship could lead to increased profitability. Just as I can imagine where it can lead to losses. The Film industry I put firmly in the losses category.
Due you think continued/increased censorship will be good/profitable for the film industry?
I have no opinion on the latter, there haven't been any movies except Bond that are in theaters and I'd like to see. You could have just referred to more specific instances of CCP censorship with regard to previous Marvel releases, because I don't follow it and it just comes across as fear-baiting rather than having substance. With respect to those things like Eternals not being released in China, and Hollywood probably wanting to court their audience, afaik it was not released there and I also don't think it looks very good, so I wouldn't necessarily attribute it to censorship because obviously it didn't work to get into that market. Every superhero oriented movie I've seen, or seen a trailer for, looks awful, but unfortunately they often do sell quite well in the North American market and make up disproportionately large amount of released movies over the last decade.
In summary, the movies I've seen that suck tend to just suck. Usually it's because they're way too long, or they don't tell a story very well, or the plot is just rehashed and contrived. James Bond was great, 1917 etc, but others just seem uninspired. To make a case that censorship is the reason, I think you'd need be annoyed with specific aspects of a production, rather than the entire thing.
I think there's an issue on the internet of people wanting to discuss somewhat contentious issues that are assumed to be followed by everyone, like CCP stuff or immigration or trans issues or whatever, but most people just don't care or aren't in that bubble, so it tend to come across as a bit sus unless you can tie it in together and make a reasonable case for it.
It doesn’t matter where it terminates. Filtering https is a BAD idea. Installing a root cert is a bad idea! I almost didn’t believe that they offered this but they sure do [1].
I think it’s incredibly irresponsible of them to do this, even if their intentions are good.
> The recent shit storm was not caused by a malicious act on the part of anybody at UMN. The "overworked" maintainers made a mistake and ascribed malice to the actions of a good-faith contributor who also happened to be from UMN
This is not true and is explained in the article:
> That said, there are multiple definitions of "malice". To some of the developers involved, posting unverified patches from an experimental static-analysis tool without disclosing their nature is a malicious act. It is another form of experiment involving non-consenting humans.
This is the “recent shit storm” and can in no way be described as “good-faith” particularly after the disgusting response from the researcher after being called out on their shit.
This is so very frustrating, and why I wish the LWN article more strongly explained how wrong Greg was.
> particularly after the disgusting response from the researcher after being called out on their shit.
The researcher was slandered publicly by Greg. Greg repeatedly accuses the maintainer of purposefully submitting malicious patches, which he NEVER did. Greg also does so in an extraordinarily insulting way, diminishing the student's skillset, somewhat ironically as the student's research did in fact find bugs in the kernel.
The researcher very rightfully responded the way he did - by calling out the slanderous remarks and removing himself from the Linux Kernel, a project that will no longer benefit from his contributions (which, if you bothered to look into, are far better than Greg gave credit for).
Greg is very much in the wrong here. He is the one who made repeated false accusations.
Please do not continue the very unfortunate attacks against a student who was only trying to submit good-faith patches to the kernel.
You omitted the fact that Aditya's advisor was Kangjie Lu, who ran the research project with the bogus patches. It would be natural to assume that anything from that general direction would be more of the same.
And this justifies slandering another unrelated human how? It might explain the more aggressive jump to an assumption of malice, you are correct, but it sure as hell doesn't justify arbitrary negative actions especially towards another honest human being resulting from such a leap. That's either Greg's fault or Kangjie's fault or some combination but certainly not Aditya's fault and they don't deserve to be treated as sub-human because of simple proximity.
That type of reality is not natural and it's not human and it's not the one I live in.
Be pissed at the stupid research paper all you want. It doesn't justify treating some tertiary human like utter shit.
And for the record nobody is trying to "cancel" Greg or the kernel here. The project is great and Greg is probably a super chill dude on most occasions. But people aren't perfect and fuck up. You can act rashly under stress and later be wrong. That's understandable and that is human. The whole point is how you respond in light of new information. That's the test of character.
We don't need to sit here and sweep Greg's BS under the rug because he's a kernel celebrity. I honestly think some form of apology would go a long way to rectifying the slander, and cool down the whole thing and most importantly, might be enough to make Aditya feel welcome again in the community. Greg was wrong, his behavior rash, and the example should not be emulated by others in our community. Period.
And yes, you are being misled. That's why Greg needs to publicly retract his accusation and apologize. That's why it's so frustrating that LWN did not clearly explain that Greg was flat out wrong.
I can’t understand why he would put his name on that open letter and remain quiet. For now, I will withhold judgment either way and hope more details emerge.
Edit: To clarify, I don’t think you’ve made enough of a case to prove Aditya’s innocence or justified your attack on Greg.
Aditya decided to join a supervisor with questionable ethics who ran a very ill-conceived research project. He could have chosen someone else for his thesis or spoken up when the paper went for submission, or at least stepped aside from kernel development but instead decided to dig in. It's all very poor judgement on his part, in multiple instances. There's no need to normalize that behaviour, because it's not normal, at least not in the world I'd like to live in.
Recommended reading: All Hallows Eve by Charles Williams, a meditation on where stupidity and selfishness lead.
I don't necessarily disagree about how a student should handle an ethically grey situation. But that still doesn't justify treating other humans like shit.
And for the record I don’t think there is even level headed consensus formed yet on the whole paper thing. It’s arguably unethical, but it is also arguably simply inconsiderate. And it has certainly provided some degree of utility, although it’s unclear how much. I think most of the impressions have been molded by Greg’s response during the “kernel peeps are pissed” phase of the whole affair.
And for the record I don’t think there is even level headed consensus formed yet on the whole paper thing.
The paper has been withdrawn because consensus is clear: for experiments on human subjects informed consent is required in advance. The institution recognizes that much: "We acknowledge our responsibility to do this to prevent situations like this incident in the future."
It's also reactionary. There was social pressure and the threat of being perma-banned as an institution from contributing to the kernel. The decision was made under duress. It's not surprising it was withdrawn.
> for experiments on human subjects informed consent is required in advance
By such simple logic A/B testing is unethical. And that may be the case. Still, it's not exactly clear in this case where to draw the line and who/what the subject is.
There's a comment elsewhere in this thread that sums the situation up better than I can: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26985631. I've read the paper and honestly I have a mixed impression. It certainly is respectful and doesn't come off as "we're going to be super malicious and mega waste everyone's time and fuck with the kernel maintainers for fun and science". It does not aim to experiment with humans in order to study how humans socially react to a breach of trust in a high trust collaboration. That was not their goal at all. Arguably, as laid out pretty explicitly in the paper, the experiment is not on human subjects but rather on a system of collaboration used primarily by open source projects. It happens that the system is operated by humans. Are you testing the humans, or stressing the system?
Is making crafted investments in the market for the sole purpose of studying the validity of a hypothetical model unethical? Is it research on humans because the market is a human endeavor operated by humans? These are genuine questions.
There are also different ethical frameworks. No harm was caused by this research. In fact, the only real harm to humans has been Greg berating a person (because of their proximity to past research and perceived sloppy patches) who offered legitimate patches some of which actually fixed bugs in the kernel. Clearly Greg didn't even take the time to understand the patches he just categorically dismissed them all because he had a bone to pick. Now the kernel is down a contributor who's contributions clearly have utility.
Back to the paper, even if it presents the obvious for people working on open source projects, it, like is the status quo in security research, is the working example of the exploit. In my experience people don't give a shit about perceived vulnerabilities until they become real vulnerabilities. As a kernel user, I actually value this research more than the alleged waste of time it may have caused for maintainers. I'm not the only one who feels this way. Sometimes to effect change you need to light a fire under somebody's ass.
So the paper is valuable to some subset of people. It provides utility. It did no harm to computer system or humans. You see what I'm getting at.. there are ethical frameworks under which this paper is clearly ethical (even if you concede it directly and explicitly aimed to experiment on humans, which I debate). Ideally the researchers would have asked Linus and Greg if they could perform the research on their project so they wouldn't feel out of the loop and attacked/culpable when the research was published. I do hope everyone's learned their lesson in that regard.
Anyway back to Greg, you're really moving the goal posts. We can agree 100% that the paper is unethical. The fact is simply irrelevant when considering whether it's right to piss on some student at UMN who presented valid albeit sloppy patches to the kernel in a gesture of good faith in order to try and improve the state of security. It's a breach of the kernel's own community guidelines, at the very least!
This is a ridiculous judgment from someone who has barely a glimpse into someone else's life. You've extrapolated, from a mere association that you know virtually nothing about, that Aditya must be both stupid and selfish.
From his posts to the mailing list it's clear that Greg was aware of the "hypocrite commit" paper and that there was some agreement in place with the University which must have stipulated "no more bogus patches". Professor Lu and everyone in his group were aware of the state of affairs. Then Aditya went and posted another bogus patch, the output of his static analyzer, to further his career, even though he should have known how that would be received. I regretfully stand by my assessment.
> and that there was some agreement in place with the University which must have stipulated "no more bogus patches"
This is baseless.
> Then Aditya went and posted another bogus patch
Not bogus. Aditya's analyzer did in fact find plenty of bugs - do your research, this is confirmed by many other maintainers.
> to further his career, even though he should have known how that would be received
Why should he have known that? I would never expect to receive the kind of feedback given by Greg, followed by a total university ban, over a student submitting subpar commits. It's an insane overreaction.
> Not bogus. Aditya's analyzer did in fact find plenty of bugs
But the commit in question was bogus, and it looks like Aditya did not properly check the output of his tool. Maybe he did not send bogus patches on purpose, but the fact that he used the Linux kernel as a playground for testing his experimental static analysis tool (without disclosing it in the commits) is still problematic and he should be called out for that.
Here's another interpretation based on the facts we know today:
Greg was assuming these were patches coming from some new "hypocrite patch" project at UMN and "AGAIN" refers to the previous incident in Aug2020 regarding the paper. I don't think the student was ignoring anything. Greg categorically dismissed legitimate contributions to the kernel because of his rash perception that UMN was up to no good AGAIN. So that's why he referenced the previous event and said AGAIN.
In other words: Greg and all the other kernel maintainers were made unwilling participants in a research project (the "hypocrite patches") and then were made unwilling participants in another research project with the same advisor (the static analyzer which was of questionable utility).
So - no more free research support for the University of Minnesota. That's fair because the reviewers did not choose to spend time on the University of Minnesota's research output.
I didn't "omit it", it's irrelevant. It obviously would not be natural since it was incorrect, and a natural response would not be to throw blind, incorrect allegations and ridiculous insults due to a suspicion.
Greg overreacted. Linus agrees, other kernel maintainers agree. The only person who won't come out and admit it is Greg himself, and his overreaction has cost the kernel a valuable asset as well as the reputation of an innocent researcher, who now gets comments like "they're disgusting" from people who took Greg's accusations at face value.
I don’t appreciate being told what I can and cannot say in this manner. As for attacking people, you’re doing a whole lot more than me, which unlike you, wasn’t my intent.
> I don’t appreciate being told what I can and cannot say in this manner.
I didn't tell you what to say, I'm pleading with you and everyone else to stop spreading misinformation that is costing an innocent man his reputation.
> As for attacking people, you’re doing a whole lot more than me, which unlike you, wasn’t my intent.
I don't see any attacking. Don't be hysterical. I see a plead to yield to facts and to treat other humans with respect because they're human and they deserve basic respect.
How much of that was due to the SE 2 being available at a better price while meeting most prospective customers needs?
Personally I was looking forward to an upgrade... but not now.
reply