A lot of the increase in bills people are seeing come from necessary upgrades to the distribution infrastructure. Something that was going to be happening anyway.
For extra amusement, try living near a farm or a school. Public parks can also be a surprise if you don't like the sound of people playing. Add a court, and things get fun.
Yes! And now Meta is chasing that too and failing. It's not clear to me what advantage developing its own LLMs affords Meta. Google and the other platform companies, I get it, but it's not like Meta is using what's unique about their social data to train something interesting.
I think the general strategy for a long time in the tech world was to have as many of the programmers as you could under your umbrella. You don't necessarily know what you are racing towards, but the general feel was you knew that programmers were going to get there.
me neither; i must be an outlier but if i need to wake up at 5 i'll just wake of at 5 (or so) naturally even if groggy and under-slept... i must have some kind of internal alarm clock...
To add to your point, not only will you find that the patterns of consumption look somewhat stable, but that this cancer did like all other cancers in the last 50 years and plummeted in incidence.
This almost certainly speaks more to how much we have advanced on other cancers? The chart for total incidence shows it peaked in the 80s at about 70 per 100k and is down to about 40 per the same amount, now.
Such that, yes, we can still get better. But people here are reacting as if there is some damning evidence that just doesn't track with the data. Even with an uptick in younger people getting this, we still don't have a smoking gun on anything that is directly causal to this.
Also, holy crap, if you have rectal bleeding, don't ignore it! That that is listed as an early warning sign that people ignore is terrifying.
The trend has been down, even for this cancer. Such that I agree there were probably some big AHA moments. But I assert they almost certainly happened 50 years ago.
My expectation is that it is less that there has been a growing trend of this cancer getting worse, and far more that we have gotten better at many other cancers. That is, overall, this is good news on progress. Not a scare headline.
I grew up in a fairly industrial area with lots of trades people around me. From my anecdata, I'd suspect you're right. We know more about some cancers and the causes and they are easier to prevent.
The choices, personal or otherwise, I have seen can't be good for your body, and some you're simply not allowed to make anymore.
Ironically, sitting on this laptop typing this might be as bad, but win some/lose some.
But some obvious examples?
Ever dip a shirt in benzene because it cools you down? Apparently it feels like Vicks, but doesn't leave that sticky feeling behind.
A good portion drank 6+ beers a day. I know they must have eaten, but some I never saw consume food. At all.
Some smoked a pack or two of cigarettes a day. Asbestos was in everything.
There was no ventilation/filtration for welders, painters, woodworkers, etc. If you could open the shop door it was a good day.
It has ticked up 1-2 per 100k over the past few decades for that group. Zoom the chart out, and you would probably be excused for assuming it is flat with some noise.
By all means, we should study this more. But the way folks are talking about this is a touch nuts.
It went up by 4 per 100k. And, since it was at 6 in 2000, that's a large increase.
>Zoom the chart out, and you would probably be excused for assuming it is flat with some noise.
That's true of all cancers, if not all statistics.
The concern here is two-fold:
(1) The people under 50 now will be over 50 in a decade or so. We can already see that the trend of colorectal cancer among those aged 50 to 64 was decreasing until 2012, but had since gone up. This will likely get worse. Early onset colorectal cancer is a canary in the coalmine.
(2) Unless this trend is caused by a specific chemical exposure or a purely dietary reason, the behavior/lifestyle/health conditions behind it are likely to lead to other types of cancers. Obesity and lack of exercise have been linked to a lot of cancers. I'm worried about losing progress across the board when these young people reach their 60s.
It was not true of all cancers two decades ago. Which is largely my point. Things are better than they were 50 years ago. Including this. Should we try and make sure we don't reverse that progress? Absolutely.
And it is notable that this research largely pointed to genetics as being ~20% of the cases of early onset results. That combined with how it presents in a very different way from older patients seems to point to us also getting better at spotting it.
All of which is good! It is progress. And I hope we get even better at it.
If you are merely noting it as a concern for "things to continue to watch," I'm fully with you. Read the rest of the comments on this post, though. Tons of people pointing at things that just don't present in the evidence. Fear that we will find that one killer ingredient/process to explain the uptick here; all while failing to acknowledge that we did find many such problems in the past and have made quite astounding progress on it.
But "seeing fractals" feels like a cheat of saying, things have a similarity as you change scale. This could be true even if you think things reduce to strings/loops/whatever. Such that contrasting fractals to strings feels off.
If things have a similarity as you change scale and if things also reduce to strings, then we would expect to see strings at all scales, which we definitely don't.
That said, she makes the following observation at the end of the interview: "Asymptotic safety could be compatible with these other approaches. Perhaps at the fundamental scale there are strings or loops or something, but then as you zoom out you hit a realm where things change so slowly for a while that it looks as if you’re at a fixed point."
So while asymptotic safety is not fully compatible with string theory, the physical difference between them could be very small.
Agreed. And again, fair that I was critiquing the headline. I think I just balked at the use of fractals there implying that they were, themselves, somehow contrasted to other descriptions.
On things happening strangely at different scales, I confess I always thought this had to have some parallel to how basic scaling itself changes for values between zero and one. Fun to read more on it.
Wasn't this attributed pretty much directly to cleaning of the shipping lanes? With more direct sunlight on the ocean, we are getting warmer oceans. With warmer oceans, we get everything that goes along with that.
I didn't see it mentioned in the article, though I did do a very brief read through. And it has been a while since I looked at the shipping lanes thing.
I hasten to add this is not to claim we should not have cleaned the shipping lanes. I don't know enough to say on that front. My gut would be that it was still the correct move.
reply