> Fasting (1 to n weeks) is said to provide potential benefits for certain types of cancer treatments. Pre-cancer, it is said to potentially prevent cancer onset. This is potentially powerful for those of us with a family history with cancer.
It makes sense. Cells need nutrients for the cell cycle, similar to the way computers need RAM to execute programs.
Fasting not only deprives cancer cells of nutrients, but also triggers a homeostatic response in the entire body. This response includes putting its garbage collection system (autophagy) into overdrive mode so that it can reclaim the limited resources it has left to survive. Fasting is a reductive treatment, like purging oxygen from a server room on fire. It might help slow it down, but it can take healthy inhabitants along with it.
Additive treatments offer more options. If you catch the fire early and it’s contained (non-metastatic), you can target it with a fire blanket (surgery, stem cell transplantation) or a fire extinguisher (small molecules, biologics, peptides, gene therapy, etc.) to put it out. The sprinklers are a last ditch effort for larger fires (chemotherapy, radiation), which could save the building, but result in significant collateral damage.
If we were serious as a society about fighting this disease we would engineer an approach that guarantees early detection on as many people as possible. My guess, not having looked at numbers at all, is that the societal cost of late detection must be staggering. In other words, I am thinking --and I could be wrong-- that even if we provided annual checkups for free with a suitable technology, it might be cheaper than the devastation caused by cancer.
While not all cancers are the same, we cannot ignore the fact that there's a metabolic link to cancer onset and development. Our industrialized food system simply isn't healthy. I don't know how we do it, but there has to be a way to alter behavioral patterns (nutrition, exercise, visceral fat control, substance abuse, etc.) to actually protect people from both bad inputs and, frankly, themselves.
I don't say "themselves" in the sense of suggesting an overlord scenario. The reality is that most people are ill-informed and our industrialized food system is designed to be supremely addictive. Anyone who has battled with processed food understands just how difficult it can be not to consume it, both from a widespread availability perspective and what it does to your brain.
Despite the fact that treatment options and efficacy have improved, without fixing these factors it will be impossible to win this battle at scale.
This is how its meant to be done. Usually with the reviewer being the stronger model.
That said, with both the test driven development this post describes and the reviewer model (its best to do both) you have to provide an escape hatch or out for the model. If you let the model get inescapably stuck with an impossible test or constraints it will just start deleting tests or rewriting the entire codebase in rust or something.
My escape hatch is "expert advice". I let the weak LLM phone a friend when its stuck and ask a smarter LLM for assistance. Its since stopped going crazy and replacing all my tests with gibberish... mostly.
This is routine. We have Gemini (which is not our coding model) review our PRs and it genuinely catches mistakes. Even using the same model as the creator, without its context to bias it, would probably catch many mistakes.
Has to be an inside job. One doesn’t just simultaneously hack into an AWS account, know exactly which key is needed for coin minting, and know internal details necessary to exploit a smart contract. The nature of the hack practically reveals their identity.
Wow, today I learned. I never knew icq was meant to be pronounced like that. I literally pronounced each letter with commitment to keep them separated. Hah!
> The build script compiles C code down to a clang intermediate assembly, which is then handed off to a Python script that translates it into a Rust macro which is checked into Xous as a buildable artifact using its pure-Rust toolchain.
Ah yes, the good ol “we solved the C problem by turning it into four other problems” pipeline
> If you put someone on speaker without introducing everyone present then they should hang up on you.
This is silly. Just tell the person you are talking to that they are on speaker.
Assuming the party on the phone has been informed and the volume is not excessive, having a conversation on speaker is equivalent to having a physical conversation in person.
Silly is not explaining why you can't put your phone to your ear like a polite person who follows etiquette. Polite people naturally won't really just hang up, ones that know etiquette will pretend its more convenient for you to call them back when you can and others will just note you are rude.
Silly is not explaining why you can’t just pass a handwritten note like a polite person who follows etiquette. Polite people naturally won’t really just start speaking out loud; ones that know etiquette will pretend it’s more convenient for you to read their note when you can, and others will just note you are rude.
Similarly one of our biggest causes of power outages when I worked with a DC was the UPSes. And the biggest causes of data loss were the hardware RAID controllers. Feels like there's a fundamental law lurking under this stuff.
As the complexity of a system increases, the number of single points of failure also tends to increase. Sometimes you can make sure that several subsystems need to fail before the whole system fails. Often, the best you can do is swap one SPoF (e.g. unreliable power grid) for another, more robust SPoF (unreliable UPS).
this is painfully accurate. ive worked in security for years and the tools we trust the most get the least scrutiny because everyone assumes "well its a security tool, it must be secure." the irony is these tools usually run with the highest privileges in the pipeline. trivy sits in CI with access to every secret in your environment and nobody questions it because its supposed to be the thing protecting you.
Does it go without saying that OpenAI/majority shareholder Microsoft can unilaterally change the licenses and take Astral’s repos offline (completely against the will of Charlie or the community)?
Regardless of how likely/inevitable this scenario is, the public should make offline backups and forks immediately.
It makes sense. Cells need nutrients for the cell cycle, similar to the way computers need RAM to execute programs.
Fasting not only deprives cancer cells of nutrients, but also triggers a homeostatic response in the entire body. This response includes putting its garbage collection system (autophagy) into overdrive mode so that it can reclaim the limited resources it has left to survive. Fasting is a reductive treatment, like purging oxygen from a server room on fire. It might help slow it down, but it can take healthy inhabitants along with it.
Additive treatments offer more options. If you catch the fire early and it’s contained (non-metastatic), you can target it with a fire blanket (surgery, stem cell transplantation) or a fire extinguisher (small molecules, biologics, peptides, gene therapy, etc.) to put it out. The sprinklers are a last ditch effort for larger fires (chemotherapy, radiation), which could save the building, but result in significant collateral damage.
reply