I'm also particularly skeptical of Amazon because our Kindle Direct Publishing account was banned also for no reason. They said something about me having had a previous account before, but I'm not sure that was true and I think it was a very extreme measure. We were actually selling books at the time until we got banned. They obviously also "forgot" to pay out the most recent month.
We have over the years raised billions (maybe trillions) for cancer treatments and we seem to have made negligible progress in actually curing cancer. Will it ever succeed? So maybe there is a root cause for your root cause?
Unfortunately "cancer" is a very broad brush that covers a multitude of diseases.
Plus the phrase "cure" does a lot of heavy lifting. People seem to see a win here as being "here's a tablet, all cancer is gone."
So yes, we have spent an insane amount of money that can be ascribed to "cancer". (We've Also spent a lot on heart disease, diabetes and so on.)
But yes, we have got an extraordinary return on money spent. Treatments and survivability of common cancers (breast, prostate etc) have gone through the roof. Better screening, better education and much better Treatments lead to much (much) better outcomes.
Not all cancers are the same though. Some are harder to treat. Some rare ones are hard to investigate (simply because the pool is too small) but even rare cancers get spill-over benefits from common ones.
In terms of "cure" - that's not a word medicals use a lot anyway. Generally speaking we "manage" medical conditions, not cure them. "Remission" is a preferred word to an absence of the disease, not "cure".
In truth, we all die of something. Cancer is usually (not always) correlated with age, and living longer gives more opportunities to get cancer in the first place. So it's not like we can eradicate it like polio.
There are more than 200 known types of cancer, and most are very fundamental and serious. It's not something which can be easily prevented or even fixed by just taking some pill or eating different. Yet, progress has been very phenomenal over the decades. Cancer can be cured to some degree, people can survive, but progress goes type by type.
According to this US government site, 5-year survival rates across all cancer sites have improved from 50% to 75% between 1974 and 2017. (For men it started at more like 40%).
That’s not utterly transformative but I wouldn’t call it negligible either.
The brain cannot function outside the body. The brain needs your bone marrow to make red and white blood cells. The kidneys and the liver to filter and break down metabolic waste. Various other hormonal systems that affect how the brain works (c.f. the HN favorite "gut-brain axis"). A brain separated from the body could survive for a few weeks, but long term it would certainly die from neuron loss (i.e. dementia).
The big question is why do we need 5g? My phone doesn’t support it and my internet is fast enough as long as I have good coverage. Coverage problems are only exaggerated by 5G since the range for short waves is shorter
5G does not mean shorter waves/higher frequencies, that's just a common deployment. In Sweden we have 5G on the 700 MHz band, 5900 MHz, and several others in between.
Back in school, I had a teacher who was in charge of installing 3G, 4G, and 5G antennas for a carrier in France. The answer is that the 4G frequency bands are saturated, and they pushed 5G mainly to relieve congestion on the 4G network. Theoretically, 5G has just as much range (maybe even a little bit more with beamforming) on the 700 MHz and 800 MHz bands.
I’ve worked at companies with cellular failover for the most critical services.
5G in my city is 650 Mbps and is honestly cheaper than fiber, but my fiber has better jitter (and can go up to 2 Gbps). For a lot of people, 5G would be more cost effective.
That blog post made it to the front page of HN and my site did not go down. Nor did any DDoS network take the site out even though I also challenged them last time by commenting that I would be okay with a DDoS. I would figure out a way around it.
In general, marketing often works via fear, that's why Cloudflare has those blog posts talking about "largest botnet ever". Advertisement for medicine for example also works often via fear. "Take this or you die", essentially.
Yes, marketing often works via fear. And decision making in organizations often works through blame shifting and diffusion of accountability. So organizations will just stick with centralization and Cloudfare, AWS, Microsoft et al regardless of technical concerns.
Cloudflare is widely used because it's the easiest way to run a website for free or expose local services to internet. I think for most cloudflare users, the ddos protection is not the main reason they're using it.
It’s funny how it’s completely appropriate to talk about how the elites are getting more and more power, but if you then start looking deeper into it you’re suddenly a conspiracy theorist and hence bad. Who came up with the term conspiracy theorist anyway and that we should be afraid of it?
I think I found this article via HN about 10 years ago. Have been using baking soda as deodorant since then and am still very happy with it. Hopefully posting this link again will help someone else too! It's very cheap, easy-to-use, and effective so what more do you want.
I've seen this scientific fact go around for a while now, but to me it just doesn't pass the smell test. Intuitively, it makes no sense at all. Forests are large areas that literally live on processing CO2. That's the main process that is required for growth to occur. So you have all these trees that process CO2 and you are telling me that humans have managed to negate all these processes? I suspect they messed up the math or are it is simply grifting by some NGO that got paid to say something about CO2 so we can invest more in some renewable energy business.
A tree eats about twenty kilograms of carbon dioxide per year. But burning a tree releases about 100 times that amount of carbon dioxide. So if just 1% of a forest burns for any reason, that reverses the rest. And if it’s more than that, then the forest is emitting more carbon than it absorbs.
reply