There are likely biological pros and cons between innate and adaptive, such that using the innate response for everything is not desirable.
The innate response is less targeted, less effective, and causes potentially damaging effects like inflammation. The adaptive response is more targeted and more effective, with the tradeoff that it needs to be learnt.
What intrigued me the most is why their vaccine reduces allergic reactions too. If the allergic reaction is an immune response, why does administering the vaccine which increases immune response result in a decreased allergic reaction? I'd expect the opposite.
They say so in the article but you need a teensy bit more to make the connection. Here's the ELI5 version and then a link to too much detail:
You can have a Th1 or a Th2 reaction. One produces one kind of reaction and the other produces a different kind of reaction. And they both inhibit the other. It's a mechanism whose purpose (to the degree purposes exist) is to identify which kind of problem you have and apply as much energy as possible to that because they each fight different kinds of enemies. You'll see in the article they say:
> Allergic reactions are caused by a type of immune response known as Th2 response. Unvaccinated mice showed a strong Th2 response and mucus accumulation in their airways. The vaccine quelled the Th2 response and vaccinated mice maintained clear airways
Neither of these are immune (haha) to causing problems. Th1 was historically associated with multiple sclerosis. Obviously if your detection mechanism is broken you will create more and more of the wrong kind because of the fact one kind can beat the other with numbers but also because the wrong one won't even get the mis-detected enemy (which might not even be an enemy - and be harmless) out.
> Th1-type cytokines tend to produce the proinflammatory responses responsible for killing intracellular parasites and for perpetuating autoimmune responses. Interferon gamma is the main Th1 cytokine. Excessive proinflammatory responses can lead to uncontrolled tissue damage, so there needs to be a mechanism to counteract this. The Th2-type cytokines include interleukins 4, 5, and 13, which are associated with the promotion of IgE and eosinophilic responses in atopy, and also interleukin-10, which has more of an anti-inflammatory response. In excess, Th2 responses will counteract the Th1 mediated microbicidal action. The optimal scenario would therefore seem to be that humans should produce a well balanced Th1 and Th2 response, suited to the immune challenge.
> Many researchers regard allergy as a Th2 weighted imbalance, and recently immunologists have been investigating ways to redirect allergic Th2 responses in favour of Th1 responses to try to reduce the incidence of atopy
There's a lot of detail to it. After all, it's an emergent evolved device that we carry, but that's the rough shape of it. You can create one kind of immune response and simultaneously shut down another kind.
Allergies are not simply overactive immune response. It’s the wrong type of response. What’s really intriguing is how much we can do innate immunity that we have done relatively little with.
I'm pretty allergic most of the time (lots of birch cross allergies and dust mites), but sometimes when I'm sick the allergic reactions appear to go down. Allergies can be pretty weird.
I would speculate it's something like, if your innate immune system is running "hotter", it's going to reduce the amount of time it takes to clear anything it runs into, leading to less time spent inflaming anything, in a similar fashion to how it significantly reduced viral payloads, leading to negligible symptoms when the adaptive immune system batted cleanup.
The cynic in me thinks we will be squeezed anyway because australian leaders apparently love to sell off everything to the global market with little concern for the residents. Why squeeze just domestic or just global when you can do both and collect even more profit?
Bu-bu-b-bu-b-b-b-bu-bu-bu-but supply and demand bro!!!! It's the free market bro! If people are buying, the free market has decided the planet is right to be destroyed!!
For lightroom at least, no, because there are very few or even no good alternatives. It looks like there are a lot of photo editor apps out there, but most of them are crap or designed for different workflows. I can say because I evaluated various options before begrudging accepting lightroom was the only decent choice.
The subscription model irks me because it's a bit overpriced and they keep trying to shove subscription features on us. No, I don't, and will never care about ridiculously overpriced cloud storage nor generative AI tools. How about adobe fixes issues in the core product first? If given the choice, I would definitely choose a pay-once, no-upgrades licence. But adobe saw their opportunity and started squeezing us for more on a product that was fine.
The plus side of this is it's motivated me to consider building my own photo editing software.
I’m surprised capture one wasn’t able to meet your needs, as an ex-heavy Lightroom user that has been very happy with their transition to C1 with a perpetual license.
Yeah I feel completely the same and largely do not understand when people are obsessed with branding. I'm assuming it's some primitive brain social hierarchy stuff where we seek to have everything be stratified by social value.
Also I have a related point on consumerism. A lot of things don't really need a brand to begin with because there is little need for so many options. Like if you have to advertise your brand identity to me to have your product be a success, I generally assume your product is a solution in search of a proper problem. (Yes often they do solve problems, but I will argue many modern day problems are bullshit/fake.)
Good branding is recognizable without the logo, especially to the target audience.
For HN, macs are a good example. You can remove all the apples and we’ll recognize the laptop.
My Triumph motorcycle has a similar property. You could remove all the logos (there’s just 2 stickers anyway) and even my girlfriend who is not into bikes will recognize it by the engine sound alone.
Kitchenaid and Smeg appliances have a similar property. BBC hides all the logos and you can still recognize the standup mixers in their baking shows.
I find it interesting how this comment says we should be socialising with everyone equally, and another upvoted comment elsewhere here says to modify your appearance to be more approachable.
> You get to decide how people see you. Hair, clothes, body language, smile, is 90% of how people decide whether they want to interact with you.
I see what you're getting at, but also this take kinda annoys me because it falls into the bucket of implying a personal fault. If people don't socialise with you then it must be because you do or don't do X, Y, Z. "Just do X" and you'll become a social butterfly.
Based on my personal experience, I don't know if I buy it. I guess I'm a regular enough guy, but seriously almost never, across my whole life, does someone invoke random socialisation with me. Yet I know people who can't even take the bus without strangers striking up conversations and hassling them, while they are actively trying to be antisocial. What magic trick are these people performing? Can I learn the same trick? What if I don't want to perform it? I think the reality is that for some (many?) people, it just doesn't work out and it's not necessarily due to any particular flaw.
As someone who both experienced phases in life where no one approached me and phases were I get approached regularly, it's a mix of external signifiers and some internal woo stuff that people don't really understand conciously. Or said another way, when someone says you have to "look approachable" what they actually mean is that a) you have to present yourself externally in a way that makes people more likely to engage you (the aforementioned hair, clothes etc.) and b) you have to internally be open to the world (which is what dictates your body language in subtle ways that apparently get picked up). The issue is when someone says something like "have an open body language" is that it's impossible to 24/7 fake a certain type of body language, you actually have to believe it.
If you are naturally a distrusting person people will pick up on it, just how people will pick up if you're naturallly an open person. (The true trick is realizing that "naturally" can be changed)
I do see what you mean but again I'm not sure if I buy it, because it still sounds pretty meritocratic. I have been through times in life with severe social anxiety and times without, and the quantity of approach hasn't really changed. And doesn't explain the people who get approached even when trying to be closed off (I mean just listen to women complain how they're constantly hounded by men no matter what they do).
Also, what about neurodivergent people who may express their openness/closedness somewhat differently? Are they screwed no matter what?
I won't say you can't do anything to influence your approachability, but I really do think there is a very large component which is essentially fixed, and people rarely acknowledge this (which is annoying).
It's not fixed. It's like anything hard that doesn't come naturally. You may wish you were a guitarist, but actually playing guitar well is really hard. You have to work at it, over and over, for months/years. But if you can move your fingers, you can learn to play guitar. It just won't come quickly or easily, and you may decide you'd rather skip it.
As part of a smalltalk training, we had to go out and approach strangers in the public. I entered a tram to try my luck. As soon as as I sat down, someone else started to talk to me, and we had a nice conversation. I didn't even need to break the ice myself. So I can (anecdotally) confirm that people can perceive if you want to connect or rather want to be left alone.
As someone who has struggled with social anxiety over the years and has thought about this a lot, I have some thoughts.
It's all nice to imagine everyone talking to each other, but the reality is that in (western?) society, we have kinda collectively decided that socialisation is to be avoided. Either it's too weird, too boring, or too unsafe. I mean have you tried randomly talking to people? Most don't seem very open to it.
Also it doesn't help that the little "pretext" scenarios that can lead to socialising are being systematically eliminated from our lives.
And finally, if you're neurodivergent or otherwise aren't perfectly typical, enjoy people thinking you're weird anyway.
Yes, there is a pervasive anxiety around strangers and impromptu socializing among younger millennials and Gen Z particularly in North America and parts of Europe, and across age groups in certain subcultures. There are lots of causes for this, but this phenomenon is neither as entrenched nor as universal as you might think and the dangers are basically infinitesimal (zero for all intents and purposes). If you are respectful and mindful of how you engage, the overwhelming majority of people will at worst ignore you. Which sucks, yes, but more than likely they won't even do that, i.e. they'll probably reciprocate
I agree re the pretext scenarios disappearing and re neurodivergence adding extra challenges.
RE the former: there are lots more of these pretext scenarios than you might realize
RE the latter, I realize it's not your point but for what it's worth, you won't really be able to tell in most cases that someone on the street or wherever is or isn't nd. Meaning: there's a good chance that the person you are talking to is nd themselves. Lots of us are pros at masking
In general though i would say to be careful when generalizing about human behavior in a way that causes you to implement and enforce rules / limitations on your own behavior in response. This is unavoidable, right? And yes, there's often an nd component to this. But especially as you get older, these can start to calcify and limit you in increasingly destructive ways
Genuine question: what if the recovery asks for a 2nd factor that's e.g. the device which you lost? Is that common?
Personally I don't really trust companies to not do a whoopsie and permanently lock you out when you lose credentials. Especially when the company is big or hard to access in person.
For someone like me who already uses a password manager for everything, passkeys seem to add no security while reducing usability and control.
> For someone like me who already uses a password manager for everything, passkeys seem to add no security while reducing usability and control.
One advantage of passkeys is that they’re phishing resistant. They’re bound to the website that you created them for, it’s impossible to use them for a different website.
> Genuine question: what if the recovery asks for a 2nd factor that's e.g. the device which you lost? Is that common?
Instagram does something similar. If you have no logged in device and you reset your password, good luck getting in, cuz it wants you to log in a device "it recognizes" else it won't let you log in.
The innate response is less targeted, less effective, and causes potentially damaging effects like inflammation. The adaptive response is more targeted and more effective, with the tradeoff that it needs to be learnt.
reply