Sorry, as someone in this field, this is bullshit. It is in mice.
Several things trigger my bullshit meter. Quote:
"This dramatically surpasses the therapeutic efficacy of current standard treatments, including immune checkpoint inhibitors (anti-PD-L1 antibody) and liposomal doxorubicin (chemotherapy agents)"
PD-L1 monoclonal antibodies are only effective against cancers that are, you guessed it, PD-L1 positive. At high percentages, ranging from 1 to 50%. Are these authors even familiar with the state of the art when it comes to cancer medications? Mouse tumors do not equate to people tumors. Many tumor types are not PD-l1 positive.
Doxy is an ancient SOC chemo.
This is a nothing burger.
Give me phase II/III clinical trials, and then let me know what their PFS/OS was after 5 years. and what the medians were at 3- and 5-years. Also, ORR and CR and needed.
CAR-T is ahead of the game, and will be the ultimate winner here as it grows to scale.
In my dad’s case- he had gastric melonama. We surgically removed it and as consolidation We administered pd-L1 Immune checkpoint inhibitor. Melonama recurred again in 6 months time. This time in esophagus.
As an engineer I think all drugs tested and efficacies studied are on statistically not so significant data points. Given the permutations and combinations far exceed the clinical trials available and hence everything post clinical trial is also just an extended trial.
Wonder How to fix this? I am assuming heLa cells etc are also not the right test setup to have better test results.
Keytruda, pembrolizumab, (what he probably received) can only do so much. If it was in his GI tract it was also elsewhere in multiple places. The PD-L1 drugs at this point have more than 400k patients treated, with decent efficacy. I'm sorry for your loss. If his melanoma had metastasized to his GI tract it was too late for anything except palliative care.
This drug has been used in a huge number of patients for more than 11 years; the next gen of drugs is currently being used. I'm sorry for my curt style of writing, but - people like your father have helped pave the way for that next generation of drugs by constraining clinical trial designs.
Nivumolab was the drug administered in adjuvant setting.
Maybe you are right that 400k patient with decent efficacy - however pegged chances are about 70-80% and not 100. So my point is can there be a better test bench to try and inch closer to a better efficacy?
For example - if hela cells can be used for trials — can there be the cultured tissue be used instead of mice as day 1?
Also curious — how did the scientist decide on using a specific cell/protein to be used for checking if this is producing results. Is it a hunch or science ?
Seems like a very interesting approach, even if it’s early stage.
> Many tumor types are not PD-l1 positive.
> Doxy is an ancient SOC chemo. This is a nothing burger.
Meh the research didn’t say those were state of the art, but that they were “common” treatments. In other words a baseline for a presumably cheap and well studied animal surrogate.
> CAR-T is ahead of the game, and will be the ultimate winner here as it grows to scale.
Last I read up on it last year CAR-T treatments struggled with solid mass tumors.
Many cancers don’t have unique proteins for CAR-T to target (similar to the pd-l1 issue).
Then CAR-T struggles getting the modified T cells into the solid mass tumors en masse. Interestingly this approach actually makes use of the tumor environment rather than be hindered by it.
> Sorry, as someone in this field, this is bullshit. It is in mice.
Nice to hear an expert opinion. Let's hope your comment goes back to black. I have a lot of question!
> This is a nothing burger.
Is it enough for a bread-mayo-bread sandwich? Lettuce?
IIUC the bacteria makes the cancer disappear for two weeks, until they end the study and kill the mice. (IIUC this is timeline is usual for very early studies.) They tried other bacterias and one of them made the cancer disappear for a few days, so I'm worried about the long time efficiency of this method.
Is injecting the bacterias a second time as efficient as the first time, or the inmune system kills the bacteria before they hurt the cancer?
What happen in case of metastasis? Each one must be injected with the bacterias or they will jump and make all of them disappear?
Does the bacteria infect other organs and kill you? Is there a good antibiotic in case the bacteria cause problems?
They used cancers that were 200mm3 (i.e. like a sphere of 7mm = 1/4 inch). What happens in bigger cancers? Does bigger cancer have better irrigation and make it more difficult for the bacteria to survive? What happens to tiny hidden metastasis (that probably still have good enough irrigation)?
I feel like many of the comments are focused on the trees and not on the forest. The new head of Facebook AI is 28 years old? That's not OK, that's too young. Too inexperienced and not worldwise enough by a long shot. No shit they're having problems. Can you imagine being a facebook lifer, or one of the LLM pros they've bribed/hired over to the company, to be bossed around by someone with very little life experience? No shit it isn't going well.
That’s much older than when Zuckerberg founded Facebook. Also older than when Bill Gates founded Microsoft, Steve Jobs founded Apple, and Larry Page and Sergey Brin founded Google. We’re talking about running a tech company, not being a politician. Clearly there’s no need to be 50+ and have a bunch of “life experiences” to be successful.
When these companies were founded, they had nowhere near the scale and resources in the hands of the current set of folks. Zuckerberg at 28 was riding a bike and this is a rocketship (pointed up or down, is not clear)
> The new head of Facebook AI is 28 years old? That's not OK, that's too young. Too inexperienced and not worldwise enough by a long shot.
This is ageist in the way I don't usually expect from the Valley. Plenty of entrepreneurs have built successful or innovative concepts in their 20s. It is OK to state that Wang is incompetent, but that has little to do with his age and more to do with his capability.
The only benefit as I perceive it re: orbital data center hardware is regulatory avoidance. Think...DDOS machines that can't be shut off; or financial hosting services for unsavory individuals. However, it's very expensive by all metrics (including those talked about in the article), and frankly, these satellites are sitting ducks for the hunter killer satellites the various space powers have, if they actually wanted to do something about these hypothtical data centers and the problems they would cause.
I don't see how this is really much different from just setting up servers in some underregulated banana republic; to do anything, you still need a connection to the public internet, and somewhat regulated nations like the EU or US can just block/prosecute at that interface.
Yes. The Japan Meteorological agency has a piss poor machine learning model that basically defaults to predicting 3 meters wave every time there is an earthquake in the sea and in the end it's usually a few dozens of centimeters. They lost all credibility by crying wolf every single time.
Is 1 meter bad? In context it seems to be missing what kind of waves normally hit the coast line, and what kind tide differences exist, and what the current water level is when the wave hit.
What is a typical maximum wave height during hurricane seasons in north of japan?
Apparently 2 meters is : A 2 meters (6 ft 7 in) high tsunami hit Chiba Prefecture about 2+1⁄2 hours after the quake, causing heavy damage to cities such as Asahi. (Tohoku 2011) [1]
WRT comparison with hurricane waves, I assume they carry a lot less energy than tsunami's, because they are "superficial waves" - caused by the friction of the wind on the water - whereas a tsunami wave is caused by the movement of a huge mass of mater.
People vastly underestimate the danger of a moving body of water in general, but especially when that water is where it isn't normally. Even a relatively tame storm surge picks up sewage, dangerous chemicals, debris, and confused wild animals.
So, I'm going to chip in with a different perspective from that of some other commentators on here. The overwhelming majority of computers in the entire world, used by our entire species, have windows as their OS.
While I applaud the use of alternatives to windows and it's apps, universities teach it because it is what their graduates will use in the real world. Governments use it because while it has it's flaws, it mostly works and is a universal standard. It's the toyota of operating systems. The parts and manpower to repair it and use it are available everywhere, and it's cheap and reliable.
I am in university currently and I run Linux, and the only thing that I have needed Windows for has been SolidWorks. Everything else has worked just fine. We’re actually provided Linux VMs because so much software development happens in Linux (or MacOS); you need to know *nix to be job-ready in CS. I’m not sure what world you live in.
Microsoft is not the Toyota of operating systems. That would imply some kind of culture of continuous improvement absent from Microsoft. It’s the General Motors of operating systems
> and manpower to repair it and use it are available everywhere
So why each time i announce myself as working with computers, there is always someone that approaches me saying "great, i have a problem with my computer, can you ..."? I just make them stop and ask "Are you talking about Windows?", and when the answer is affirmative i just say "Sorry, I only work on Linux." and they go "What is that?", lol, i would like you to see their faces when i say "It's a professional system!" and leave. :)
I think you do know the answer, and are just being coy.
In case you don't: The products that people report problems with are the products that people actually use frequently. When "Linux as daily driver" market share is the same order of magnitude as Windows, then such observations will tell us something about the two systems' relative usability.
There have been several proposals. This paper proposes a feasable mechanism[1]:
-"a SBH could be artificially created by firing a huge number of gamma rays from a spherically converging laser. The idea is to pack so much energy into such a small space that a BH will form."
The biggest problem is that if you're creating it with lasers, you're only going to get the energy out that you put in. You really want to be able to feed it matter, which would effectively make it an anything-to-gamma-radiation converter, which means you have to feed it quite a lot of matter, against the radiation pressure of all that energy coming out. The paper mentioned assumes a worst case of not being able to feed the black hole at all, but doesn't (in my skim) address the fact that this means you have to put in all the energy you'll be using for the lifetime of the black hole at the creation of it, which seems significantly more outrageously infeasible than the bare necessity of creating a black hole at all.
Europeans have still not forgotten the impact of WW2. Musk sieg heiling on live TV (twice!!!) is not something they take lightly. Tesla sales of cratered over there, rightfully so, because of his completely unforced error.
I’m European and nobody cares about WW2. References to that period of time do not go beyond punchlines. I have no idea why Tesla sales are cratering but this isn’t it.
If you're not a total doofus, you should be able to look around you and see how things still today are worse off because of the nazis than they would have been without them. But we have doofi among us, so you might just be one.
It's weird when you see an account like this on HN (a tech site) and when you check their comment history the only comments more than a few words long are in defense of American right wing political talking points.
It definitely feels like there's been an uptick in the past few months of far right brigading. There's been a number of times where I've seen incredibly low effort and inflammatory posts flag-killed from recent accounts only to be vouched for and revived.
I was in Italy over the summer and they seemed to universally detest musk, and trump there. So much, in fact, that it is embarrassing to be a US citizen in Europe with these fools “representing” the US.
did you meet people who base buying a car off of who the car company owner supported in a foreign (to them) election?
or would you say these were ordinary people or more the kind of people paying attention to international events? (genuine question).
I get that to an american it's contentious, but imagine not buying a toyota car or samsung phone because the powerful head of that company gave huge amounts to a conservative politician in their country. That's how I look at elon/trump in the us, and given I never hear normal people (not reddit/hackernews/guardian) talking about ANY of this stuff, I'd guess I'm not alone.
I'm in Portugal and I have definitely met people outside of tech who talk about Musk in ways that I'm pretty sure mean they would not consider buying Teslas.
Same applies to some friends in France.
I assume the topic comes up more with me because I lived in the US for a long time before moving back to Europe, but I'm guessing their opinions are there even if the topic doesn't come up as often in conversations with other locals, for example.
I’m not going to generalize, but I already told you, I met people who had a profound dislike of elon/trump and I don’t think I saw a single Tesla during that trip. Maybe Italy is a different case since they have a passion for high quality cars, so makes more sense that there would be other reasons for them avoiding Tesla.
You're forgetting that Musk is trying to influence national politics the world over. He's injecting money into far right movements in multiple European nations and keeps commenting on legal and judicial decisions in many countries, often complaining if things don't go the way the far right wants - all while using his influence over his companies to spread his views, like when he desperately wanted people to believe in the "white genocide".
I don't think the Toyota CEO is trying to have anywhere close to this much influence over most European countries, and I'm honestly not aware of anyone else doing so. For years, Musk has been behaving like a literal Bond villain.
Considering he is a fascist, makes nazi sign, spent hundreds of millions of the money he made to elect a mad man, yes, that’s enough to influence me not to buy their cars.
Do I know who the CEOs of all car companies vote for? No.
But also none of them spent so much capital electing Trump and threatened to destroy Canada’s sovereignty so I guess I make my consumer choices with the info I have.
Several things trigger my bullshit meter. Quote:
"This dramatically surpasses the therapeutic efficacy of current standard treatments, including immune checkpoint inhibitors (anti-PD-L1 antibody) and liposomal doxorubicin (chemotherapy agents)"
PD-L1 monoclonal antibodies are only effective against cancers that are, you guessed it, PD-L1 positive. At high percentages, ranging from 1 to 50%. Are these authors even familiar with the state of the art when it comes to cancer medications? Mouse tumors do not equate to people tumors. Many tumor types are not PD-l1 positive.
Doxy is an ancient SOC chemo.
This is a nothing burger.
Give me phase II/III clinical trials, and then let me know what their PFS/OS was after 5 years. and what the medians were at 3- and 5-years. Also, ORR and CR and needed.
CAR-T is ahead of the game, and will be the ultimate winner here as it grows to scale.
reply