I've always thought it seemed early, but in my first grade class we read The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe aloud as a group.
I don't really remember us having much trouble. I was hooked, and I read the whole series by third grade. I had trouble finding a couple of them, which held me up.
I got into many other books those years. My Friend Flicka, Black Beauty. The Hobbit. White Fang, Hatchet. The Forest Runners. Where the Red Fern Grows.
Still some of my favorites on that list. They really shaped my life, actually.
I like this, but of course the location it points to should be programmable at any time.
Then it's useful for everyone without dementia as well, and a bigger market is better.
For me, this is the perfect motorcycle navigation. In fact, I use an app that turns my smart watch into exactly this product--an arrow pointing to my destination at all times, no other information (distance might be nice though)
Actually, if it's for people with dementia, I think it should have a couple words on it. "Home", an actual arrow, and a distance. Two of those could be static additions, if the designer will allow their minimalism to be sacrificed for the actual goal of the product.
I hadn't seen Beeline, but it looks sweet. I may pick one up.
I always wonder if I'm just buying future ewaste, though. Looks like it requires their app, which requires their live servers. One acquisition away from end-of-lifed.
> Nguyen moved to UT Austin to start his own lab in January 2024 but passed away suddenly in November before he could finish the final experiments. The paper, of which he is the first author, is dedicated to him.
That's sad. I hope someone picks up the torch. The research sounds very promising.
The thing is, this is not really new. People have been pushing this metabolic theory of cancer for a long time now and even used it to propose things like cold therapy or ketogenic diets as a treatment option, despite the fact that we have very little evidence that any of this stuff really works. It is still refreshing to see people target cancer from a theory-first standpoint instead of the usual empirical tactics, but the theoretical foundation of cancer science simply isn't that good. Clinicians also aren't slow to adapt or scared to experiment with these new approaches, because everyone would jump immediately on those fancy low-invasive supplement treatments when the alternative is certain death. But you can't game the final survivability statistics, now matter how reasonable your theory sounds or how well founded it is.
I do not remember "evidence that any of this stuff really works" about curing an existing cancer, but there was rather strong evidence in large-scale studies with various lab animals, in which a mutagen agent created tumors when they were fed normally, but no tumors appeared when they were malnourished, either by eating a reduced amount of protein, or by eating the normal amount of protein, but with a bad amino-acid profile.
Both forms of malnutrition would diminish the capacity of synthesizing proteins, which would affect mainly a fast-growing organ, like the tumors. Presumably this slowed down the growth of the tumors, allowing time for the immune system to react and suppress them in their incipient form.
Unfortunately, malnutrition as a prophylactic measure does not really work, as it enhances the risk of other diseases, even if it might lower the risk of cancer.
The method described in the parent article might have better chances, but it seems likely to work only with a cancer that has been discovered very early.
Yes, this is exactly what theory-first approaches look like. And no, there is no data that any of this really works in humans. If it was about curing cancer in mice that were genetically engineered to have cancer in the first place, of course we'd already be there. But it isn't and we aren't.
oh yeah, he should spend his time figuring out some settings. and lucky him the behavior of that setting might change without notice, so he should also read all the terms updates and keep current on whats what.
> Law enforcement is an idea that originated when law originated. There is no law without enforcement.
To the extent this anything more than circular it's false. Although psychopaths exist, on the whole compliance to a lesser or greater degree is a normal human trait. So you can tell people what the rules are and they'll obey to some extent. How much varies from person to person.
So the creation of specialist law enforcement bodies is a distinct and relatively modern change to civilisations. Before this, there is either no actual enforcement or it depends on whether a powerful person knows you broke a rule and cares to enforce it.
Law enforcement organizations existed in ancient times, such as prefects in ancient China, paqūdus in Babylonia, curaca in the Inca Empire, vigiles in the Roman Empire, and Medjay in ancient Egypt. Who law enforcers were and reported to depended on the civilization and often changed over time, but they were typically slaves, soldiers, officers of a judge, or hired by settlements and households. Aside from their duties to enforce laws, many ancient law enforcers also served as slave catchers, firefighters, watchmen, city guards, and bodyguards.
By the post-classical period and the Middle Ages, forces such as the Santa Hermandades, the shurta, and the Maréchaussée provided services ranging from law enforcement and personal protection to customs enforcement and waste collection. In England, a complex law enforcement system emerged, where tithings, groups of ten families, were responsible for ensuring good behavior and apprehending criminals; groups of ten tithings ("hundreds") were overseen by a reeve; hundreds were governed by administrative divisions known as shires; and shires were overseen by shire-reeves. In feudal Japan, samurai were responsible for enforcing laws.
The concept of police as the primary law enforcement organization originated in Europe in the early modern period; the first statutory police force was the High Constables of Edinburgh in 1611, while the first organized police force was the Paris lieutenant général de police in 1667. Until the 18th century, law enforcement in England was mostly the responsibility of private citizens and thief-takers, albeit also including constables and watchmen. This system gradually shifted to government control following the 1749 establishment of the London Bow Street Runners, the first formal police force in Britain. In 1800, Napoleon reorganized French law enforcement to form the Paris Police Prefecture; the British government passed the Glasgow Police Act, establishing the City of Glasgow Police; and the Thames River Police was formed in England to combat theft on the River Thames. In September 1829, Robert Peel merged the Bow Street Runners and the Thames River Police to form the Metropolitan Police. The title of the "first modern police force" has still been claimed by the modern successors to these organizations
The Americans do have a history of using Police forces for Slave capture, but Police forces in the USA PRE DATED that
Following European colonization of the Americas, the first law enforcement agencies in the Thirteen Colonies were the New York Sheriff's Office and the edit County Sheriff's Department, both formed in the 1660s in the Province of New York. The Province of Carolina established slave-catcher patrols in the 1700s, and by 1785, the Charleston Guard and Watch was reported to have the duties and organization of a modern police force. The first municipal police department in the United States was the Philadelphia Police Department, while the first American state police, federal law enforcement agency was the United States Marshals Service, both formed in 1789. In the American frontier, law enforcement was the responsibility of county sheriffs, rangers, constables, and marshals. The first law enforcement agency in Canada was the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, established in 1729, while the first Canadian national law enforcement agency was the Dominion Police, established in 1868.
It's not helpful. You put a lot of words into my mouth, I deny them. I already made my point in my own words. I don't have to deny every position you make up for me.
If you read his comment, he refers to everyone going through the system as victims of the colluding judges and LEO. Almost none of them are. The victims are the people whom they committed crimes against, of course.
This isn't my position, it's just the language we use to describe reality.
No, I responded to their comment as-is. It's you putting words in someone's mouth again, not I.
The way you can tell what they mean is this line: "More you punish the victims better you make out." Nobody in America thinks that judges make out for punishing actually-innocent people. That's not what "victims" means here.
I agree, I think it does as well. That's not what the guy said, though.
I think I'm just reading what his comment says, but maybe I am doing the same thing as you. I'm just better at it. I got his position correct, you got it wrong.
You told me what I believe, you got that wrong, too.
From my POV you seem to be making a lot of inferences and then declaring them correct, based on some information about the original intent that I must not be privy to?
I don't really remember us having much trouble. I was hooked, and I read the whole series by third grade. I had trouble finding a couple of them, which held me up.
I got into many other books those years. My Friend Flicka, Black Beauty. The Hobbit. White Fang, Hatchet. The Forest Runners. Where the Red Fern Grows.
Still some of my favorites on that list. They really shaped my life, actually.
reply