What my doctor has told me, after attending a urology + prostate cancer conference, is to think of the prostate as a sponge that absorbs testosterone. And once the sponge overflows, prostate cancer can be triggered.
But once cancer has occurred, adding more testosterone doesn't matter because the sponge is already super-saturated.
In fact, doctors who have this perspective will permit men with prostate cancer to continue testosterone therapy.
My father was recently diagnosed with prostate cancer and the first treatment was eradicating all testosterone from his body as the affected cells were "feeding" from it.
It's not a cure as they tend to find other ways to grow with time but testosterone does make it faster.
Of course there are many types of cancer so this may not be true for all prostate cancers.
I thought the accepted explanation of Annihilation was a metaphor for cancer. The slow seemingly unstoppable spread. Mutations creating new things that mimic the familiar but in often grotesque ways, mechanistically expanding to destructively consume everything in its path into a new form of life.
Wow, that's a throwback. I remember when my Ontario high-school in '84 or '85 got a whole room full of ICON computers. It was a total miserable nightmare for the teaching staff as each computer class had at least a couple of students with the skills to elevate themselves to root privileges and cause constant mischief.
The ICONs were way more fun from the aging Commodore Pets that had populated Ontario high-schools, and the big trackballs felt futuristic.
Yes! By the time I was in high school in Ontario (early 90s) we had PCs as I recall, but in grade school there were Pets and then later ICONs. At home a lot of kids had C64s, though my family’s first machine was an IBM XT clone.
I vaguely remember a mysterious “other room” where ICON-related things happened - this must have been where the LEXICON server was located.
I agree that truthfully we're not talking about excluding those users, but only preventing those users from upgrading to the latest version of the app. But for lots of businesses those two things are viewed as effectively the same, because they believe they are adding value to the new version of the app that will result in greater user stickiness and direct or indirect revenue opportunities.
Honestly I'm thrilled anytime I'm working for a client that has a iOS(-2) rule versus an iOS(-4) rule.
If you're a business with a consumer facing app, you don't want to exclude 5% or 10% of your users. Most of the client projects I've worked on had a requirement to support iOS(-4) which is super painful from a development standpoint and usually the number of users on a device with iOS four versions old are in the range of 2%. But I get that it's tough for a financial institution or a streaming media company or a telco to exclude potentially 2% of users.
100%. I thought the same thing with my Apple Watch and I resisted spending what I considered to be an unreasonable amount on earbuds as I didn’t care (or so I thought) about having wireless earbuds. But eventually so many colleagues had them and talked to me about how great they were that I caved and bought a pair. Wow was I wrong about how wireless earbuds was something I didn’t need. Then I started evangelizing to people about them, and the cycle continued.
I agree, at first the watch was not really that interesting. Now, I can see it eating Garmin and wahoo for athletes. Why buy a separate device for tracking the bike rides or the runs when you can just use the apple watch. The vision pro will be the same thing. Give it 5 years.
You're supporting the idea behind "A lot of times, people don’t know what they want until you show it to them." Except, it sounds like the barrier is even higher for some people.
Very true. And I’m an iOS/macOS/tvOS developer who has all the toys, yet even I had trouble coming to grips with paying a premium for AirPods over a good pair of wired buds.
This makes me realize that the gestures it is being demonstrated with are going to be hilarious if they are misidentified. I'm /assuming/ that the thing will not pick up gestures between you and someone else. Such that if I pick up a paper with a similar hand shape as their "pinch and move things" gesture, it will realize it wasn't the same.
Or will this be akin to how siri does a shit job understanding anything that is not mechanical in speech? Will be absolutely hilarious if it has a hard time recognizing non-light skinned hands for the gestures. Really hope they don't make that mistake.
Hopefully the troubles with Siri are understood enough in Apple that they won’t make that mistake, because Siri is truly awful on my HomePods for thinking I’m talking to Siri when I’m not.
Thankfully many of the people in the demo videos were people of colour, so I’m fairly confident Apple has gotten that bit right and hopefully their gesture detecting cameras have IR or dot-pattern emitters to work in the dark as well.
I would cite the growing unease in Siri as evidence that they almost certainly don't have this done well.
IR dot-patterns will be its own problem. And I hope you never want to curl up on that couch to watch a movie with a blanket. :D
That said, I am certainly not trying to say they definitely got it wrong. I share high hopes that this will work. Not enough that I will be an early adopter, though.
> IR dot-patterns will be its own problem. And I hope you never want to curl up on that couch to watch a movie with a blanket. :D
Speaking of which, notice how nobody who was relying on finger gestures (rather than a keyboard) was using menus, or doing anything mouse-like. Just scrolling and clicking.
You point to things by looking at it, which is very precise according to people who have tried it, like MKBHD. Clicking and dragging is done by finger pinching. So it works quite similar to a touchscreen or a mouse.
Yes apparently it is surprisingly precise. There might be an uncanny valley when the system is perhaps a little too good at predicting what your next move is. Are the goggles monitoring your facial expressions, looking not just for eye movement but also wrinkled noses, scrunched-up foreheads, etc. ? Will it be able to function as (for example) a lie detector ?
This is interesting. I've had both cats and dogs, and with the theory "they don't have fingers" I wonder why do dogs understand human pointing? Dogs of course communicate with a direct gaze (looks at empty food bowl, looks at human, looks back at empty food bowl) and can understand us communicating back with a directed gaze, but at the same time my dog definitely understands me pointing at something.
Dogs are not wolves. They have evolved to read and somehow become more like us. I bet a wolf can't understand a pointed finger, just like they can't read sadness on your face. A dog can do both quite easily.
What's more fascinating to me, is that the relationship is not one-sided: we might have learned something from wolves as well. They have changed us, just like we turned aloof wolves into empathetic dogs. Maybe they have made our society more social, and less isolated? Wolves know there is strength in numbers.
I love using the knob to navigate CarPlay, but I admit the Music app is nearly unusable with the knob and IMHO only marginally better with touch. The music app in CarPlay just generally sucks and appears to intentionally limit how deeply you can browse your library.
That said, in my experience Siri works well for music selection. I just hit the voice button on my steering wheel and ask for the playlist, album, or artist I want to hear.
My daughter went through a Montessori education from 18 months old through grade 8. As part of her Montessori experience, starting at age three, she began to learn to write. They trace "sandpaper" letters with their fingers; moving their fingers along the strokes of letters pre-printed on cardboard in a rough texture. From there they learn to write the letters and words, speaking the words aloud. Thus the focus is on learning to write before reading, with an implication that this process will help with word recognition.
I have no idea whether this method is better, but as a parent it certainly seemed like a very novel approach. Seeing my three-year-old daughter learning to write was (like many Montessori things) surprising.
I don't think it has much to do with learning reading or writing first, but more about learning letters before you progress to words, before you progress to sentences, etc.
I don't think it really matters if you start with writing or reading first, because it's basically the same skill: knowing letter shapes and knowing which sound corresponds. It's that learning really benefits from receiving the same information in different contexts. So as long as you both teach them to write and read, the order doesn't really matter.
One reason for using the cardboard letters for younger children is that the brain regions handling bodily movement are much more advanced, and thus provide more context which (as stated earlier) helps in memorization.
But I suspect the main reason for using the sandpaper letters is because it is way more interesting for the children to have something with tactile feedback, instead of just looking at a flat card.
Probably not really about word recognition, but about being an agent in the world. Reading is fundamentally a passive experience. The best reader in the world may as well be Stephen Hawking.
From my understanding, Montessori is more about doing + engagement than passive learning, and the emphasis on writing would be a way to express those values.
I never gave it much thought, but I am currently teaching my 3-year-old to write letters first because I think the recognition and muscle memory with the letters would help with stringing the letters together later.
It might be pedagogically novel, but I'm confident lots of people learn this way, at least for alphabet-based languages.
I know it's not your point, but learning to write by tracing at age 3 doesn't sound anything like the actual teachings of Maria Montessori. The whole point is child directed learning, and having kids at 3 trace things sounds pretty anti-ethical towards that.
Most of this stuff is parent directed because they want little Johnny to be brilliant, but afaik goes against pretty much all early childhood development research.
Give charity to the idea. Odds are high they had a ton of tracing stations available, and the kids that gravitated to it, used it. That is, the idea is to enable learning by availability of opportunities and encouragement.
So, no. This doesn't go against any research. Unless you frame it in the most uncharitable way that you can.
Yes exactly. The children at that age in a “Casa” classroom cycle through self-chosen activities every day and may not choose the same activities consistently. If a child is observed to be avoiding a particular learning activity over a period of time, it’s the role of the teacher (director/directress) to nudge the child back to that activity and understand why they might be avoiding it.
Plus given there are three years worth of children in the same class, seeing the “senior” children operate at the higher levels of activities helps with incentive for the younger children who want to emulate them.
That said, anyone can open a “Montessori school” and not adhere to any particular Montessori pedagogy. I’d argue the schools with the purest interpretations of Maria Montessori’s teachings are often just as problematic as those who are Montessori in name only. There are two tribes in Montessori: AMS (purists)and AMI (more flexible).
Thankfully the school my daughter attended was AMI and I watched the school adapt their methods to children who needed more structure than classical Montessori advises. Ultimately, it’s not for everyone.
But once cancer has occurred, adding more testosterone doesn't matter because the sponge is already super-saturated.
In fact, doctors who have this perspective will permit men with prostate cancer to continue testosterone therapy.