"Am I the only one that is not worried at all about the camera and super concerned about microphones ? The camera may see me staring into the screen, woo hoo. The microphones will hear everything I discuss, incl. confidential information."
All phones are suspect. We should go back to only carrying pagers.
> Note he doesn't state whether the difference was positive or negative.
But if taken (as it usually is) as a metaphor of life's choices, in this case his life choices made him Robert Frost, the famous, incredibly successful poet -- so it's implied that in his case taking road less traveled by was positive.
Now, if the subject of the poem was some anonymous nobody, then maybe the poem would be more ambiguous.
> What I do is take several diverse short video segments, like 100, concatenate them into 4 segments (example 23+24+26+27 since they have diverse lengths) and then xstack them into a 2-by-2 mosaic video.
Just out of curiosity.. what use do you have for a 2-by-2 mosaic video?
'Inmiced' lol! Thanks for keeping the titles accurate, so important especially with cancer research results. Happy holidays and I really enjoyed reading the quote on your profile https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=dang
idk why I see so many comments like this on the medical threads of HN lately. Laboratory mice are close enough to us to do testing on and have provided reliable results throughout their use. A basic Wikipedia search shows references for all of those claims and more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratory_mouse
That's because mouse models suck for many diseases. Cancer very much included, for two reasons:
1. Mice _love_ to get cancer naturally. If you have 100 mice, it's quite likely that around 20 of them will die within one year of cancer. This makes it difficult to extract useful signals. BTW, that's why if you see a study that a "chemical X results in cancer in mice", you should take that with a grain of salt.
2. Mice are small, so tumors are necessarily small too, with several orders of magnitude fewer cells than typical human tumors. So many drugs can just cure mice of cancer entirely, by killing cancerous cells too quickly to allow them to evolve resistance.
> If you have 100 mice, it's quite likely that around 20 of them will die within one year of cancer.
If you have 100 people, about 40 of them will be diagnosed with cancer over their lifetime (39/100 females and 41/100 males). Note "diagnosed with" is very different from "die" and "over lifetime" is not the same as "within one year", but the probability of people getting cancer naturally is high as well.
Sure. But in general, cancer risk should scale with the number of cell divisions, which is fairly low for mice. And other small, short-lived mammals like weasels are not as susceptible to cancer. Naked mole rats (also rodents!) are downright cancer-proof.
This all means that mice don't have a good natural cancer-suppression machinery, and this in turn makes them somewhat awkward to use to discover new treatments.
I'm not sure it follows that high incidences of cancer means that it's unhelpful to use them for research to understand the mechanisms of cancer. And I'm not sure that either of your observations one or two are pertinent in this case as it applies to the on/off protein switch, as it is not about guaging the statistical frequency of cancers or about killing cancer cells.
It’s a common trope in the field that we’ve already cured cancer in mice. They are similar enough to be a useful model for study. However, they are still quite different to the point where you never quite know how treatments will react… especially in cancer.
The biggest issue is that the mice we use for research typically have no or a highly depleted immune system. One of the biggest breakthroughs in the cancer field (IMO) is the development of humanized mice. These are mice that have had their immune system genes replaced with the human versions of these genes.
This is incredibly important for work like this where you’re studying cancer cell-immune cell interactions.
Some Brother laser printers have three serious downsides:
1 - They count pages printed and will simply stop printing when they've determined you've printed enough even if you still have toner in your cartridge.
2 - They will not work with third party toner cartridges.
3 - They won't let you refill your own toner cartridge.
So you are forced in to buying Brother's toner, and and forced to do so before you may actually want/need to.
Citation needed? Or at least a listing of model numbers with this behavior. I've got a 12-year-old HL-2270DW that's doing fine at home, and have installed an HL-L2340D, an HL-L2380DW, an HL-L2390DW, and an HL-L8350CDW at work. None of them suffer from any of the downsides described to my knowledge.
We run third-party toner in all of them, and they'll keep printing until the print quality fades.
I personally haven't tried refilling toner cartridges in a long time, it's not worth it when third-party toner cartridges are as cheap as they are and the Comprenew up the road takes the empty ones back for recycling.
If you have an old (>2ish years) non Internet connected printer, you're probably fine, but they pushed a firmware update last year that disabled third party cartridges. Luckily, for now you can just pull the drm chip from an official cartridge and put it in the third party one.
TN43x cartridges don't have the DRM chip, thankfully. They still sell printers that use them. Such printers cost a bit more than Brother's base models but to me, it was worth the extra.
At work, we have an MFC-8950DW laser printer and it's not very good. It leaves streaks on the paper and the toner doesn't seem to fix properly all the time. I end up with printed pages that smear or the type rubs off. That printer replaced a much older Brother laser and it was better. We "upgraded" simply because drivers were not available for 64-bit Windows.
I just bought a refurbished HL-L8360CDW, a current model. It reads a physical toner reset gear on each cartridge. Resetting the toner is a matter of adding a missing gear (starter cartridges) or turning it to the reset position (retail cartridges). The printer has absolutely no way to know if a cartridge is genuine or reused.
The starter cartridges even come from the factory with a fill port covered by a removable plug.
The above applies to Brother printers that use TN43x series cartridges. Cheaper models have the reset chip dance.
Mine is a DCP L-2540DW bought in 2015 for $99 from Staples / Office Depot.
#1 is a simple setting in admin console of the printer -- at least for my model.
It is called "replace toner" = "continue".
Default setting is "replace toner" = "stop printing".
I print for MONTHS at a time after the printer displays "replace toner" message with perfectly dark prints. Even when the print starts to fade out -- this setting ensures the printer wont refuse to print. Just keeps showing the low toner warning.
#2
I have not come across this restriction myself. Happily using cheap third party toners bought off Amazon for about 6 years now.
#3
Did not try but my guess is that should work too. I was just not motivated enough to try because cheap $10 toners on Amazon do the job for me.
Because I'll chime in with everyone else -- my HL-2270DW has been going strong for a decade and I've only ever used third party replacement cartridges. And it'll give me a "toner low" warning but still keeps printing.
Found an HL-22070DW at Goodwill for $12 and immediately slapped some third party toner in there. It's been going strong for about 3 years and haven't experienced this at all.
