Human trials may eventually be allowed, but I suspect that the results are preliminary and much work still needs to be done to assess the drug's safety before it makes it to humans.
Let me tell you a story about a biotech startup that I worked at many moons ago.
- We were trying to develop new antibiotics to treat certain bacterial infections.
- We had created a new antibiotic that was chemically similar to an existing, commercially successful antibiotic.
- But our drug was ~2-4× more potent at killing certain pathogenic bacteria than the existing med.
- Sounds good for us, right?
- Well, the commercially successful antibiotic was also toxic to humans if administered for "long" periods (it causes severe anemia if administered for 20+ days [I may not remember the precise details here]).
- Therefore, we were concerned that if our drug was 2-4× more potent at killing the microbes, it might also be 2-4× more toxic to people.
- To obtain approval for human tests, we had to run toxicity tests of our drug using several non-human species. Those results were mixed (toxic in some species, non-toxic in others), but we did eventually get approval.
- Unfortunately, the original concerns were correct: our drug caused severe anemia within ~3 days (again, specifics may be wrong), which means that particular candidate died in Phase 1 (initial human trial assessing drug safety).
Thankfully, the severe anemia was reversible in our test subjects (stop taking the drug, and the anemia went away)
You know... my wife and I have repeatedly asked my mother-in-law (who lives with us) to not purchase junk food because--even though she has no problem eating it in moderation--we have a hard time doing so if it's just lying around the house.
The author does make a compelling argument for using a telephoto to compress planes--the shot of the people on the bench with the mountains in the back gives a good example (even though the bench and rock-wall are tilted :-( ).
> Also, if your grandpa likes telling war stories, it's only because he survived.
As someone whose parents, grandparents, and entire family lived in Italy through WWII (and one grandfather who lost an eye in WWI), nobody liked talking about it.
If they did talk about it, it was usually brief and imbued with a feeling of "thank God it's over. what a tragedy that we were all used as pawns by the political class for nothing more than selfish ambitions."
Isn't that just a comforting fantasy, though? Germans also embraced the myth of Hitler as a guy who just somehow hoodwinked everyone and made good people do terrible things.
There was a prominent component of political scheming to his rise to power, and it was a totalitarian state that murdered political opponents even before it got to genocide, but he was enthusiastically supported by a large portion of the German society.
> but he was enthusiastically supported by a large portion of the German society.
I can't tell you what my relatives were like leading up to the war (I certainly wasn't born at that point), but they were illiterate peasants from the south, far removed from the cities and politics.
My suspicion is that, if anything, they were like most southern Italians, who seem to have a profound distrust of the government and politicians.
If I'm honest, they didn't have any moral objections to the war--they just felt used.
People forget that the popularity of being anti-war is relatively new, like maybe 100-150 years old. World War 1 popped off so quickly specifically because moral objections to war from the standpoint of "violence is wrong" were just not even part of the discussion. Even during World War 2, most objections within the US to entering the war were based on it just not being our problem.
Up until the last century, violence was seen as just another necessary part of living, and morality only came into play when it involved you're own community.
Up to some point not that long ago, public opinion as we know it didn't exist, and for some time after that it didn't matter much. I'm mentioning this because the poster you are responding to is writing about Italy. Italy's entrance into WW I was deeply unpopular in the south of Italy, and not all that popular elsewhere, I gather.
Just some other fascinating things about WW1 and Italy. Mussolini was heavily was heavily in the Italian socialist party. His family was socialist. World War 1 breaks out, he leaves/get kicked out of the party for his support of WW1. And it wasn't just Mussolini, it caused a huge fracture in the socialist party. The main party line was neutral with a heavy anti-war stance. Which I would suggest leads Mussolini to what would become Mussolini and perhaps with a lot less opposition. I would say there is probably some evidence there giving credit to the claim that today it is probably much more easier to maintain an anti-war stance than in the past.
> Isn't that just a comforting fantasy, though? Germans also embraced the myth of Hitler as a guy who just somehow hoodwinked everyone and made good people do terrible things.
And there's no doubt about it - it was a myth. Most of Germany stood behind him, and were outraged by the failed July 20th coup... In 1944. Ivan and Uncle Sam were kicking down the door, extermination camps were working overtime, yet most people were still fully behind him.
The hardest thing for people to admit is that they've been duped.
And they liked it so much that 1918 nearly resulted in revolution.
Anyone picking up the paper could tell that the war wasn't going to be won by them in 1944. It was two years after Stalingrad, a year after Kursk and Italy's surrender, France was being liberated, Finland was collapsing, and Germany was fighting a three-front war.
Compared to all that, 1918 at the time of the armistice looked down-right optimistic.
And it is not the only case. The French people went to war in 1914 "la fleur au fusil"[0]. Jean Jaurès is assassinated for his pacifism and (his assassin would be found not guilty - despite being totally guilty - in 1919).
I wouldn't necessarily call it comforting fantasy, people change their minds all the time. I think we're all to some extent able to justify some negative sides of any political movement as tensions rise.
I've felt this myself a few times now. Both when Trump was attempted assasinated and now with Charlie Kirk. I am sad that public discourse and our democracies are kind of unraveling these days and that this is just a sad reality of that fact. As far as Trump or Charlie Kirk go, I have no sympathy what so ever.
I'm not sure I really want to blame anyone for things becoming like this, it all seems like par for the course in the world we've created for ourselves. I just wish we were able to stop before this.
> Isn't that just a comforting fantasy, though? Germans also embraced the myth of Hitler as a guy who just somehow hoodwinked everyone and made good people do terrible things.
Another way this observation is manifested is how out of nowhere you have countries voting in extremist parties and politicians.
As a point of fact, Germans never elected Hitler. The National Socialists never achieved a majority, and their share of the vote had been decreasing over successive elections.
Hitler was appointed to the chancellorship by senior political leaders (the president and the former chancellor) who thought they could control him. Unfortunately Germany at the time embraced the "unitary executive" theory of government.
At 27:50, he relays a story about a grad student who did an experiment to see what the audience retained better: the slides, or the presenter's words. It seems the slides won out. So apparently the slides are the star of the show, whether you like it or not.
I honestly haven't seen much related to Tom Waits on HN, and when I heard this song, I simply had to share it with everyone who cares to hear it, irl and otherwise. He just gets it, no matter what it is. He's just a cool dude. I don't know how he does it. Years of honing his craft and it just looks so carefree and effortless. I'm so glad he exists, and I appreciate you too for enjoying his creations with me vicariously.
OT: Just replying to myself to ramble a little bit more.
The Crick, Brenner et al. paper that I cited above
* studied mutations in a viral gene called "rIIB"
* the authors used those rIIB mutations to determine that the genetic code was a non-overlapping triplet (now called codons) -- a pretty fundamental discovery.
* What's amazing to me is that they still have NO IDEA what the rIIB gene actually _does_, mechanistically.
It's like learning a little bit about God using an enigma machine (sorry, shitty simile).
Let me tell you a story about a biotech startup that I worked at many moons ago.
- We were trying to develop new antibiotics to treat certain bacterial infections.
- We had created a new antibiotic that was chemically similar to an existing, commercially successful antibiotic.
- But our drug was ~2-4× more potent at killing certain pathogenic bacteria than the existing med.
- Sounds good for us, right?
- Well, the commercially successful antibiotic was also toxic to humans if administered for "long" periods (it causes severe anemia if administered for 20+ days [I may not remember the precise details here]).
- Therefore, we were concerned that if our drug was 2-4× more potent at killing the microbes, it might also be 2-4× more toxic to people.
- To obtain approval for human tests, we had to run toxicity tests of our drug using several non-human species. Those results were mixed (toxic in some species, non-toxic in others), but we did eventually get approval.
- Unfortunately, the original concerns were correct: our drug caused severe anemia within ~3 days (again, specifics may be wrong), which means that particular candidate died in Phase 1 (initial human trial assessing drug safety).
Thankfully, the severe anemia was reversible in our test subjects (stop taking the drug, and the anemia went away)