Ah yes, because economics and resource allocation are already perfectly optimal and balanced, and it is against the physical laws of the universe to raise quality of life via any other methodology
For contrast specifically, you can get much of that effect with a red filter. Just removing the majority blue/green components already changes the lighting massively. Can add a polarising filter too for an even more extreme effect on the sky.
There are likely biological pros and cons between innate and adaptive, such that using the innate response for everything is not desirable.
The innate response is less targeted, less effective, and causes potentially damaging effects like inflammation. The adaptive response is more targeted and more effective, with the tradeoff that it needs to be learnt.
What intrigued me the most is why their vaccine reduces allergic reactions too. If the allergic reaction is an immune response, why does administering the vaccine which increases immune response result in a decreased allergic reaction? I'd expect the opposite.
They say so in the article but you need a teensy bit more to make the connection. Here's the ELI5 version and then a link to too much detail:
You can have a Th1 or a Th2 reaction. One produces one kind of reaction and the other produces a different kind of reaction. And they both inhibit the other. It's a mechanism whose purpose (to the degree purposes exist) is to identify which kind of problem you have and apply as much energy as possible to that because they each fight different kinds of enemies. You'll see in the article they say:
> Allergic reactions are caused by a type of immune response known as Th2 response. Unvaccinated mice showed a strong Th2 response and mucus accumulation in their airways. The vaccine quelled the Th2 response and vaccinated mice maintained clear airways
Neither of these are immune (haha) to causing problems. Th1 was historically associated with multiple sclerosis. Obviously if your detection mechanism is broken you will create more and more of the wrong kind because of the fact one kind can beat the other with numbers but also because the wrong one won't even get the mis-detected enemy (which might not even be an enemy - and be harmless) out.
> Th1-type cytokines tend to produce the proinflammatory responses responsible for killing intracellular parasites and for perpetuating autoimmune responses. Interferon gamma is the main Th1 cytokine. Excessive proinflammatory responses can lead to uncontrolled tissue damage, so there needs to be a mechanism to counteract this. The Th2-type cytokines include interleukins 4, 5, and 13, which are associated with the promotion of IgE and eosinophilic responses in atopy, and also interleukin-10, which has more of an anti-inflammatory response. In excess, Th2 responses will counteract the Th1 mediated microbicidal action. The optimal scenario would therefore seem to be that humans should produce a well balanced Th1 and Th2 response, suited to the immune challenge.
> Many researchers regard allergy as a Th2 weighted imbalance, and recently immunologists have been investigating ways to redirect allergic Th2 responses in favour of Th1 responses to try to reduce the incidence of atopy
There's a lot of detail to it. After all, it's an emergent evolved device that we carry, but that's the rough shape of it. You can create one kind of immune response and simultaneously shut down another kind.
Allergies are not simply overactive immune response. It’s the wrong type of response. What’s really intriguing is how much we can do innate immunity that we have done relatively little with.
I'm pretty allergic most of the time (lots of birch cross allergies and dust mites), but sometimes when I'm sick the allergic reactions appear to go down. Allergies can be pretty weird.
I would speculate it's something like, if your innate immune system is running "hotter", it's going to reduce the amount of time it takes to clear anything it runs into, leading to less time spent inflaming anything, in a similar fashion to how it significantly reduced viral payloads, leading to negligible symptoms when the adaptive immune system batted cleanup.
The cynic in me thinks we will be squeezed anyway because australian leaders apparently love to sell off everything to the global market with little concern for the residents. Why squeeze just domestic or just global when you can do both and collect even more profit?
Bu-bu-b-bu-b-b-b-bu-bu-bu-but supply and demand bro!!!! It's the free market bro! If people are buying, the free market has decided the planet is right to be destroyed!!
For lightroom at least, no, because there are very few or even no good alternatives. It looks like there are a lot of photo editor apps out there, but most of them are crap or designed for different workflows. I can say because I evaluated various options before begrudging accepting lightroom was the only decent choice.
The subscription model irks me because it's a bit overpriced and they keep trying to shove subscription features on us. No, I don't, and will never care about ridiculously overpriced cloud storage nor generative AI tools. How about adobe fixes issues in the core product first? If given the choice, I would definitely choose a pay-once, no-upgrades licence. But adobe saw their opportunity and started squeezing us for more on a product that was fine.
The plus side of this is it's motivated me to consider building my own photo editing software.
I’m surprised capture one wasn’t able to meet your needs, as an ex-heavy Lightroom user that has been very happy with their transition to C1 with a perpetual license.
Yeah I feel completely the same and largely do not understand when people are obsessed with branding. I'm assuming it's some primitive brain social hierarchy stuff where we seek to have everything be stratified by social value.
Also I have a related point on consumerism. A lot of things don't really need a brand to begin with because there is little need for so many options. Like if you have to advertise your brand identity to me to have your product be a success, I generally assume your product is a solution in search of a proper problem. (Yes often they do solve problems, but I will argue many modern day problems are bullshit/fake.)
Good branding is recognizable without the logo, especially to the target audience.
For HN, macs are a good example. You can remove all the apples and we’ll recognize the laptop.
My Triumph motorcycle has a similar property. You could remove all the logos (there’s just 2 stickers anyway) and even my girlfriend who is not into bikes will recognize it by the engine sound alone.
Kitchenaid and Smeg appliances have a similar property. BBC hides all the logos and you can still recognize the standup mixers in their baking shows.
I find it interesting how this comment says we should be socialising with everyone equally, and another upvoted comment elsewhere here says to modify your appearance to be more approachable.
reply