How elephants avoid cancer (2015)
ginko 2021-08-17 10:43:37 +0000 UTC [ - ]
OJFord 2021-08-17 10:59:07 +0000 UTC [ - ]
You can, and I do when submitting, remove it by editing the title, but of course most people don't and why should they. Seems to go against the guideline to, generally speaking, leave the title as it is in the original article, too.
codetrotter 2021-08-17 11:07:19 +0000 UTC [ - ]
You mean title case?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_case
> Title case or headline case is a style of capitalization used for rendering the titles of published works or works of art in English.
It’s got nothing to do with click-bait. It’s part of English grammar.
messe 2021-08-17 11:46:07 +0000 UTC [ - ]
djhn 2021-08-17 12:28:53 +0000 UTC [ - ]
I hate title case, but unfortunately it seems to have become The Way We Write Titles.
hdjjhhvvhga 2021-08-17 12:52:11 +0000 UTC [ - ]
However, there are differences as to what deserves to be capitalized. Just the titles of books, films, etc? What about the titles of articles, are they in any way different, or maybe worse than the titles of books etc.? I guess this need for consistency pervades the American usage, codified in the CMoS and other style guides, and hence applied universally.
thatcat 2021-08-18 00:31:21 +0000 UTC [ - ]
playpause 2021-08-17 12:48:09 +0000 UTC [ - ]
OJFord 2021-08-18 11:59:40 +0000 UTC [ - ]
It just has click-bait/spam associations to me since that's where I generally see it: I don't like the look of the title, so I look at the URL, if it's 'amazingwownewsdaily.com' or something I move on; if it's 'bloomberg.com' or something recognisable (-ly good) I think 'oh ok, ugh, but ok' and open it.
OJFord 2021-08-17 14:07:23 +0000 UTC [ - ]
OJFord 2021-08-17 14:11:51 +0000 UTC [ - ]
It is typically a signal that I don't want to read something, which makes it especially confusing on HN, which is generally a list of things I do want to read.
delibes 2021-08-17 10:56:39 +0000 UTC [ - ]
lordnacho 2021-08-17 16:39:42 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Are there first-hand research studies where we take a large sample of some animal (whales / mole rats / whatever) and check the animals for cancer?
Apart from the thought experiment of Peto's paradox, has someone actually taken the time and effort to document this? I'd be interested in reading some papers.
dsign 2021-08-17 12:38:16 +0000 UTC [ - ]
[1] Gene duplication is common in nature, and it's one of the main mechanisms by which new genes with different functions evolve.
inciampati 2021-08-17 12:59:35 +0000 UTC [ - ]
idnefju 2021-08-17 14:03:10 +0000 UTC [ - ]
lebuffon 2021-08-17 13:48:03 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Patient: What's the bad news?
Doctor: In about 8 months you'll be able to unzip your pants with your nose.
:-)
dsign 2021-08-17 14:25:52 +0000 UTC [ - ]
That's not the end of the world :)
_jal 2021-08-17 13:45:34 +0000 UTC [ - ]
We don't have to imagine. Everyone here is familiar with Clippy.
More seriously, I think this is a category error, rather than just hubris. I don't think human intelligence is a substitute for evolutionary grinding.
dsign 2021-08-17 14:24:58 +0000 UTC [ - ]
I loved Clippy
pharaohgeek 2021-08-17 13:10:55 +0000 UTC [ - ]
dang 2021-08-17 20:34:11 +0000 UTC [ - ]
How Elephants Avoid Cancer (2015) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14698886 - July 2017 (50 comments)
dajohnson89 2021-08-17 15:36:18 +0000 UTC [ - ]
vharuck 2021-08-17 16:10:37 +0000 UTC [ - ]
- No smoking, or chewing tobacco
- Don't drink excessively
- Stay at a good weight
- Use sunblock
- Eat healthy (notably, reduce consumption of red meats)
- Get your recommended cancer screenings (mammograms, colonoscopies, prostate exams, etc)
Other tips for specific populations:
- If you are or were a heavy smoker, talk with your doctor about a lung cancer screening
- Vaccinate children against HPV
- Some experts recommend Hepatitis C screening for Baby Boomers
cosbgn 2021-08-17 11:05:50 +0000 UTC [ - ]
jjk166 2021-08-17 13:43:29 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Further, Peto's paradox doesn't just apply to large organisms: small creatures get higher cancer rates. You'd expect there to be some threshold below which the odds of a hypertumor developing are incredibly low, and all organisms that can be killed by tumors smaller than this threshold would have a cancer incidence rate proportional to body mass. At the same time there should be some threshold where a hypertumor is basically guaranteed, above which cancer deaths would simply stop regardless of body mass. Instead, cancer rate is independent of body mass across the spectrum.
Then, the lack of correlation between cancer rates and body mass only applies between species. Within a single species, animals with more body mass do have higher rates of cancer and vice versa. This is directly contradictory to what we'd expect if cancer suppression was a result of increased body mass.
Finally, closely related to Peto's Paradox is the fact that longer lived species have lower per-cell division cancer rates than shorter lived species. Animals with different lifespans but of the same bodymass can be killed by tumors of the same size, so you need some explanation other than hypertumors (which occur as a function of the size of the tumor) to explain this observation.
Evolutionary adaptations that limit cancer are both a simpler and better explanation for these observations. Every animal is going to have some threshold in its life by which it is likely to have passed on its genes, and another threshold beyond which it is unlikely to better pass down its genes. Any gene that kills you before the first threshold is going to be strongly selected against, any gene that keeps you alive after the second threshold isn't going to have much selective pressure supporting it. A mouse in the wild can successfully pass on its genes in 3 months and is unlikely to live past 18 months due to injury and predation. While mice under ideal conditions in captivity have lived for up to 6 years, a gene that helps mice suppress cancer when they're 5 years old isn't doing wild mice any favors. On the other end of the spectrum, blue whales take a minimum of 16 years to reach genetic breakeven, and realistically given their distribution it could easily take much longer. A mutation that causes a 5 year old whale to get fatal cancer will never get passed on to offspring. We should logically expect that any species will continue to evolve cancer defense mechanisms up until the point at which cancer is no longer the limiting factor for passing on their genes, at which point evolution stops selecting for further improvements.
crubier 2021-08-18 03:15:39 +0000 UTC [ - ]
MiddleEndian 2021-08-17 17:58:09 +0000 UTC [ - ]
bradrn 2021-08-17 11:32:43 +0000 UTC [ - ]