salehenrahman

I remember when hand-drawn web design was highly trendy back in 2009-2013, and many of them would be featured on awwwards.com.

They were beautiful.

I have no idea.

All I can say is that the paper overwhelmingly uses the term "senolytic", which means to "kill off the senescent" (I'm assuming that it refers to senescent cells), as opposed to "senostatic", which means to "delay senescence".

Additionally, the concern brought up by the paper, is that senescent cells are known to be resistant against something called "apoptosis", which is a term to describe "programmed cell death". The goal of the paper is to explore a compound—fisetin—for its senolytic capabilities. Whether it is successful at finding that, I haven't fully read the paper to see if they have identified fisetin as a senolytic, or a senostatic agent.

With that said, however, some of the graphs in the paper does highlight that as fisetin dose increases, not only do senescent cells get depleted, but so do total number of cells. If we were working with a purely senostatic agent, relative to a control, the senescent cells would be much lower, but the overall cell count would be much higher, which is not the case with fisetin. Does this mean that fisetin is a senolytic? Maybe not; it could just indiscriminately target all cells, resulting in fewer cells. Or maybe it is. Who knows.

Or maybe my logic about cell counts regarding senostatic vs senolytic may be entirely wrong.

Whatever it is, I haven't read the whole paper.

Senescent cells themselves do not exist to prevent tumor growth.

Cells becoming senescent is a mechanism that exists to prevent them from becoming a possible tumor, due to DNA damage.

The problem with senescent cells is that accumulation of them results in tissues not functioning correctly. Eliminating them should make tissues function better.

After all, your own immune system gets rid of senescent cell, but as we age, I believe your immune system is unable to keep up.

Same, but I go a step beyond.

Any tweet I see that I don't like (usually someone using a tone that gives me a terrible vibe from them), I block the author of the tweet.

Now almost all tweets that I see have a positive vibe.

Edit: I also adhere to an old adage that goes "follow slowly; block fast".

I'm not sure if you are generally lamenting about people's sensitivities, or you are just dismissing jokes about firing as "not a big deal", and that "people should get over it".

Let me repeat what the author of the article posted: DO NOT joke about firing people.

You don't need to have a thin skin to take comments about firing seriously.

When a manager said that they'd fire you, it's only smart to begin looking for work elsewhere.

The moment they said that, it's the moment that they have demonstrated the following:

- your employment status is precarious, under that manager (yes, employment is generally precarious, but at a company with a good culture, it's the company's financials that predicates your employment status, not financials plus your manager)

- your manager has demonstrated that their power has gone to their head, potentially leading to bad decisions under their management

- assuming they were joking about firing you in the first place, your manager's words regarding anything related to your job function cannot be generally taken seriously

This is not a thin skin issue. This is a bad manager issue. Start looking for work elsewhere.

I just got a recruiter email today from them, yesterday.

They are claiming that they are growing their engineering team.

Interesting to hear about "<" is not decidable on reals.

I'm naive, and I'm curious to know where I can read more about that.

Edit: OK, now I get it. Equality/inequality verification is undecidable for irrational numbers.

> I feel like the real Liskov Subsitution Principle should be "if you have a subtype P of type S, redesign your code so that there are no subtypes".

Inheritance (a construct to allow you to create class hierarchies) is not the same thing as subtyping.

For instance, an integer is a subtype of a real number (assuming both, in some hypothetical language, are distinct primitive types).

In fact, LSP will work perfectly fine even in languages that don't support inheritance.

LSP decries that that the behaviour of a particular operation matches the expressed intent of said operation.

Going back to our integer being a subtype of real number example, the "<" operator will work perfectly fine whether any of the operands are either an integer or a real number.

So, I definitely agree with the sentiment "class hierarchies are useless", but I can't say the same about LSP.

In fact, if someone is passing me an object, I expect it to behave the way it does, as is decried by LSP.

Also, you may argue that I am being pedantic, however I fear some people may take what you are implying a bit literally (e.g. never subtype anything), so I thought I'd clarify.

I don't know about in the US, but in Canada, I used to work at Forever 21—a California-based retail chain—and you are required to go through a pat-down right before you leave the store.

You'd have to look for a manager, and ask them to escort you to the front of the store, and have them pat you down.

Still not a valid reason for seizing an entire property, selling it, and pocketing the profit.

At least threaten the guy with fines if he does not fix things up.

It can potentially break things.

There are legacy code that assume that calling `readdir` will yield undefined, and will have just passed that result to a function, that alters its behaviour based on whether a parameter is undefined.