IMO the title is incorrect because the common interpretation of getting “burned out” is that of the same individuals of a population losing effectiveness after working hard. The article even likens the term “exhausted” the same interpretation of the phrase:

Altogether, our research suggests that T cells in tumors are not necessarily working hard and getting exhausted. Rather, they are blocked right from the start.

This same quote describes the truth of the phenomenon where it’s not individuals getting “exhausted”, but cellular signalling permanently altering the expression of T cells to make them less and less effective.

A more correct title would be something like:

Cancer makes every generation of T cells worse than the last

Isn’t this a strange article title? The whole point of it is to show T cells don’t actually get “burned out” at all. And imo it’s not like the real reason is uninteresting.

Why dress the article in the exact thing it’s refuting?

Probably for the same reasons hospitals have medical facilities all centralized in them. The equipment and services aren’t necessary all the time, but when they are it’s more useful to have them all in one place. That probably doesn’t stop other ships from having their own medical facilities for more day to day use.

I kind of wish this was the only scene Vader was in; it would have been such a good surprise. If I’m remembering correctly, He wasn’t all that impactful to the plot before this anyway.

Also, having the pressure come only from Tarkin I think is a cleaner and stronger way of pushing Krennic and reinforcing their conflict.

Nobody is “inserting” or “shoe-horning” anyone anywhere they don’t belong. My argument has always been that systems of power have artificially, non-meritocratically, prevented competent and able people from gaining positions of power or influence because of their membership to a particular group. They’re just not given a fair shot.

Now depending on how used to the traditional landscape of power some people are, a legitimately fair shot may appear like some sinister replacement theory-like plot, but that’s not justice and you can’t please everyone anyway. There’s only so much identity a group can strategically yield before they’ve lost the issues they originally wanted solved.

America voted for Obama in part because he was an actual option. When people are made aware there are options for better representation, they’ll take them.

I agree that technically it’s not necessary; very few things are. But that begs the question, why settle for a proxy? There are many who are willing and able to represent in an equally competent way, but with the advantage of being closer to the issues. There’s nothing stopping those individuals from starting the same conversations and advocating for speaking up and empathy in the same way, they are just less likely to need a figurative, and sometimes literal, translator.

You’ve avoided saying explicitly whether aiming for more than what’s “necessary” would be detrimental to overall efforts for progressive change, but the obvious implication of the argument is “yes”. The whole “perfect is the enemy of good” thing. Something like “leverage the current not-so-representative individuals in power to solve the issues because getting new, more representative people in would be” somewhere between “wasteful” and “token”, depending on who’s talking. I believe this is the case not because it’s what works, but because we’ve landed here after aiming for better. The middle outcome will always be the winning one. Aim for the middle and the winning outcome will just be worse.

Additionally, the reason I specifically mention visible representation is because of how much visibility plays a part in inspiring and motivating action from the people that identify with that visible person. The backgrounds and history of these people are known and it’s a significant thing to see the background you share with them not only acknowledged, but vindicated as something that didn’t hold them back in finding success.

I agree, the populace needs to be taken care of and empowered. However, those supports are beholden to the systems set and maintained by those with power i.e. the “high status” positions I refer to. There’s no lifting up a populace with a system that’s designed to keep them down. You need a change in the people with power to create change in the systems in a way that can actually help people. That includes getting people into power that are not just sympathetic to a variety of groups, but who are part of those groups so they can bring their lived experience and visible representation to the places where meaningful decisions are made.

This guy is misleading. The left is “obsessed” with representation in “high status positions” because “high status” is a proxy for power and influence, i.e. the positions that craft the systems the affect everyone else. The systems that have been constructed and maintained over the years aggregately prefer cis straight white men.

Are you still using it? I went through many deployments before I finally thought I had it settled.

At the beginning of the pandemic I looked into ways to de-Google and found Nextcloud. It wasn’t the easiest thing to start with, especially for a novice, but I had the time and the hardware, and I’m the type to not mind jumping into something difficult if it means solving a specific problem. I then found out about Bitwarden and had a great experience setting that up. After that I was confident enough to try hosting anything I could find. It’s been good times ever since 😀

This is extremely valuable, thanks for this!

As a general question, why did you decide to use a single postgres container for multiple services instead of multiple, stack specific containers? When I first started working with containers I considered your scheme for the sake of minimalism, but didn’t want a single container to bring down multiple unrelated services. I also had the resources to accomodate the redundancy.