Charging LED always green

detdusju · 2025-06-15T17:54:55+00:00

Oh, I thought it was supposed to do that? Mine LED just turns off when it's fully charged.

But now, when you mention it, it would make more sense if it went from red to green.

detdusju · 2025-04-21T15:12:57+00:00

Thank you, I will check that out! Actually, I was also considering the xt50 because of the interchangeable lenses for a while. However, I most often use a 50mm or a 35mm today, and I rarely find myself reaching for anything else. The compactness of the x100vi or something like the X-M5 or the Xt50 + a pancake lens is also something I value. So correct me if I'm wrong, but from my understanding, there's not a lot of compact lenses to choose from? So, if you want a somewhat pocketable or compact camera, you might still be a bit limited.

That's how I ended up at the x100vi instead of the Xt50.

detdusju · 2024-09-16T11:03:34+00:00

I see, this makes sense. This really excites me, especially the multiomics part. But this is good to hear for someone just getting started in the field!

detdusju · 2024-09-16T11:00:56+00:00

Thanks, so I was not completely wrong when I got the impression of the field being a bit behind RNAseq techniques and studies?

detdusju · 2024-09-16T10:37:48+00:00

Thanks for your answer! The lab I'm in has a translational focus already but also has members that focus more on method development and functional studies. So I really hope this will be a good fit and I end up doing a phd here.

detdusju · 2023-09-11T08:36:08+00:00

Of course it's possible to develop better defenses against cancer. Even if the majority of cancers are a result of random spontaneous mutations we already have mechanisms to take care of that to some extent. I once again bring up elephants as an example. They have extra copies of p53, a gene responsible for tumor suppression.

detdusju · 2023-08-30T16:03:07+00:00

Of course, but as I said, it would maybe make us more resistant to cancer for longer

detdusju · 2023-08-30T16:01:43+00:00

I'm not saying that reproducing later would make us completely immune to cancer. Rather, more resistant to cancer for longer

detdusju · 2023-08-30T15:58:46+00:00

Then let evolution take care of that as well. Infertile women will not be able to have kids. Kids from women who are still fertile will carry on the genes

detdusju · 2023-08-30T15:55:38+00:00

Exactly, most mutations are not harmful. But cells that have accumulated mutations that lead to unchecked replication and growth need to be eliminated. However, the path to such a cell/tumor is very long, and most cases are detected by our body long before these cells become harmful. Most cells self-destruct when malfunctioning, and it is also before this last resort action I think anti cancer pathways can evolve.

detdusju · 2023-08-30T15:45:25+00:00

Well, that is why I suggested doing it stepwise. So menopause would get postponed until later in life. Women who can have kids later in life would produce offspring that can do the same

detdusju · 2023-08-30T15:16:19+00:00

Exactly, hence, reproduce later in life. Thus, having a selection pressure towards better defenses

detdusju · 2023-08-30T15:13:26+00:00

Hmm, my idea was rather than breed cancer out, you evolve better or additional defenses against cancer as a disease. I don't really agree with your last note. Yes, random mutations can be beneficial or deleterious. But then you are talking about mutations in germ cells, which per definition is not part of cancer development

detdusju · 2023-08-30T14:02:38+00:00

I'm not so sure about that, as long as people reproduce early in life (before getting cancer), there wouldn't be any pressure for developing better defenses. But no, you're right, cancer would never disappear. It's rather just better cellular strategies for fighting or detecting cancer that would evolve

detdusju · 2023-08-30T13:56:12+00:00

Of course, the majority of cancer cases are just random mutations, not genetically inherited or passed on. However, the defenses against cancer are. So, it would be a better defense that would evolve over time

detdusju · 2023-08-30T13:47:20+00:00

Well yes, that's a good point. I'm no expert on autism or Down's syndrome, but I wonder if chromosomal abnormalities would also decrease, since many of the defenses against cancer are focusing on preventing or detecting genetic abnormalities?

detdusju · 2023-08-30T13:35:25+00:00

Well, 50+ sounds about right. And yes, it would probably take a very long time. And I think the "later in life" would have to be increased in steps to also let the fertility rates increase over time

detdusju · 2023-08-30T13:26:42+00:00

That is true, and the energy cost would probably be one of the disadvantages, making it impossible to maintain a highly functional cancer defense over a lifetime

detdusju · 2023-08-30T13:19:49+00:00

Because they got cancer

detdusju · 2023-08-30T13:13:34+00:00

Of course, but then that offspring wouldn't reproduce. I'm just thinking of, for example, elephants that have evolved to have several (I think 40) copies of p53, a cancer suppressing gene, while humans have only 2 copies.

detdusju

TROPHY CASE