fifnir

So the market has spoken and the business is unsustainable

Who do you think makes up the Venezuelan army?

What's the difference in any other national army (besides the budget of course)

If the US army turned on its citizens do you think it wouldn't go through ANY resistance like a hot knife through butter?

How did you ruin the pants?

I wear just normal sports shorts in the summer and in the winter add a long spandex pair of pants (wormth and comfort) with the shorts over it

They trained against the champions of get-the-last-word from all over the internet

Sounds like a perfect name for a social-media site targeted at incels

1 ans 2: I like IPFS for this, check it out

3: analysis that uses propriatory is marked appropriately as second class

> computational literacy of scientists

Welp...

It's simple:

We stop publishing in papers, and instead adopt smaller chunks of our work as the core publishing units.

Each figure should be an individually published entity which contains the entire computational pipeline.

Figures are our observations on which we apply logic/philosophy/whatyouwannacallit. Publishing them alongside their relevant code makes the process transparent, reproducible and individually reviewable, as it should be.

We can then "publish" comments, observations, conclusions etc on those Figures as a separate thing. Now the logic of the conclusions can be reviewed separately from the statistics and code of the figure.

I re-read the thread and you're right, you were a bit unfairly "attacked" for asking a reasonable question. I focused on what you said without taking context into proper consideration, sorry for that. I was not responding to your original question, but more so to ... something in my head I guess.

Of course, absolutely, explaining what we do is hugely important. Actually I think that bringing new knowledge to the rest of humanity is the second most important thing after actually generating said knowledge.

> can't be expected to appreciate your work if you can't explain it.

The frustration is that people only seem capable of appreciating science when it has direct and tangible benefits for humans. (and that's why i posted the previous post, not cause you dared ask a reasonable question)

"Why do you do this?" "What can we use this for in humans?"

> I really dislike pandering, dismissive statements like this.

And I (as a scientist) really dislike having to frame everything I do as being relevant to human medicine for laymen to appreciate it.

Some things are extremely valuable even if they can't be used to treat cancer and congenital disease.

I did the same and found pip_venv to be much superior

1. This is an article on "technologynetworks.com", if that's where you expect to get valid science reporting...

The original paper is titled: "Transgenerational transmission of hedonic behaviors and metabolic phenotypes induced by maternal overnutrition"

"Overnutrition", not high fat, which brings us to #2:

When they say High Fat Diet in these papers, they don't mean Keto or Atkins or anything like that. They mean: "fat mice", "overfed mice" etc.

I've spent a lot of time reading about keto etc

An important detail in many of these studies (I'm not sure if it applies here, it's not clear on the paper) is that mice High Fat Diet isn't high fat as in keto.

Keto is: high fat, almost zero carbs, many vegetables (normal to low calories and low insulin peaks)

HFD in mice studies is: we put more fat in the normal mice food to give them more calories so they get fat (very high calories with insulin cycles)

It's definitely inciting, but so is spewing anti-scientific and ignorant one-liners

And how do we come to share genetic code and genes with the most distant organisms?

We have a LOT of "appropriated" viral code in our own DNA: "Reverse-transcribed RNA molecules compose a significant portion of the human genome. Many of these RNA molecules were retrovirus genomes either infecting germline cells or having done so in a previous generation but retaining transcriptional activity. This mechanism itself accounts for a quarter of the genomic sequence information of mammals for which there is data."[1]

But that they are now part of us and when they are activated it's not some virus waking up but parts of viruses that we have adapted into doing useful things for out cells.

Viruses can cause significant changes in gene networks (for example oncoviruses usually suppress tumor-suppressing proteins [2] which dramatically affects things downstream), but the changes are not as holistic as I think you are describing them.

Yes point mutations (and viruses) can derail neural networks and that can have far-reaching consequences, but I think these things are accidental in both cases and not some virus plan as I felt you were arguing.

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136952741... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oncovirus

> activation of retro viruses during embryonic development.

Citation on this? As far as I know (am writing a phd thesis on development++), there's nothing like "virus activation". Viral elements (mostly transposons) are big evolutionary players but are usually actively repressed by DNA methylation (in eucaryots).

> Which might be why many cancers, seem, to me, to look like distinct entities, like the tissue has suddenly switched to a different functional mode.

I don't 100% understand your comments about viruses here, but related to this, we don't need to imagine some virus orchestrating such a thing (besides, as far as I know they are way too simple to drive complex eucaryot gene regulation), but rather gene regulatory networks which if they get unbalanced can lead to significant changes in morphology.

<edit> some spelling

> If we accept evolutionary biology then a headline like this wouldn't be all that surprising.All living things converge at the root.

That doesn't mean that everything has already been "invented" at the root.

Yes, generally speaking, but there are genes that were evolved on branches after they separated from ours. We don't produce chlorophyll even though we share some DNA with plants.

Imagine in languages: Indoeuropean languages share a common ancestor, but we can say that suchandsuch word is originally from some language and then adapted into another language and used for potentially different meaning.

Loaded just fine for me on Firefox with uBlock origin

I don't doubt it's an important thing, I'm scoffing at "the most important".

Take almost ANY very important historical figure. Was their most important asset their intellect or talent or Idon'tknow, OR their ability to convert those into income?

> Not corroborated by any scientific study, just a field report.

But that's exactly what "anecdote" means already, why change it?

> Your most important asset is your ability to produce income.

come on

Hey, just a little ysk: it's anecdote / anecdota from the greek word meaning "unpublished", nothing to do with data! :)

And lots of explaining about how nationalized healthcare is actually a bad idea, nevermind all the examples to the contrary.

The paper: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6408/1246

Here's a bit more on what they did:

>We applied a new approach (17) to test the lichen, protist, and animal hypotheses by studying biomarkers extracted from organically preserved dickinsoniids. Hydrocarbon biomarkers are the molecular fossils of lipids and other biological compounds. Encased in sedimentary rock, biomarkers may retain information about their biological origins for hundreds of millions of years. For instance, hopanes are the hydrocarbon remains of bacterial hopanepolyols, whereas saturated steranes and aromatic steroids are diagenetic products of eukaryotic sterols. The most common sterols of Eukarya possess a cholesteroid, ergosteroid, or stigmasteroid skeleton with 27, 28, or 29 carbon atoms, respectively. These C27 to C29 sterols, distinguished by the alkylation pattern at position C-24 in the sterol side chain, function as membrane modifiers and are widely distributed across extant Eukarya, but their relative abundances can give clues about the source organisms (24).

You're grasping at the words trying to force an irrelevant and unsubstantiated point. No, I'm not saying to treat people like animals, on the contrary, I was arguing for allowing people the dignity to study without debts.

It's called a metaphor, typically children start distinguishing them in written speech at about 4yo.

If I plant wheat and some of the plants don't produce fruit, should I stop watering all of them and demand that they each find its own water source ?

If I try breeding chickens and some of them stop laying eggs, should I abandon the whole endeavor and start buying my chickens from the local supermarket because some chicken are dicking around?

All national efforts are going to have some waste, it's inevitable and I think we can more than comfortably afford it. Our job should not be to scrutinize every detail in order to minimize waste (of course we should be doing that as well) but rather to make sure that every wheat seed and every chicken have all they need in order to fully develop themselves to the best of their abilities.