flobosg

My guess is that the GP is a native German speaker and got confused with the false friend to become ≠ bekommen (to get).

(2022)

There is no Japan Standard Institute but Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS) and Japanese Industrial Standards Commitee (JISC).

Tangentially related, these articles by Maciej Cegłowski:

* The Lunacy of Artemis – https://idlewords.com/2024/5/the_lunacy_of_artemis.htm

* Artemis II Is Not Safe to Fly – https://idlewords.com/2026/03/artemis_ii_is_not_safe_to_fly....

> It was much quicker and easier to get the agar to 90C temperature by putting it in a microwave for 40s at 900W

Agarose gels in molecular biology labs are prepared in a similar way. (Agarose is the main component of agar.)

No. In this case “Arctic Monkey” is just the pseudonym used by the guide writer.

Somewhat related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_experiment

(2002)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_the_American_People

(2007)

They literally compose and print their letters in Excel.

> You can do horrifying and amazing things with Excel.

A friend of mine writes all of their correspondence in it.

Blog entries, alas, are not.

(2021)

All those publications describe the methodology and modelling process to generate genomes, without testing them experimentally. This article shows that their designed genomes actually work in the wetlab. Your last two links are both preprints.

> Based on my quick reading, the BBC article doesn't bring up a prior publication / release from 2025 called "AI-Designed Phages," https://www.asimov.press/p/ai-phages

That link is a commentary about the preprint of the article mentioned in the BBC article.

After your editing:

> Same team, prior publication / release from 2025 called "AI-Designed Phages," https://www.asimov.press/p/ai-phages

It is the same work, just not published in Science.

The publication: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aec2657

It is paywalled, but this seems to be the corresponding preprint: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.09.12.675911v1....

> The from-the-hip cameras typically have a waist-level viewfinder

That is the case with twin-lens reflex cameras, for example, which are not commonly used for street photography. What the GP meant was holding an SLR or rangefinder camera at hip level, forgoing the viewfinder completely and shooting blind.

It goes both ways, of course. There are Germans who do not take learning English seriously, and foreigners who stumble because many informal expressions (including jokes) are difficult to express in German since they rely on structures that the language does not have.

Thanks for this comment. I also arrived in Germany into a similar bubble, but shortly thereafter it burst. I was forced to relocate to a backwater shithole (trust me, I’m doing my best to be charitable here) where I had an extremely bad life experience due to the incompetence of my employer, the foreigners’ office, among others. I was able to rebuild my life and career somewhere else within the country, but after what I went through I have no plans to become a German citizen. I’d rather be dead.

Brings to mind Jeff Bridges’ homepage: https://www.jeffbridges.com/

For a bit of context, Party Cannon is a death metal band with this logo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_Cannon#/media/File:Party...

According to the article metadata:

  "datePublished":"2026-07-16T08:18:37+09:00"

The Nintendo 64 Disk Drive (64DD) had the Randnet Browser.

> Mac Micro

Mac Nano, just like iPods!

> Yes, as supplementary information

Still part of the article.

Usually, journals require raw, unmodified data to be deposited as supplementary information.

> I would be more worried if the blotted area was different (the dark blob)

Or if more than one blob is present (i.e. blobs at different molecular weights) for a supposedly selective and specific antibody that should show exactly one blob on the blot.

> Now, if while preparing the images they needed to do some editorial choices

Editorial choices on raw scientific data are a big no-no.

From the article:

> This image is supposed to demonstrate that the antibody being sold works as intended. (…) Antibodies are near-ubiquitous but notoriously fickle laboratory reagents in biomedical research. For many applications, it is absolutely crucial that the antibodies that you use are selective (i.e., the antibody binds strongly to the target protein) and specific (i.e., the antibody binds to the protein of interest and little else).

Antibodies showing a different picture (Western blot) than what is expected can drastically change the interpretation of the results as well as the conclusion of a study, for example. It may also encourage scientific fraud by authors by forcing them to unknowingly/coincidentally make to a blot image the same (or similar) fraudulent modifications performed by the vendor.

Now I’m curious about how much of the blot photoshopping present in retracted papers can be attributed to these misleading verification data.

Same with the TIM barrel fold. It can catalyze a wide range of reactions.

> since the data used to train AlphaFold is limited to existing experimentally determined protein structures

Protein sequences, but the point still stands.