I definitely agree that the idea that software eliminates bias is laughable. Swaps it for another, hopefully less extreme set of biases doesn’t draw as many clicks, though.
4,217 karma · joined September 1, 2008
I definitely agree that the idea that software eliminates bias is laughable. Swaps it for another, hopefully less extreme set of biases doesn’t draw as many clicks, though.
https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/chemical-space-is-big...
1. For each entry in your list, cut a straw of length proportional to the value to be sorted
2. Take all your straws in a bundle
3. Bang them gently on a flat table
4. Draw out the straws in order of length, each operation of which can be done in O(1) time
I'm all for doing serious introspection before (and during!) a PhD, but the comment is way too short to set off many alarm bells for me.
Teslas make up the plurality, and often majority, of electric vehicles sold in the US.
Most variation between populations is not so much what genes are there, but how at what level they are expressed, point mutations, and short repeats (all of which are unlikely to create totally new structures). For there to be a population that had spike protein expressed, there would have to have been some sort of horizontal gene transfer into the germline (which is relatively protected from mutations for precisely this reason) at some point in the past. There’s reasonable atlases of human genetic variation (see, for example, the 1000 genomes project), so if there was some large population of people with any obviously new viral sequence, we’d see it.
Plus, if a person somehow, miraculously, had a protein that looked like Spike, their immune system should already be tuned to ignore it. (I have a PhD in biology, but immunology was not something I have much expertise in, so take this with a grain of NaCl).
* A peak of cases around Apr 11, followed by a peak of hospitalizations on Apr 22, with a peak of deaths also around Apr 22.
* A peak of cases around Jul 22, followed by a peak of hospitalizations around July 26, followed by a peak of deaths around August 4.
If I were going to do a more detailed analysis, I would want to try breaking out individual states/counties (subject to some reasonable population minimum), such that multiple distinct trends nationally don't interfere with each other in the data.
Do you know a lot of people who have expressed to you that they would use heroin recreationally if only it were legal? My gut is that the number isn’t large.
My impression of the evidence from places that have tried decriminalization (eg Portugal) is that the number of people who use and then are able to get their lives back on the rails is higher than the extra people who use because it’s decriminalized.
But less philosophically, when people refer to “living fossils”, they generally mean that the organisms haven’t changed much in form or physiology in a long time. There’s no reason to believe that they aren’t subject to the same pressure to adapt to changing conditions via natural selection, but those adaptations aren’t readily visible.
[1] https://www.genewiz.com/Public/Services/Gene-Synthesis/Turbo...
See https://www.protocols.io/view/human-colon-tissue-clearing-an... and compare to the amount of detail even in the supplemental methods.
Again, I think the concision and “refer to previous methods” approach is mostly* fine for discovery papers, but if the method is the thing, I want all the gory details in one place.
* but also, academics hate chasing down chains of references, some of which are in journals their university doesn’t subscribe to.
At a place like Berkeley, where I did my PhD (but not in anything quantum related), a PhD student and a postdoc both cost a professor something like $75k/year in salary and benefits (money not spent on postdoc salary basically goes to student tuition). Add in the professors salary as well (which is often substantially supported by grants), figure $150k/year for the prof. So in people costs alone, let’s say 1 professor and 2 trainees, that’s about $300k/year, or $1.5M/5 years. Multiply by 30 professors supported, and you’re at $45M, which is 60% of the $75M. And yeah, this is assuming that experiments are free.
Now is 20-30 professors a lot? If sufficiently narrow and esteemed, absolutely. There were 29 people at the 1927 Solvay Conference. Give them an extra couple months where they aren’t sweating a grant, and that’s a lot of time to think.
Of course, it’s probably not terrible advice to tell everyone in a breakup to treat their soon-to-be ex as if they will one day be your manager. It’s just not likely that everyone will be able to follow through.