COGlory

I'm talking about at the PI level. And yes of course a few people don't work hard, but the overwhelming majority do not differentiate themselves by how hard they work, is the point I'm trying to make. Your average PI has the skill set to take advantage of getting lucky.

Not sure what you're insinuating about the story not being true, would you like to see maps?

Everyone in science works hard. Only a few get lucky. People get scooped every day.

Source: spent years looking hard for hibernation promotion factor in P. aeruginosa ribosomes via cryo-EM. Got a PhD and worked a whole lot of 16 hour days. Never got lucky.

I'm all for it. People get lucky, then try to rationalize the past with a skill narrative. Then they soak up all the grants.

Why do they have to make infinite money?

Previous discussion:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39936016

This struck me as pretty obvious at the time. If the people have endowed the state with the authority to act on an issue, the state should act in an official manner. Otherwise, they should not act at all.

I'm using a Dell S2716DG which is a 27" 1440p TN panel at 120 Hz. As far as I'm aware, there were only ever a few 1440p models that got 3D Vision (officially). I've tried running 3D Vision on an OLED ultrawide I have, and it works, but only on the bottom of the screen. I assume something to do with the refresh rate (144 Hz) or pixel response time (which I think isn't great with OLED).

I'm driving it with an A4500, on Linux (openSUSE mainly), 3-pin to the USB emitter, with glasses. The A4500 is somewhat gimped because only the 470.xx driver works. With the newer drivers X11 detects the display and emitter but displays both frames simultaneously. I think it might have something to do with the stereo declaration in the xorg.conf file being different with the newer drivers, but I'm still chasing down that lead.

I still routinely use Nvidia 3D vision to build protein structures into electron density maps. Nvidia hasn't updated the driver in generations, and no new compatible displays or parts have been made in eons, but it's an invaluable tool. My concern is that Wayland is going to kill it entirely. There is definitely a market for this.

I'm a structural biologist and I work at an AI pharmaceutical company. Even we still publish. We publish both methodologies in peer reviewed journals, and patents.

I don't think I've ever seen a "wwwnc" TLD prefix before.

I saw the AI comment before I saw this, incredible how it's 1/8th cup in both. Is it really just regurgitating Reddit?

This was in Montana. Local FWP. No idea about news agencies. Here's the bit about bears:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/three-grizzly-bear...

The virologists I know are much more concerned about this than they were about covid. I guess it's presenting neurological symptoms in bears/small mammals. Last fall there was a rash of small mammals showing rabies signs, that were euthenised that wound up negative for rabies, so they're now retesting them for this influenza.

>People are asking too much of Alphabet. Alphabet could easily choose not to publish anything. To be honest, I'm shocked that they do publish.

Yeah, no. No one would be working at Alphabet if they didn't publish this work. Which means the work would never get done to begin with.

We can't (currently) cut them out because there's too many cells and they're brain cells. But if we could make complementary RNA, that could potentially neutralize them.

25% on metal, 50% on semiconductors, 100% on EVs, and 50% on solar panels.

I wouldn't worry about that. I've poured hundreds of gels and added the EtBr to it after microwaving it every single time. Never had anything close to that happen. Just use a sufficiently concentrated EtBr stock and you're adding like 45 µL to 45 mL.

Add the EtBr after you microwave the agarose

Ethidium bromide is actually surprisingly not mutagenic

https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/myth-ethidium-brom...

I appreciated this article. These analogies always fall apart at some point (and the article points this out) because these are complex processes, but I appreciate these attempts to turn biology into a human problem, because at the very least, it'll have the effect of getting more people up the learning curve.

You are supposed to be far enough behind the vehicle in front of you that you have enough time to stop. Assuming something about what other vehicles will do is a great way to get into an accidents. There are a lot of humans that don't drive like humans.

>So the criticism towards AlphaFold 2 will likely still apply? For example, it’s more accurate for predicting structures similar to existing ones, and fails at novel patterns?

Yes, and there is simply no way to bridge that gap with this technique. We can make it better and better at pattern matching, but it is not going to predict novel folds.

You can use an adblocker hide the element permanently.

Maybe I'm just in a super niche field, but the citations would make it super obvious imo.

It is truly horrid. I routinely have to go into the web client to search

Can't help but notice a huge over-representation of field scientists. That seems a bit deceptive.

Multiple factors at play here.

1) Rubrics are often defined, but the application of the rubric is by a human. Application will shift as the grader gets a sense of the classes understanding.

2) As you get fatigued while grading, you'll make mistakes, and be less tolerant of others. Especially if you're an overworked adjunct or graduate student.

3) There are probably a lot more last names early in the alphabet so weighting is important.

My policy on this when I was a grad student was to publish the rubric, and ask all students to check their grades too.

#2, not #3

I can see that. Without knowledge of cellular level biology, sponges appear to be plants or fungi.

I would suggest that a clam or a worm or sponge is a minimum viable animal.