How is the BBC of all "the worst" element of public media? Compared to what? I have not yet seen a better public media outlet (there are some good pan-European collaborative projects but nothing of the scope of the BBC).
What happens at the cellular and molecular level is really not so different from what happens in human societies.
I am not quite sure to what extent you mean this. I would add that the bottle neck on evolutionary futures for our genes imposed by our reproductive system is very strong, and that there is no obvious analogy in societies. The existence of such a strong bottleneck of course shifts the game theoretical dynamics of cooperation and defection, strongly enabling cooperation between somatic cells (as you say, with cancer as an exception).
hm, that is a fair point. yet, don't you also think that it is a little endemic on hn, and knee-jerk reaction, to jump on certain phrases? like...a trigger :P?
would you think this is a universal response (and therefore problem) or perhaps only among a certain readership? would an author not have to take into account the average response to their phrasing (or that of the audience they address)? if this is not the hn readership, then I would think a word like 'offensive' is comprising a lot of meaning in a concentrated way (ofc you can still disagree with the judgment, that the scenario is truly offensive).
The waste of money on a stupid idea is offending the author in light of the increasing issue of wealth discrepancy and homelessness in SF. This may not be offensive to all, but is not inappropriate usage.
Not many people here seem to have read the article, or read so quickly to misinterpret it. This is not a rant about 'appropriation' or naming choices - that's only one of the facets of ignorance by the founders discussed in the piece. More importantly, the author makes their case that some ideas, in particular that of a vending machine, are so disconnected from the daily lives of what the author might call 'normal people' that it's offensive to dump significant money into them (or wasted on them, I suppose). That latter part is, I believe, the real offending bit.
Interesting indeed. It is therefore more likely that I should have asked "How does Amazon know who I am on Facebook?". I suspected this could be the directionality (weak attempt 'vice versa'). Thanks for the special insight!
Hi, post docs in the USA often hold J1 Visas. Afaik this means: no intention to immigrate, and no right to start a business. But life plans may change, and thus both these may become problems. What advice do you have for entrepreneurially minded researchers w/o the right to act on it?
I'm glad you are saying this. Today, especially on forums like here and perhaps reddit, autism is almost a badge as it is used frequently simultaneously with high intelligence. Yet, there really is not very clear evidence for this (there is some evidence that genetic patterns between highly intelligent and autistic individuals tend to overlap). I worry about this because it tends to render being autistic 'as not so bad', and downplay that autism is a disability.
One thought I had was that I would be careful using KMeans on tSNE transformed data. From my understanding, while tSNE preserves local relationships between data point, it (heavily) distorts long-distance relationships. What this means is that (if I get this right), you have almost arbitrary clustering results if your k is chosen such that it is not equal to the number of local clusters (a thing you don't know in advance). So clustering on distances between data points in tSNE coordinates seems to be a risky way to draw conclusions. I am not saying this is wrong, but if what I am saying is correct (please point out if I got something wrong), then your analysis may perhaps work better if you did KMeans on say the final 5-dimensional PCA space or something like that, and leave tsne to visualize the data (and perhaps label the data points by the clustering on PCAs?). Do you agree / does that make sense?
Certainly our understanding of the world is improved, no? When you mean 'tangible' in the sense of 'solving a real world problem', i.e. an immediate application, then I feel this is getting a little circular. I simply reject the claim that one of the parent comments were making whereby science in general is not progressing. (edit: question mark)
May I just point out that 'science is stagnant' is not only hyperbole, but wrong, as disproved by my examples highlighting amazing achievements in biology and mathematics. Unless you would like to propse neither are amazing feats.
I think you misunderstand, what you are saying is my point. I argue that science, unlike the parent comment's claim, has not stagnated but made amazing progress. Yet, that when seeking to identify scientific progress by looking at new applications one might not arrive at a valid conclusion.
Do you genuinely believe this is an insightful response? Without knowing your background, this makes it seem rather likely you are arguing from the 'larger population' point of view.
Given the forum, let's assume you're a little more familiar with tech: Perfect encryption? NLP that understands meaning? Do you see now how it's a fallacy to take cutting edge scientific breakthroughs and demand instantaneous applications, and if these aren't met, discard the breakthroughs as having little meaning?
> "Physics and science in general looks stagnant (...) because it is actually stagnant.
Mate, what are you on about? We manipulate life almost at will, we have proven theorems that were unsolved for centuries, etc. Your limited imagination and your apparent lacking ability to see things in perspective make no rule.
I think it is cool that there is evidence for these two states in water. I don't think, however, that the biological relevance was made particularly clear. There is hardly any life on earth for which these temperatures (upwards of 45C) play a role, and consequently, any effect on proteins would be 'out of context' within which protein function was under selective pressure. Whether or not protein stability is affected by these transitions of water states could therefore be purely coincidental. Having said this, however, one could perhaps learn more about how water affects protein function in 'normal' temperature ranges by breaking function with the other water state (but I don't understand this well enough to think of a way how to do this).
This could be straight out of the show 'silicon valley'. Gorgeous polar lights as the background of a sleek landing page, a strange but appealing geometric structure hovering between dark outlines of trees --> scrolling down, a pair of diving goggles are revealed that you can use to stick your phone into. Don't get me wrong, I'm excited and it's probably going to be cool, it's just hilariously stereotypical.
> WEIZSÄCKER: One can say it might have been a much greater tragedy for the world if Germany had had the uranium bomb. Just imagine, if we had destroyed LONDON with uranium bombs it would not have ended the war, and when the war did end, it is still doubtful whether it would have been a good thing
I believe this should be "...and if it did end the war, it is still doubtful..."?