natechols

"The Shockwave Runner" has aged vastly better than "Stand on Zanzibar", which I found unreadable. The first book predicts an early-21st century society full of smartphone users, ubiquitous privacy violations, and governments run by criminal gangs; the other is like if Paul Ehrlich wrote a sci-fi novel. I don't think "The Shockwave Runner" is as well written as any of the other cyberpunk classics, but as a guess at what 40-50 years in the authors future would look like, it's almost freakily realistic. (Although it feels like reading Neal Stephenson's "Anathem" at times - familiar tech described with alien words.)

The paper by Paul Adams used an earlier version of AlphaFold that was publicly available, not AlphaFold 3 which is not.

It's kind of amazing in retrospect that it was possible to (occasionally) produce very good predictions 20 years ago with at least an order of magnitude smaller training set. I'm very curious whether DeepMind has tried trimming the inputs back to an earlier cutoff point and re-training their models - assuming the same computing technologies were available, how well would their methods have worked a decade or two ago? Was there an inflection point somewhere?

I also worked with the same people (and share most of the same biases) and that paper is about as close to a ringing endorsement of AlphaFold as you'll get.

The DeepMind team was essentially forced to publish and release an earlier iteration of AlphaFold after the Rosetta team effectively duplicated their work and published a paper about it in Science. Meanwhile, the Rosetta team just published a similar work about co-folding ligands and proteins in Science a few weeks ago. These are hardly the only teams working in this space - I would expect progress to be very fast in the next few years.

This must be some kind of sharp generational divide, right? I'm over 40 and I can't think of anything that has made me feel as old as I do reading the "green message shame" discourse.

Seconded, and it touches on the key themes he developed later. I love how a throwaway plot element became a central part of an unrelated novel later, like he had more ideas than he had time to fully explain.

I think it's also one of the best descriptions of living at the onset of massive, disruptive technological changes, and how disorienting (and occasionally terrifying) this would feel. The fundamental problem with that book, for me, is that the main protagonist is (deliberately) an utterly loathsome individual, who somehow ends up as a good guy but doesn't seem to do very much learning or self-reflection.

> Not evil for the sake of evil, but rather reasoned decisions with terrible prices

The Emergents and their system are pretty clearly just evil, and there's never any indication given that they actually care about those terrible prices, or even reflect on them for long. Vinge is very good at channeling the Orwellian language that regimes like these use, but I didn't find his intent at all ambiguous.

The really compelling and ambiguous character in that book is [redacted spoiler], who really does grapple with the moral implications of his decisions, but ultimately chooses the not-evil path. Personally I think this also highlight's Vinge's biggest flaw as an author for me, which is that in all of his books, the most fully realized and believable protagonist is a scheming megalomaniac, with second place going to the abusive misanthrope of Rainbows End, and third to the prickly settlement leader in Marooned in Realtime. All of the more sympathetic characters feel like empty vessels that just react to the plot.

The goal of protein folding simulations like Folding@Home is not to predict 3D structures - it's to understand how folding actually works, and why it sometimes doesn't work. When FAH came out it was already very obvious that there were good computational shortcuts to predicting the end state (the Rosetta approach), but those don't tell you very much about the physical process. Different questions call for different approaches.

Don't forget, they also had to pass another remedial bill to add exemptions later!

7) Mitochondria (and chloroplasts) have double membranes, exactly like they would if they were smaller cells engulfed by the host cell.

8) There are multiple examples of ongoing endosymbiosis where the engulfed cell remains a true symbiont, not yet an organelle. Paramecium bursaria is my favorite - a ciliated protozoan with blue-green algae symbionts.

Bonus: there is evidence for secondary and tertiary endosymbiosis too.

If you haven't already read "The Ungoverned" I recommend it as well - although much shorter it's effectively the second part in a trilogy, bridging the two novels and featuring the same main character as "Marooned in Realtime".

I had to read the book a couple of times before I completely understood this, but I'm pretty sure there's an implicit metaphor that ties the two plots together, and it's about the feedback between technological progress and intelligence, and how physical constraints (or accidents of evolution) limit progress. The society of the Tines is constrained by their peculiar path to sentience - they can't split up pack members and they can't co-mingle packs without losing coherence. From their perspective, early 20th century electronics are the equivalent of neural prosthetics, and might as well be gifts from the Transcend.

> What I think will happen will be extreme concentration of wealth in a few places, and those will put up sky-high walls (literal and figurative) to block out everyone else.

That accurately describes the USA today (and has for many decades), and especially some of the wealthier parts like the SF Bay area.

A public execution is ritual human sacrifice, the only difference is the label that Western cultures apply to it.

Do you have a more recent example than Vioxx in mind where your approach might have made enough of a difference to be worth the longer review process?

I helped with similar experiments at LCLS-I and the first half of this comment is correct. The chemical reaction is carefully timed on the order of milliseconds, so they get a series of snapshots of the reaction at a specific known state (but previously unknown structure). There isn't enough information in individual snapshots for the processing software to do very much with besides combine it with other snapshots (thousands of them).

Because raging against the spending habits of billionaires is always easier than self-examination and consideration of one's own wealth and privilege.

It's weird to me that we've completely normalized having to present ID to buy any medicine at all, especially one that has an excellent safety and efficacy record that I was buying without an ID for a decade. Why should I have to ask the government's permission to cure a runny nose?

> the relevant fields are controlled by different corporate interests

As opposed to governments, which are famously cautious about deploying destructive technology, and scrupulously avoid civilian casualties.

> People have been talking about the threat of automation since the very beginning of the industrial revolution.

And the prediction that only the ownership class would benefit from technological improvements is at least as old as Marx.

The only argument I'm making is that it's insane to draw sweeping geopolitical conclusions from the fact that Chinese scientists posted their attempts at reproducing a Korean lab's result on Twitter before the Americans did.

One thing that has been constant for at least a decade or more is that every time a lab in China publishes even an incremental advance, a legion of internet commenters descends to declare the end of US hegemony because Americans didn't discover it first.

And have since before I was born - but what does this have to do with invading Ukraine now?

> Would the United States welcome Chinese and Russian nuclear capable installations in Mexico or Cuba?

Personally, it's none of my business what Mexico or Cuba do on their territory, but are you saying the US has nuclear installations in Ukraine?

The first part of the book, describing the history of atomic theory and experimental physics, is still one of my favorite pieces of science writing ever.

> The frequent (incredibly petty) fights I've seen over publication authorship order demonstrate otherwise.

Likewise, and this is one of the many reasons I left academia.

I feel like everyone who criticized your original comment is forgetting (or just ignorant) that biomedical science is an international field. What incentive do EU or Chinese or Japanese science have to honor the strike of US scientists? There's no way China's government would even allow such a union, and they're certainly not going to slow down just because NIH grant recipients feel they're being unfairly treated.

> Diphenhydramine as a first generation antihistamine acts on a large number of receptors and can even be used as a mild anxiolytic, so I'd guess it could very well have antidepressant effect.

It does, and this observation led to the development of dedicated antidepressant drugs. There are several such cases where interesting side effects turned out to open a world of possibilities, including an anti-TB drug that also led to antidepressants, and of course Viagra.

> The molecules are developed by research funding.

Also incorrect. The underlying scientific knowledge driving new therapies is overwhelmingly academic in origin, but academic research does very little actual drug discovery. I think the practice of university PR departments writing stories like "university professor discovers new cancer treatment" every time someone finds an effective in-vitro inhibitor has contributed to the confusion; most of these "drugs" never make it out of trials. Even for major advances like immuno-oncology and CRISPR that originated in academic labs, it takes many years of development (and hundreds of millions of dollars in private funding), most of which will not result in breathless press releases.

There are many good arguments for changing the incentives and IP laws involved in biomedical science, but "academic labs will pick up the slack" is not one of them, and fundamentally misunderstands what academic institutions do well (or poorly).