TempermentalAnomaly @ TempermentalAnomaly @lemmy.world

Posts

26

Comments

638

Joined

2 yr. ago

I've been to my fair share Tool concerts. The fans boo'ed Mike Patton. Lost a lot of respect for the fanbase that evening.

Spintronics ... when real science sounds like made up science.

The article is quoting an Israeli official. The article doesn't verify the veracity of that claim. Do you see the difference?

If a Reuters article quotes trump saying he won Vermont in the 2020 general election, it doesn't mean that Reuters is saying it's true.

This is an addendum. The renter has the right to refuse to sign it and the leasor still has to honor the original lease. I'm assuming the signature portion is cropped out. But if there's no signature line provided, that some real shady business.

https://www.docusign.com/blog/guide-to-lease-addendums

Better than doing a dirty thing on Wednesday.

The best argument to get them to vote for him anyway "the Republicans will destroy the country, look at their nominee," but it's a really strong argument.

I worry that tactic will result in low voter turnout. And that's not good for Biden.

The 60/40 split is just untrue. And it's untrue in a meaningful way. The favorability/unfavorability split is closer to 52/43 leaving 5% in afuzzy place. Without attuning to the needs and concerns of this 5%, a false sense of certainty can emerge leading to being surprised when things don't go the obvious way.

Subsequently, people lean in to the only thing left to do, cantankerous online debate with people who just don't get it.

These favorability polls don't mean as much as giving the people who matter a story to pull that lever for your candidate. And the people that matter are the undecided in swing states. Without meeting and talking to these people, we don't know what's important for them.

We have bells.
About ½ the time, she makes a gesture towards the bell, misses, and just barks at me.

Then, occasionally, she'll get excited by the bark, find a stuffie, and forget that she even wanted to go outside. The things we do for love.

All of that investment was offset by government grants and tax write offs.

Best Republican president since Eisenhower.

Three cheers for Dan Nichol's paper.
Here's a direct link to the PDF found on Philpapers.org.

Again, and I can't emphasize this enough, this is not my area of study and seems like you have better handling of the subject. But when I read his quote, this part sticks out to me:

much of the exquisite control over these proteins is held offstage, nested within the noncoding junk.

Additionally, the article calls into question the role of code and protein production as the only role for DNA.

Still other noncoding stretches may be buffers against precipitous change, serving rather as flak jackets to absorb the impact of viruses and other genetic interlopers that infiltrate an animal's chromosomes. Without all the extra padding to absorb the blows, viruses or the bizarre genetic sequences that hop and skip from one part of the chromosome to another -- mysterious genetic elements called transposons or jumping genes -- might land smack in the middle of a crucial gene, disrupting its performance.

So there maybe stretches of DNA that don't participate in protein construction, but still has a role. So I question I idea of centering one type function over another.

This maybe true, but these states aren't being represented in the biological diagrams.

I think we will. It's still a useful analogy for initial understanding. However, I think we should be clear that it's not quite perfect. Just like we have to be careful about bringing a Newtonian understanding into quantum physics where someone might believe a photon has mass because it has momentum.

I linked to this in another comment, but figured you'd dig it.
https://www.subanima.org/veritasium/

Good enough for high school biology. But not when you're doing influential cancer research. The following is from Subanima's article on the same subject:

One of the most influential papers in cancer biology published in 2000 was the "Hallmarks of cancer" by Douglas Hanahan and Robert Weinberg. It outlined six of the main capabilities of cancer and laid out a rough program for studying the disease ointo the 21st century. To date, it has over 39,000 citations which, in academia, is officially known as a shitton.

It was so successful that they released a sequel in 2011 which has over 62,000 citations - also known as a metric shitton.

But at the heart of both papers is the machine metaphor and the idea that if we just map out all the functions of proteins in one ginormous map, we'll just have to run some maths and we'll know everything we need to know to cure cancer. In 2000 they wrote:

Two decades from now, having fully charted the wiring diagrams of every cellular signalling pathway, it will be possible to lay out the complete ‘integrated circuit of the cell.’

He also notes the same thing you noted, that it's a good metaphor for high schoolers.

I don't know too much about the subject, but maybe this almost 30 year old article can help. There's more specific examples in the article, but this quote captures the direction:

"I don't believe in junk DNA," said Dr. Walter Gilbert of Harvard University, a pre-eminent theoretician of the human genome. "I've long believed that the attitude that all information is contained in the coding regions is very shortsighted, reflecting a protein chemist's bias of looking at DNA." Coding regions may make the proteins that are dear to a chemist's heart; but true biologists, he added, know that much of the exquisite control over these proteins is held offstage, nested within the noncoding junk.

Taring isn't the same as calibration. Every scale should have instructions on its tolerance (± x grams) and a calibration weight. You'll have to buy the calibration weight separately.