5 ms·

I never understood this sentiment. I'm good at JavaScript, not biochemistry. How will I be curing cancer? Trick the cancer cells into calling undefined as a fun

I never understood this sentiment. I'm good at JavaScript, not biochemistry. How will I be curing cancer? Trick the cancer cells into calling undefined as a function?

TeMPOraL 8y ago
It's not a criticism at your individual specialization. It's fucking hard to get into cancer research at this stage, though if you know the right people, you could maybe help scientists with some simulations or visualizations or whatever other tangential concern that requires JavaScript knowledge. This is a complaint against the market at large. There is work to be done in things like curing cancer(s) and mitigating climate change, but the jobs are few, far between, and pay peanuts. Meanwhile advertising is a direct social negative (IMO a cancer on human society), but it offers plenty of positions with good wages. The choice thus becomes: take the hard road and a paycut to maybe help some unspecified amount of people you don't know, vs. take the easy road with good wages and hurt an unspecified amount of people you don't know. This complaint is about the market, and it's essentially the same thing you may say during debugging some algorithm: "I understand the steps it make and they all look good, but the final result is wrong".
- nuznil 8y ago
  Hang in there. Things change. Society as a whole takes it's own sweet time to make hard choices. But we do. Otherwise the market would still have slave ships running. Is it possible to speed things up? History says no. But scaling things fast is a very new thing. Islam took a few hundred years to spread from Delhi to Lisbon. That was before the invention of the printing press. The Reformation after the printing press, took a hundred years of war before most not all got along with each other. Today Fortnite or what the Kardashians are upto spreads through the globe in a few months. This is a new thing. And sooner or later someone will figure out how to infect minds positively at the same rate.
  - scotty79 8y ago
    > Otherwise the market would still have slave ships running. I think the slavery ended mostly because its relative efficiency dropped as technology developed. You'll see how fast acceptance of animal slaughtering will drop once we can get cheaper, provably healthier lab grown burger.
    - lr4444lr 8y ago
      Slavery dropped due to European Enlightenment values in the inherent dignity of man finally taking root among educated people in power. The cotton gin and the steam engine only made slaves more efficient and ramped up their quotas, not reduced the worth of their labor.
      - DataWorker 8y ago
        No, enlightenment values were and still are quite good at rationalizing the status quo. It was wealthy religious zealots that ended slavery, to the opposition of the businessmen and economic pragmatists.
      - scotty79 8y ago
        > ... steam engine only made slaves more efficient ... Yeah, because so many slaves were trained to be steam engine operators. Slaves are only worthwhile if they do machine job and you don't have a machine and you don't have local population in deep poverty that you could just pay a little bit to do your thing and not care what they eat, where they sleep and whether they die or not. That's why slavery never realy caught on in Europe in industrial times. Europeans were cheper than slaves.
    - DataWorker 8y ago
      Christianity ended slavery.
    - cr0sh 8y ago
      I think maybe it's a hockey-stick like graph on the speed... Think about cigarettes and tobacco. Fairly flat for a while, a few upticks, gradual rising, and then - in the last decade or so, this rapid increase in legislation and other means by consumers against it. Part of it has to do with attitudes and understanding about harms, and getting the public to understand this. At some point it reaches this breaking point, but that also seems to correlate with technologies to allow for alternatives (witness in the case of tobacco the rise of vaping products, as well as tobacco-free nicotine products becoming OTC and cheaper). While I think you are right that acceptance of "natural beef" or other similar protein will drop once a viable artificial alternative becomes available, it won't really take off until that alternative can replicate a good portion of the other products out there as well. That is - for myself - all the artificial ground beef in the world won't get me to switch over and away from a proper well-marbled rib-eye steak, or a BBQ'd brisket or pork shoulder. But if they could replicate those items as well, and do it at a comparable price, then I'm game for the change (which has been the downside to current analogues on the market - $12-15.00 USD per pound for artificial hamburger is not my idea of a financially sound choice). I'm much the same for things like electric vehicles - just give me one that is off-road capable, 4WD, that I can lift and put on 30"-plus tires, and still give me a few hundred miles of driving range - and be inexpensive to purchase - then I'll do it. Heck - even a cheap small 2WD pickup truck would be nice. Not all of us want a sedan or sports car.
- Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
  > Meanwhile advertising is a direct social negative (IMO a cancer on human society) Wow wow wow you can't just make a claim like that without any basis whatsoever? It might be true or not, but would you mind collaborating on why you think that? I am not even talking about proving it with some science (which is likely very hard), but you just write it off as if everyone else is sharing your view and as if it is self-explanatory or widely accepted. It is not. Capitalism and the product culture has led to the most technological and in many case, lifestyle, lifespan, and life standard advancements known in history. This way of propelling progress forward requries efficient markets, and markets need to connect products with people who want and can benefit from those products. No advertisement is directly forcing anyone to buy or do anything, they just provide information for people and help locating people who might otherwise not have knowledge of the products they might want. Assuming your take on the advertisement industry is different, what is that take?
  - bryanrasmussen 8y ago
    I would think the feeling that marketing as a whole, and advertising as part of it was a large social negative was prevalent enough that one would not have to explain it even if not everyone agrees. I mean it's common enough that Bill Hicks on the subject is pretty much a meme by this point https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHEOGrkhDp0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHEOGrkhDp0 I'm not saying I necessarily agree, but if someone says advertising is a cancer on society or something like that I would not be like - whoa what particular belief system has led him to conclude this?!? - I would think, huh, they have that set of beliefs regarding advertising and marketing.
    - Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
      So, one more time, care to explain why you think that it is? Or am I to understand this correctly that you think it's "cancer" on society because you have just heard other people say that (like Bill Hicks and perhaps others you respect) and you assume it was prevalent? It would be interesting to understand your original arguments if it was more clear what you based that assumption on (which is by no means universal).
- DataWorker 8y ago
  We could use markets to shape humanity based on our collective values but instead we let the markets shape us. Perhaps it’s a failure to coalesce around shared values; too much tribalism. Clearly some political regimes are better able to harness the power of the state to guide the invisible hand to do its work where it’s most needed. By delegating the “guiding” role to market participants themselves, those who control markets by lobbying and legislating, we forfeit our control.
  - cr0sh 8y ago
    > By delegating the “guiding” role to market participants themselves, those who control markets by lobbying and legislating, we forfeit our control. This discussion is interesting; I was thinking something similar this morning, with the focus on our collective food choices. It's an imperfect analogy, but there are many things that we as both a society and thru governments we have banned, or highly regulated, as having too many external negative issues to allow them to continue to be sold openly on the market. You can think of any number of drugs (including more than a few that used to be OTC not long ago), stuff like "high test peroxide", cigarettes and tobacco products, etc. For the vast majority of these, though, none have extreme externalities - that is, none cause death in society like certain foods that are easily available. But those items don't have huge lobbying efforts around them, either. For instance - we know that HFCS is a great contributor to obesity and heart disease/stroke - yet we don't ban it for commercial food usage. While there have been recent inroads from a consumer standpoint (next time you go shopping for food, note the number of ordinary items that have packaging marked as "contains no HFCS" or similar), it's unknown whether this will continue to be a trend, nor how long it will take to rid the majority of purchased food items of the substance. It is also unknown how long it will take for the effects of its removal to show up in the overall health levels of society. But there again is a product that we freely allow in our foods that arguably is slowly killing all of us; one could say "well, you are free not to eat those foods" - but one could have argued the same about tobacco and cigarettes not too long back (and they did). There is actually a good parallel between both the tobacco industry and the corn/HFCS industry (the lobbying, hidden and such papers about the dangers, etc) - but even in the case of tobacco, there wasn't an outright ban; it's been more of a slow attrition via consumers and the public...
jobigoud 8y ago
You are not good at "javascript" you are good at problem solving and logic.
collyw 8y ago
Bioinfomatics is where a lot of research will be going on. And that's a lot closer to JavaScript than it is to biochemistry most of the time.
Mirioron 8y ago
>I'm good at JavaScript, not biochemistry. How will I be curing cancer? Trick the cancer cells into calling undefined as a function? No, that's how we get cancer in the first place. You need to trick it into calling a defined termination function.
wongarsu 8y ago
I am good at programming, but I wasn't bad at chemistry either. I could have chosen to go study that instead, or gone into bioinformatics. I still could. There's plenty of software involved in modeling cell functions, which I imagine is pretty significant for curing cancer. Yet here I am, doing other stuff out of my free will. I'm happy at my current job, but if I truly wanted to make the world a better place there would be more effective ways to do that (cancer research being one of them).
jghn 8y ago
Many of the hardest problems facing us today in biological research are computational in nature. You could have a lot more of an impact than you think
clinth 8y ago
Doing software work in support of scientists trying to cure cancer. Scientists aren't curing cancer with a notebook and pen, they have have problems that a software engineer can really help with. Boring internal software, with some public-facing software. It's not glorious work, and your team is typically understaffed and overworked. There are tradeoffs in the job, it's not for everyone. I work at New York Genome Center, and at the Broad Institute before that, both are nonprofits, and there are plenty of firms with software jobs out there where you can do "just software" and help with something meaningful. Drop me a note, I'm happy to talk about this more. I missed the monthly jobs thread, but my group is hiring.
- arandr0x 8y ago
  You mention you work at a nonprofit. Do you take volunteers as well?
  - clinth 8y ago
    We do not, we're a combination of grant-driven research, production/clinical genome sequencing, and scale computing; the work is hard to structure for ad-hoc volunteer contribution.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
arandr0x 8y ago
Nobody's gonna cure cancer. We'll be able to prevent some cancers and treat others, but cancer is a large number of distinct diseases with different causes and outcomes and you can't eradicate it. That said you don't need to be good at biochemistry to help treat cancer. The bottleneck in pharma research right now is essentially finding big enough patient groups for clinical trials, I'm sure Javascript can help with that. (And the "best ad minds" of the generation as well). What about tracking habits that may increase cancer rates? Hmmm, Javascript can help with that. What about mapping out locations that have abnormal occurences of cancer due to possible environmental factors so nobody buys a house somewhere the local plant is dumping waste into the nearby water supply? Well, there again... Also, you can just study biochemistry and become good at it. I did just that. It's perfectly attainable and does not require extraordinary skill.

I never understood this sentiment. I'm good at JavaScript, not biochemistry. How will I be curing cancer? Trick the cancer cells into calling undefined as a function?

TeMPOraL 8y ago

It's not a criticism at your individual specialization. It's fucking hard to get into cancer research at this stage, though if you know the right people, you could maybe help scientists with some simulations or visualizations or whatever other tangential concern that requires JavaScript knowledge. This is a complaint against the market at large. There is work to be done in things like curing cancer(s) and mitigating climate change, but the jobs are few, far between, and pay peanuts. Meanwhile advertising is a direct social negative (IMO a cancer on human society), but it offers plenty of positions with good wages. The choice thus becomes: take the hard road and a paycut to maybe help some unspecified amount of people you don't know, vs. take the easy road with good wages and hurt an unspecified amount of people you don't know. This complaint is about the market, and it's essentially the same thing you may say during debugging some algorithm: "I understand the steps it make and they all look good, but the final result is wrong".

nuznil 8y ago
Hang in there. Things change. Society as a whole takes it's own sweet time to make hard choices. But we do. Otherwise the market would still have slave ships running. Is it possible to speed things up? History says no. But scaling things fast is a very new thing. Islam took a few hundred years to spread from Delhi to Lisbon. That was before the invention of the printing press. The Reformation after the printing press, took a hundred years of war before most not all got along with each other. Today Fortnite or what the Kardashians are upto spreads through the globe in a few months. This is a new thing. And sooner or later someone will figure out how to infect minds positively at the same rate.
- scotty79 8y ago
  > Otherwise the market would still have slave ships running. I think the slavery ended mostly because its relative efficiency dropped as technology developed. You'll see how fast acceptance of animal slaughtering will drop once we can get cheaper, provably healthier lab grown burger.
  - lr4444lr 8y ago
    Slavery dropped due to European Enlightenment values in the inherent dignity of man finally taking root among educated people in power. The cotton gin and the steam engine only made slaves more efficient and ramped up their quotas, not reduced the worth of their labor.
    - DataWorker 8y ago
      No, enlightenment values were and still are quite good at rationalizing the status quo. It was wealthy religious zealots that ended slavery, to the opposition of the businessmen and economic pragmatists.
    - scotty79 8y ago
      > ... steam engine only made slaves more efficient ... Yeah, because so many slaves were trained to be steam engine operators. Slaves are only worthwhile if they do machine job and you don't have a machine and you don't have local population in deep poverty that you could just pay a little bit to do your thing and not care what they eat, where they sleep and whether they die or not. That's why slavery never realy caught on in Europe in industrial times. Europeans were cheper than slaves.
  - DataWorker 8y ago
    Christianity ended slavery.
  - cr0sh 8y ago
    I think maybe it's a hockey-stick like graph on the speed... Think about cigarettes and tobacco. Fairly flat for a while, a few upticks, gradual rising, and then - in the last decade or so, this rapid increase in legislation and other means by consumers against it. Part of it has to do with attitudes and understanding about harms, and getting the public to understand this. At some point it reaches this breaking point, but that also seems to correlate with technologies to allow for alternatives (witness in the case of tobacco the rise of vaping products, as well as tobacco-free nicotine products becoming OTC and cheaper). While I think you are right that acceptance of "natural beef" or other similar protein will drop once a viable artificial alternative becomes available, it won't really take off until that alternative can replicate a good portion of the other products out there as well. That is - for myself - all the artificial ground beef in the world won't get me to switch over and away from a proper well-marbled rib-eye steak, or a BBQ'd brisket or pork shoulder. But if they could replicate those items as well, and do it at a comparable price, then I'm game for the change (which has been the downside to current analogues on the market - $12-15.00 USD per pound for artificial hamburger is not my idea of a financially sound choice). I'm much the same for things like electric vehicles - just give me one that is off-road capable, 4WD, that I can lift and put on 30"-plus tires, and still give me a few hundred miles of driving range - and be inexpensive to purchase - then I'll do it. Heck - even a cheap small 2WD pickup truck would be nice. Not all of us want a sedan or sports car.
Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
> Meanwhile advertising is a direct social negative (IMO a cancer on human society) Wow wow wow you can't just make a claim like that without any basis whatsoever? It might be true or not, but would you mind collaborating on why you think that? I am not even talking about proving it with some science (which is likely very hard), but you just write it off as if everyone else is sharing your view and as if it is self-explanatory or widely accepted. It is not. Capitalism and the product culture has led to the most technological and in many case, lifestyle, lifespan, and life standard advancements known in history. This way of propelling progress forward requries efficient markets, and markets need to connect products with people who want and can benefit from those products. No advertisement is directly forcing anyone to buy or do anything, they just provide information for people and help locating people who might otherwise not have knowledge of the products they might want. Assuming your take on the advertisement industry is different, what is that take?
- bryanrasmussen 8y ago
  I would think the feeling that marketing as a whole, and advertising as part of it was a large social negative was prevalent enough that one would not have to explain it even if not everyone agrees. I mean it's common enough that Bill Hicks on the subject is pretty much a meme by this point https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHEOGrkhDp0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHEOGrkhDp0 I'm not saying I necessarily agree, but if someone says advertising is a cancer on society or something like that I would not be like - whoa what particular belief system has led him to conclude this?!? - I would think, huh, they have that set of beliefs regarding advertising and marketing.
  - Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
    So, one more time, care to explain why you think that it is? Or am I to understand this correctly that you think it's "cancer" on society because you have just heard other people say that (like Bill Hicks and perhaps others you respect) and you assume it was prevalent? It would be interesting to understand your original arguments if it was more clear what you based that assumption on (which is by no means universal).
DataWorker 8y ago
We could use markets to shape humanity based on our collective values but instead we let the markets shape us. Perhaps it’s a failure to coalesce around shared values; too much tribalism. Clearly some political regimes are better able to harness the power of the state to guide the invisible hand to do its work where it’s most needed. By delegating the “guiding” role to market participants themselves, those who control markets by lobbying and legislating, we forfeit our control.
- cr0sh 8y ago
  > By delegating the “guiding” role to market participants themselves, those who control markets by lobbying and legislating, we forfeit our control. This discussion is interesting; I was thinking something similar this morning, with the focus on our collective food choices. It's an imperfect analogy, but there are many things that we as both a society and thru governments we have banned, or highly regulated, as having too many external negative issues to allow them to continue to be sold openly on the market. You can think of any number of drugs (including more than a few that used to be OTC not long ago), stuff like "high test peroxide", cigarettes and tobacco products, etc. For the vast majority of these, though, none have extreme externalities - that is, none cause death in society like certain foods that are easily available. But those items don't have huge lobbying efforts around them, either. For instance - we know that HFCS is a great contributor to obesity and heart disease/stroke - yet we don't ban it for commercial food usage. While there have been recent inroads from a consumer standpoint (next time you go shopping for food, note the number of ordinary items that have packaging marked as "contains no HFCS" or similar), it's unknown whether this will continue to be a trend, nor how long it will take to rid the majority of purchased food items of the substance. It is also unknown how long it will take for the effects of its removal to show up in the overall health levels of society. But there again is a product that we freely allow in our foods that arguably is slowly killing all of us; one could say "well, you are free not to eat those foods" - but one could have argued the same about tobacco and cigarettes not too long back (and they did). There is actually a good parallel between both the tobacco industry and the corn/HFCS industry (the lobbying, hidden and such papers about the dangers, etc) - but even in the case of tobacco, there wasn't an outright ban; it's been more of a slow attrition via consumers and the public...

jobigoud 8y ago

You are not good at "javascript" you are good at problem solving and logic.

collyw 8y ago

Bioinfomatics is where a lot of research will be going on. And that's a lot closer to JavaScript than it is to biochemistry most of the time.

Mirioron 8y ago

>I'm good at JavaScript, not biochemistry. How will I be curing cancer? Trick the cancer cells into calling undefined as a function? No, that's how we get cancer in the first place. You need to trick it into calling a defined termination function.

wongarsu 8y ago

I am good at programming, but I wasn't bad at chemistry either. I could have chosen to go study that instead, or gone into bioinformatics. I still could. There's plenty of software involved in modeling cell functions, which I imagine is pretty significant for curing cancer. Yet here I am, doing other stuff out of my free will. I'm happy at my current job, but if I truly wanted to make the world a better place there would be more effective ways to do that (cancer research being one of them).

jghn 8y ago

Many of the hardest problems facing us today in biological research are computational in nature. You could have a lot more of an impact than you think

clinth 8y ago

Doing software work in support of scientists trying to cure cancer. Scientists aren't curing cancer with a notebook and pen, they have have problems that a software engineer can really help with. Boring internal software, with some public-facing software. It's not glorious work, and your team is typically understaffed and overworked. There are tradeoffs in the job, it's not for everyone. I work at New York Genome Center, and at the Broad Institute before that, both are nonprofits, and there are plenty of firms with software jobs out there where you can do "just software" and help with something meaningful. Drop me a note, I'm happy to talk about this more. I missed the monthly jobs thread, but my group is hiring.

arandr0x 8y ago
You mention you work at a nonprofit. Do you take volunteers as well?
- clinth 8y ago
  We do not, we're a combination of grant-driven research, production/clinical genome sequencing, and scale computing; the work is hard to structure for ad-hoc volunteer contribution.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

arandr0x 8y ago

Nobody's gonna cure cancer. We'll be able to prevent some cancers and treat others, but cancer is a large number of distinct diseases with different causes and outcomes and you can't eradicate it. That said you don't need to be good at biochemistry to help treat cancer. The bottleneck in pharma research right now is essentially finding big enough patient groups for clinical trials, I'm sure Javascript can help with that. (And the "best ad minds" of the generation as well). What about tracking habits that may increase cancer rates? Hmmm, Javascript can help with that. What about mapping out locations that have abnormal occurences of cancer due to possible environmental factors so nobody buys a house somewhere the local plant is dumping waste into the nearby water supply? Well, there again... Also, you can just study biochemistry and become good at it. I did just that. It's perfectly attainable and does not require extraordinary skill.