2 ms·
If we're allowed to use computing analogies here, would it be fair to say the old model is more like how we view a standard CPU and the new model is more like a
by 0134340 3y ago
If we're allowed to use computing analogies here, would it be fair to say the old model is more like how we view a standard CPU and the new model is more like a FPGA? Where the old model viewed genes in a more classic reductionist approach as CPUs, arranged and static logic waiting for input from the environment and impressing on the environment in such a deterministic way. While the newer model analogy, genes act as an FPGA, an array of gates with potential to adapt to input imposed upon them with this bi-directional synchronicity of environment impressing on genes and genes therefore impressing on environment?
It seems as fields mature we move further away from classic reductionism and encompass more a holistic approach, a path gravitating towards objectivity which I find interesting from a philosophical perspective.
- r0ze-at-hn 3y agoFor those old enough to program on punch cards you could say that is closer. We load the program into ram and then the env can and often does modify the program on the fly and we do dumb thing like use the current line number to save a byte because dividing by 17 is “good enough”. Most cards are functional and many cards do double or triple duty to save space. So a bug in one card can subtly break three wildly different spots. Analogies break down of course as in biology it all executes at the same time which is why the micro services or lamdas that can be scaled up or down have been my go to. And you can even inject external events into your lambda systems. And for anyone familiar with lisp, code is data, data is code. For modern coders you can think that it has a billion feature flags you can also flip on and off rather than rewriting the code on the fly