apathy

31 ms·

241.
by apathy 10y ago
Let us know when they have clinical results in a subject(s) that can communicate in a bit more detail than mice. The authors say the trials may start as early as 2017, so I don't expect a useful answer before 2020, maybe 2019 at the ea
242.
by apathy 10y ago
I can't quite understand your last sentence -- I publish, as do most academics, so that can't be it. But Cialdini is the "pre-suasion" guy, and that one has certainly failed to replicate. So I guess I have a prior skept
243.
by apathy 10y ago
> confirmable But were they indeed confirmed? This is the problem that keeps cropping up. Sometimes I wonder if believing in findings from the psychological literature isn't a disadvantage. Knowing about them is good -- you can pi
244.
by apathy 10y ago
The highest-marginal-return skill to practice, in my experience, is to figure out where the mutual benefit in any arrangement is, and PRESENT THAT FIRST to each party involved. If it seems like things magically improve whenever you show up
245.
by apathy 10y ago
That's not how tenure works. Up or out -- you get tenure or you hit the road. So this is actually fairly common in academia. Sort of a parting shot, if you will.
246.
by apathy 10y ago
Presumably about n-fold higher (marginally) than without redundancy. Not counting the cost of this sort of outage, which could swing the equation strongly in favor of nX
247.
by apathy 10y ago
other professions do behave like this. Look at the CEO of Wells Fargo or Valeant. "Fuck you, I got mine!"
248.
by apathy 10y ago
if Google is down you'll have other problems (SYN, ACK, SYNACK won't help much with the DDoS that's killing it)
249.
by apathy 10y ago
> If you assume power of 80% (not crazy in rigorous studies) and 50% of programs having an effect... You're making another assumption: that the power calculations are actually rigorous and the effect size (not "having an effect
250.
by apathy 10y ago
nicely done, hope it works out as a business for youse guise
251.
by apathy 10y ago
I see. Where's your rebuttal regarding nonavalent Gardasil, the actual topic of conversation here? When you can provide some evidence (any evidence, really) that the immediate risks outweigh the benefits, I'll be impressed. Mean
252.
by apathy 10y ago
I really ought to clarify this: yes, we absolutely should do follow up studies to make sure HPV vaccines are doing what we think they are (Gardasil for example). I do not under any circumstances think it's appropriate to delay HPV vacc
253.
by apathy 10y ago
Genius. Post a bond.
254.
by apathy 10y ago
The only reason you know that Tamiflu is useless is "cynical monsters" like me who bite the hand that feeds them. As far as spacing doses, just like anything else it's subject to revision. Nonavalent HPV vaccines produce anti
255.
by apathy 10y ago
Hey if they have their way, we'll all "continue to study" HPV vaccines so that more girls can die of cervical cancer. Fuck those cynical monsters. I don't wish people ill lightly, but they're taking chances with th
256.
by apathy 10y ago
Hey, just so I'm not a total hypocrite, it turns out that you can "turn off" PD-1 and PD-L1 response in CAR-T cells (at least in mouse models, https://www.jci.org/articles/view/83092 ). In the end
257.
by apathy 10y ago
Spoken like someone who hasn't been following the Kite trials... Also of note: just like good ol' mAbs, you need a target for CAR-T cells. And BiTEs, and BiKEs, and what have you. Also also of note: the approaches that took pedia
258.
by apathy 10y ago
The majority of pediatric malignancies are either germline related, in utero ( de novo mutation/SV, potentially caused or facilitated by maternal environmental exposures), or a reverse lottery winner. There simply isn't enough t
259.
by apathy 10y ago
Armitage-Doll was a nice advance over previous models, but it's also incomplete (and probably flat wrong in some cases, although working on pediatric malignancies has convinced me that a second cooperating event usually is mandatory).
260.
by apathy 10y ago
Write error == (fixed) base pair mutation. A classic example is a methylated cytosine spontaneously deaminating to yield thymine. Our DNA repair enzymes can't tell the difference (in terms of which is the "right" base) betwe
261.
by apathy 10y ago
It's not 100% clear to me that this is directly compatible with the graph reference, but if it isn't, that seems like a simple matter for Batzoglou & co. Those guys are really, really good, and the multi-reference target is a
262.
by apathy 10y ago
There's probably, in spirit, a graph version of the BWT, but I'm not familiar enough to know it. The approach is less straightforward because you're not just modifying BWT to allow for indels/errors, but rather a graph
263.
by apathy 10y ago
Google is using graph learning for representations of stuff where obtaining a huge, representative, "labeled" corpus is hard. As many in the field can tell you, "labeling" genomes is hard, too. You can stick labels like
264.
by apathy 10y ago
Proofs are math, science is uncertain (otherwise why bother running experiments)
265.
by apathy 10y ago
That's long for math
266.
by apathy 10y ago
The best part is that any fool can see that impact factors are a terrible proxy for real impact, and in fact the editors of several glam journals have pointed this out (disclosure: I have plenty of glam papers on my CV*). But since it props
267.
by apathy 10y ago
In general, if you have to put science in the name, it isn't.
268.
by apathy 10y ago
neither are bullshit papers/editorials/letters-to-the-editor http://frog.gatech.edu/Pubs/How-to-Publish-a-Scientific-Comm... "Eminent" specialists often argue in favor of eminence (journals, tenured
269.
by apathy 10y ago
Counter example: yamanaka
270.
by apathy 10y ago
Specific only in that the categories aren't supervised. Furthermore, suppose you have labels for some but not all points on your data (i.e. your model is designed to be robust in the face of things it hasn't been trained for). Th

More ›