klmr

24 ms·

121.
by klmr 7y ago
The eLife paper you link to discusses errors in RNA synthesis (transcription), not in tRNA-dependent protein synthesis (translation). The abstract mentions “translation”, but only as an amplifier of transcription errors: each mRNA transcrip
122.
by klmr 7y ago
He isn’t (and never was) the owner of Spiegel. He’s the son of the Spiegel’s founder and former editor in chief.
123.
by klmr 7y ago
I did mean Stansted but admittedly it’s probably the least convenient airport from Central London unless you live close to the Liverpool Street line — personal bias led me astray. London City is of course closer from many points within Lond
124.
by klmr 7y ago
Yes: As mentioned, I think this is excellent advice.
125.
by klmr 7y ago
For what it’s worth the comment you’re replying to is completely right about what I meant. I see that my phrasing invites misunderstanding, and the distinction is subtle.
126.
by klmr 7y ago
> If you have a favorite 1 hour weekly TV show, that's almost the same amount of time committed. Right, but very few people watch the exact same episode/series over and over, at the exclusion of everything else. And people who
127.
by klmr 7y ago
This is good advice, but > they are probably used to read a chapter or two on a daily basis This sounds mental. Reading the Bible on a daily basis? I’m pretty sure that this is not the norm for the vast majority of (devout) Christians (a
128.
by klmr 7y ago
Flying is cheaper and faster, but not necessarily more convenient. To find cheap flights you often have to get to inconveniently located airports (the great exception being London Stansted) at odd hours, often having to change transport on
129.
by klmr 7y ago
I know this isn’t the point of the article but the code shown there is the archetypal case where writing classes is an anti-pattern, as argued in “Stop Writing Classes” [1]. All the classes in that code can — should! — be functions. There’s
130.
by klmr 7y ago
I wasn’t explicitly referring to that, it’s just one of many efforts. Anyway, you’re certainly right that none of the existing efforts are “elegant” but that’s hardly relevant. What matters is that the connectome is fully mapped, and that w
131.
by klmr 7y ago
What? Ants don’t have general intelligence, and even ant colonies’ decision making (= simple swarm intelligence) is readily replicable in a programmed system, and has been, for a while. I don’t think a gradual scale is very helpful because
132.
by klmr 7y ago
Noncoding DNA ≠ junk DNA! In fact, the latter is a subset of the former. Confusing the two is understandable since even scientists occasionally play fast and loose with the terms but scientists nevertheless understand that they are differen
133.
by klmr 7y ago
Ah, I misunderstood your commend as saying that you’re currently working on the thesis.
134.
by klmr 7y ago
Well my own research has focused completely on noncoding DNA. So yes. It exists.
135.
by klmr 7y ago
Junk DNA has already been studied before whole-genome sequencing existed, and evidence from NGS not only hasn’t overturned that research, it has largely corroborated it. And as for personal biases, I’m a staunch defender of the ENCODE resea
136.
by klmr 7y ago
> To say that massive portions of our DNA “have no benefit” without having proof of such, seems naive to me. What makes you think scientists have no proof? The whole reason we know junk DNA has no important function for cell biology is t
137.
by klmr 7y ago
What you were taught in college 15 years ago is still correct. Junk DNA does not have “a very important function”. The “subsequent discoveries” were, by and large, just a failure in science communication. Junk DNA is still non-functional,
138.
by klmr 7y ago
> labeling something as non useful and leaving it out of the majority of DNA sequencing as a result has made large swathes of the scientific community unaware of how non coding DNA works within the DNA ecosystem This is simply not true.
139.
by klmr 7y ago
> some types of diets seem to help with autism Sorry, the actual evidence for this is essential nil. The anecdotes are all explainable by confirmation bias. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/43957/82
140.
by klmr 7y ago
You could broaden your definition of gene to include proximal regulatory elements. If you take that unit and translocate it the answer is much less obvious.
141.
by klmr 7y ago
I broadly agree with your point but careful when saying “no obvious phenotype”. As my former boss likes to say about work in C. elegans : “Worms can’t talk. They seem healthy but maybe they’re extremely unhappy.” Less flippantly, we know
142.
by klmr 7y ago
It seems this study focuses on regulatory regions of coding genes (i.e. regions of DNA that’s in proximity of coding genes, or in introns), rather than on noncoding RNAs. This doesn’t exclude the possibility of noncoding RNAs also having an
143.
by klmr 7y ago
Nice explanation but you seem to be saying that at most 3% (being generous) of DNA would be functional (if the rest is “random noise”). This number is over twice as small as the lowest estimate (~ 8%) of even the most fervent critics of ENC
144.
by klmr 7y ago
> Would this mean gene-therapy could potentially undo autism? Almost certainly not. Autism is caused by developmental changes. This means that any gene therapy would have to start before the embryo development is even finished, i.e. in t
145.
by klmr 7y ago
Teaching research is unfortunately fairly balkanised and my brief stint in the science of teaching was in German, so I could, for the most part, only offer references to German text books. However, it’s established that active learning incr
146.
by klmr 7y ago
The essay is very light on evidence. Pathological cases (such as buying grades) aside, maybe grades have generally increased because teaching has gotten better? I certainly wouldn’t posit this as an absolute truth but research into teaching
147.
by klmr 7y ago
This is a good heuristic for advanced logic, but not when the main purpose of the script is to encode a workflow of coding other tools. I’m using other languages for that too, but shell scripting languages are consistently superior to all o
148.
by klmr 7y ago
It’s also really limited. I do a lot of shell programming and I lean heavily on Bashisms to get any work done. Even in Bash I’m hitting the wall constantly. Sh-only is utterly impractical: Reading code from big projects that try to stay com
149.
by klmr 7y ago
Unfortunately that link to the Rust FAQ is broken.
150.
by klmr 7y ago
The vast majority of experts in this field are not affiliated with Monsanto and don’t make a dime from it. They are the “general public”, except well informed, and have studied years to understand the relevant (complex) background to make

More ›