nonbel

70 ms·

691.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"The detection was triggered by software. You can't choose to ignore that." In one detector, which (afaict from the sentence you think im cherry picking) is usually discarded or something, but these were exceptional circu
692.
by nonbel 8y ago
I agree, thanks.
693.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"If you back up a sentence..." I'm talking about the sentence where it seems to say they treated the data from a certain time interval exceptionally, ie in a way not addressed by the "background" measurements. T
694.
by nonbel 8y ago
> "LIGO is sensitive to binary NS (and NS stellar-BH mergers) too..." Sure, and the extra info is appreciated, but here is what I was responding to: >"Gravitational waves are all candidates until they can be confirmed w
695.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"current ex vivo therapies are unaffected since we can screen cells after editing." If this is so easy then why is it not standard practice? From the paper: >"Results reported here also illustrate a need to thoroughly
696.
by nonbel 8y ago
How do you interpret this sentence: "Single-detector gravitational-wave triggers had never been disseminated before in low latency. Given the temporal coincidence with the Fermi-GBM GRB, however, a GCN Circular was issued" I int
697.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"Both LIGO detectors detected and classified it as GW event at the same time as the GRB classification then it was confirmed through VIRGO data and localized." All I can say is that other source clearly describes that the Ferm
698.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"On 2017 August 17 12:41:06 UTC the Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor (GBM; Meegan et al. 2009) onboard flight software triggered on, classified, and localized a GRB. A Gamma-ray Coordinates Network (GCN) Notice (Fermi-GBM 2017) was is
699.
by nonbel 8y ago
I don't know if its "yikes". But we are still waiting for them to detect something first and prove it is real by pointing where to look. I mean if you were waiting for that kind of evidence to begin with.
700.
by nonbel 8y ago
Would it affect your opinion if the light emitted was noticed first by another project, who then told the gravitational wave people about it, at which point they found data their algorithms had previously rejected as noise and changed the c
701.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"Indeed, to say just a given galaxy lacks dark matter is inherently to say that dark matter exists." It means that some assumption somewhere in the calculation is wrong.
702.
by nonbel 8y ago
Aether, or epicycles? Its more like epicycles in my opinion because it supposedly forms "spheroids" wherever the models need it.
703.
by nonbel 8y ago
typo in the last post: >"This seems to ignore any very small or large mutations" I wrote this before I added the "smallest" calculation. So only the very large structural changes are ignored (> 100 kb).
704.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"So, on average, only one cell division happened before measurement, unless you want to claim GFP stimulates T-cells to hyperproliferate. My intuition is that cells with the transgene will actually be slower than their competitors,
705.
by nonbel 8y ago
They can't detect the presence of mutants if hey occur at frequencies at or below the background rates. I mentioned this multiple times. Its simply that no one knows if they are present or not. Earlier: >"You could call that no
706.
by nonbel 8y ago
Here is what I am responding to (also keep in mind I was using indel to mean "indels and substitutions", ie whatever may be counted as an error during NHEJ): > "There's no way cells survive with indels at 10% of their
707.
by nonbel 8y ago
Ok, I guess no one calls it an indel if theres no net change to the length. It doesnt really matter to the example if its an indel or substitution.
708.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"There are no indels in your example, only nucleotide substitutions." It works perfectly fine as an example. A single nucleotide change could be due to an indel: "Indel is a molecular biology term for an insertion or del
709.
by nonbel 8y ago
The OP paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/Nbt.4192
710.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"The efficiency increase at lower viability cannot be attributed to pre-existing mutants, because they're assaying for the presence of a GFP transgene inserted by homology-directed repair, not indels in general." Yes, for
711.
by nonbel 8y ago
Reference: GAATTC Variants: Cell 1: TAATTC Cell 2: GTATTC Cell 3: GATTTC Cell 4: GAAGTC Cell 5: GAATGC Cell 6: GAATTT Cell 7: GAATTC Cell 8: GAATTC 7/8 cells contain the reference nucleotide at any given s
712.
by nonbel 8y ago
Actually just look at the controls in this paper: Fig 1b: 0.31% Fig 3b: 1.12% Fig 4b: 0.18%
713.
by nonbel 8y ago
Thats not what I said. I said some significant percent of cells (I remember as high as 10% from one paper, but usually its closer to 0.1%...) seem to have indels at any given locus. Either that or the methods used to measure this are too no
714.
by nonbel 8y ago
Do you have a paper in mind? From what I've seen 0.01% - 10% of controls have indels at any given site (obviously this depends on treatment, cell type, etc). You could call that noise of course, at the very least they can't detect
715.
by nonbel 8y ago
Yes, you mentioned the two possibilities that everyone likes to focus on, but not the others which (I suspect) are much more common. EDIT: I really mean that I think in some of these experiments, where they only try to cause NHEJ, they just
716.
by nonbel 8y ago
The first thing to realize is that the crispr/cas9 strategy only produces damaged DNA (double stranded breaks, DSBs). It is not supposed to repair the DNA or do anything else. You have five main responses to this: 1) Necrosis/Lysi
717.
by nonbel 8y ago
The presence of a correlation isnt the interesting part of the story (as noted by others, what isnt correlated with Alzheimer's?), so should not be highlighted in the headline. The interesting part is the proposal that amyloid beta is
718.
by nonbel 8y ago
These headlines are horrible. The actual story is about "Amyloid Beta, the substance currently thought to cause Alzheimer's, may actually protect against Alzheimer's and herpes". > "Robert Moir, a neurologist at
719.
by nonbel 8y ago
This is where biomedical theories go before they die. "Its so complex there cant even be a cure by definition, thats why we failed. It has nothing to do with incorrect usage of statistics, lack of coming up with and testing quantitativ
720.
by nonbel 8y ago
Everything is correlated with everything else. Take that as a first principle and you will see that almost all the "discoveries" you hear about are a waste of time.

More ›