If you keep your arms close in to your body you are exercising your triceps more than your pectorals. If you want the classic push-up training (major pectoralis minor biceps) you need around a 45 degree angle out from your body. Or you can do 80 degrees if you want more snap city.
Yes, almost like that. I'm saying that Python is very similar to other languages, such that Python is very quick and easy to learn if you know any other language. If you know Java, C/C++, Perl, Scheme, SAS, R, bash, MATLAB, or anything similar to those, then Python is easy to read and understand almost from the start. I'd say that even Haskell and Scheme qualify. But if you want to learn Julia, those languages won't be much help.
If you were to pick up Julia with no prior experience whatsoever, then it doesn't matter of course, unless you wanted to use your Julia expertise to pick up a second language.
That all matters because the target audience (or a large part of the target audience) are the people that know a bit of these languages. They aren't programmers, they don't know anything about memory management, pointers, instruction sets or achitectures. They just want something that works and is easy to grasp from previous experience. And while that's a shame, that's how the world works. Julia suffers because it cannot attract the "low-skill" crowd in the way that R or Python has.
For experts, as someone mentioned above, Julia might be an excellent framework. But for wider adoption, Julia has several issues to deal with.
Julia has a tremendous problem. It's not designed for users, it's designed for Julia designers. If they had said "let's create an environment for deep learning that is great for threading" everything would be fine. But instead they went with "Hey, let's do all those awesome and cool things that we always wanted to see in a programming language and also it should be great with deep learning and implicit threading". The result is a (possibly great) environment that takes far too long to learn, has way to many individual quirks and ways of doing things that differ from the standard approach, and just is a bitch to intuitively understand.
The environment may or may not be great, but the designers made sure that you couldn't just pick it up and go, you have to go "ahaaaa so that's how you do that" for every single thing. And when the option is using Python/R that you already understand or use Julia that you have to learn from scratch, the choice is easy, especially for the people that are scientists and not programmers at heart - which is the exact audience that Julia is targetting.
I think you are confusing two parts here. The healthcare systems in the Nordic countries are largely socialised (there are private actors as well), but the development and R&D aspects are still the same capitalist organisations that you see in the rest of the world. Astra Zeneca, Pharmacia etc are all private corporations.
"I am advising T-Mobile and Sprint as they seek to accelerate the creation of an inclusive nationwide 5G network on how best to build a bridge across the digital divide that currently exists in our country."
It's good that they are building inclusive 5G networks as opposed to the old racist 4G networks that had those header bits for black/hispanic recipients. I wonder if they will also be accepting of non-binary traffic?
And you claim to speak for a community that by a vast majority doesn't agree with your viewpoints on the scientific applicability of race. Which makes us more credible? Your defeasible argument from an authority that your own peers don't recognize, or mine from a standpoint of basic logic and the determinations of your community as a whole?
If you're wondering whom is more credible when it comes to genetics, the geneticist or the angry peasant cursing at the clouds, then I'm afraid the answer is the geneticist. Your "logic" is nothing but a rant based on morality, something that has no value when it comes to the natural sciences. And generally the civilized world dismisses the rantings of those that do not believe in evolution.
I vote me. So do most people. Carry on. I still await your paper on the scientific applicability of race as a proxy for genetic phenotypes.
Now you're speaking for most people on the planet as well? An impressive feat, well done.
You're all over the place, so it's hard to tell. You have after all accused me of being racist while using sweeping categorizations and claimed to speak for a community that you clearly aren't a part of nor understand. Expecting rational or consistent behavior from you would make me a fool.
I wait with bated breath to read one of these papers. Being it will consist of your opinion dressed up as fact, it'll likely be laughed right out of the journal like most work done on such topics by your type. You seem to think that it's ok to construct evidence to fit your opinion. So no, your opinion does not count. What you can back up counts.
You are woefully uneducated on how publishing in academia works. Something that would be "laughed out of the journal" would only get published in a predatory journal to begin with, at which point no one would bother reading it. Otherwise, it would never make it past the review stage. Second, opinion still counts for a lot since the author is free to interpret results in any way that doesn't contradict the results. I have read more papers than I can count which use the results as a starting point for the conclusions & discussion section rather than the endpoint. So yes, my opinion counts.
With that pyrrhic victory out of the way, no one publishes on race in biology anymore. I said I "get to", not that I would or had any interest in doing so. Believe it or not, this is not a debated subject in biology circles. It is not anything interesting (unless you want to rile up the unwashed masses of Twitter), just a statistical background we scientists need to be aware of when designing studies and drawing conclusions; much like batch effects, standard deviations in differential expressions, or background metabolics in clinical samples. Race isn't a loaded word in genetics, it doesn't imply anything more than statistical patterns in a population. And your behavior is why we don't bring it up outside the university. It's just another example of the Dunning-Kruger effect with extra offense added.
Your view is a minority view. "Race" has no place in biology, except as a very imprecise proxy for certain phenotypes. And you've shown that with your own words, only you're too dim to understand what it means for your argument. You paint criticism of your logic failures as tantrums, also a sign that you're just not very clever.
No, it isn't. "My" view is what I've seen in the studies I've conducted, and it is what my colleagues have seen in the studies they have conducted. You just don't understand how the statistics work, and as always, "ignorance more often begets confidence than does knowledge".
It's not me, it's the scientific community at large. You can say it's just me, but it doesn't make it true.
No, it's you and all the other simpletons. We that do actual genetics look at statistics, not skin color. I haven't seen a single study where skin color was used as a definition. Thinking back, I'm not sure I have ever seen a genetics study where it was used at all. We look at things on the molecular level.
You're a joke. You let me know when you publish that paper. Look at the bright side, I'm just as bad. Calling you a racist piece of shit is nearly equivalent to you categorizing someone's biological traits by their "race"
It's peculiar that you seem to think that your opinions are in any way comparable to my facts. If anything, you should compare yourself to anti-vax proponent Jenny McCarthy or anyone from the Flat Earth or Creationism organizations.
Actually, since I'm a scientist, my opinion does count, funnily enough; I do after all get to publish findings on such topics.
This is a common claim among morons who like to paint the vast majority of scientists that consider racist tirades masqueraded as science as some kind of conspiratorial cabal suppressing the truth. Your colors are showing.
Ah, and here comes the brown smearing; quite expected. I would say the word 'emotional' was highly accurate.
Yes, I must be that. In all likelihood, my intellectual work has impacted your life at some point. Excuse me while I roll my eyes.
Yes, that's why I said it. You are deferring objective for emotional because it makes you feel better. That is indeed anti-intellectual. It is fully possible that your work has impacted my life at some point; sometimes I do want fries with that.
Again, citation needed. I'm also curious how you can wonder how I came up with it when it is the scientific consensus. I'll note that I said irrelevant to the said cell lines, which it is.
It is absolutely not the scientific consensus, at least not in the natural sciences. It might be in the humanities, I don't know. Is that where you learned about biology? And no, it isn't irrelevant to the cell lines, because again, statistics.
I find it fascinating that you point this out, and fail to see how it completely derails your argument. Race is asked in medical settings to judge the probability of a phenotype existing, to see if it is worth looking at pathologically speaking. It's hardly a rule. Phenotypes do not follow sociological or anthropological concepts of race as a rule, only as a gross generalization that has little place in statistical studies or assumptions. That was physical anthropology 101.
Race is a probabilistic measure, yes. Well done. Phenotypes do follow statistical distributions, and they have great relevance in statistical studies, such as GWAS. You would have known that if you actually understood basic genetics.
No, you're begging the question. Being we disagree that your definition of race is the correct definition, the above statement is categorically false.
It's not that we disagree; I have explained how it actually works and you have thrown a tantrum.
You're right, of course. It means a person lacking significant melanin in their epidermis and of European descent, which again, means precisely dick in the context you are using it in, except that there is a probability of said person expressing a phenotype.
This is why I worry; you don't understand even the most basic concept. Being "black" is only a single phenotype but in genetics you would look at many markers, not just one. That's why statistics are important.
Yes, the diagnostic phenotype, expressing exactly why race is a non-scientific term. All you're doing is making my point for me, once you accept that your definition of race does not exist outside of your brain.
Unfortunately, only you have claimed that it's the diagnostic phenotype. Perhaps the problem here is that you are inventing your own strawman?
No they don't, they tell you that you're struggling really badly to cling onto something resembling logic in order to paint a veil of rationality onto your likely racist beliefs, and you know that. You know you're struggling.
No, it's pretty clear that you don't understand genetics or that biologists can talk about such things as race without adding their sociopolitical values to the concepts. That is also why you're anti-intellectual.
There's little qualification for that outside of being able to communicate and follow basic instructions and logic. So ya, I'd say I'm qualified for
It has a solid scientific meaning, you just don't like the particular emotional values that you have attached to it. And that's pretty much what one would expect from an anti-intellectual.
As for "Japanese" having a small set of irrelevant characteristics, that is profoundly wrong, and I do wonder how you came up with that. You see, it turns out that statistics are rather important in genetics, which seems like something you should know before making uneducated claims. I am also somewhat disappointed that you don't understand how science works while being so vocal about it.
Finally, and this is really strange since you are contradicting your own claim here about an individual sometimes lacking a phenotype from his own reference genome, Caucasian is not equal to melanin concentrations in the skin; that is only one phenotype, an incredibly basic factoid for those that have even the smallest knowledge of genetics. These things tell me that you aren't qualified to assess whether or not I am a shitty biologist; but it does sound like you're qualified to ask me if I want fries with that.
Ahh, now I get it. You want to avoid the word, because it has a sociopolitical meaning you don't like. Okay, you're right. We don't have "races". We have "geographical origination profiles" that happen to correspond statistically to certain phenotypes. But concurrently we're also all the same, and any differences are purely social constructs.
Isn't this the oldest argument? The less appealing it is to purchase something, the more likely pirating becomes. Steam made it easy to buy games, and so games sales increased while piracy decreased. Before Steam, it was actually *easier* to pirate a game than it was to purchase it. Then came Origin, the Ubisoft thingy, and now the Epic thingy, and as a result buying games became more difficult again in a fractured market, which resulted in games pirating once again increasing. no one wants to have 59 different launchers and storefronts.
Seeing a movie at home used to require a damn PhD. There were 50000 channels to choose from, and they all came in completely illogical bundles that made no sense. Online options were for some reason even more complicated. And it was bloody expensive too. Tadaa, pirating movies became a big thing. Then came Netflix, it was cheap and easy. And suddenly pirating decreased. But oh no, everyone wanted in on that sweet sweet deal, and now we have a fractured market which is bloody expensive if you want to cover even half of the good stuff. And guess what? Pirating has once more increased.
In short, the study is saying that if you offer a solid deal that covers the consumers needs, they will buy it. If you make it more appealing to pirate it (expensive and/or difficult to use), people will do that. I don't consider this rocket surgery.
I don't know where you have gotten this information, but down at the genetics department we would ask you to go back to the humanities department. Did you know, for instance, that the cell lines GM18505, GM19099, and GM19238, are of the Yoruban origin, and therefor contain approximately 3-5 times as many rare SNPs as GM18951, which is Japanese in origin? That makes it pretty clear the two aren't the same race. Did you know that Yorubans have an immune system that is genetically well-adapted to fight off bacteria, while Caucasians have immune systems better suited for dealing with viral infections? That seems like a pretty important difference, and I promise you that the immune system is not a social construct.
We have biological races, no matter if we like it or not.
Slashdot Mirror
The first person to know everything. Impressive.
If you keep your arms close in to your body you are exercising your triceps more than your pectorals. If you want the classic push-up training (major pectoralis minor biceps) you need around a 45 degree angle out from your body. Or you can do 80 degrees if you want more snap city.
It was a thorough study. The all-female research team had to personally watch 1,100 firefighters undress and do 40 push-ups.
Maybe he's an avid fan of Game of Thrones.
Yes, almost like that. I'm saying that Python is very similar to other languages, such that Python is very quick and easy to learn if you know any other language. If you know Java, C/C++, Perl, Scheme, SAS, R, bash, MATLAB, or anything similar to those, then Python is easy to read and understand almost from the start. I'd say that even Haskell and Scheme qualify. But if you want to learn Julia, those languages won't be much help.
If you were to pick up Julia with no prior experience whatsoever, then it doesn't matter of course, unless you wanted to use your Julia expertise to pick up a second language.
That all matters because the target audience (or a large part of the target audience) are the people that know a bit of these languages. They aren't programmers, they don't know anything about memory management, pointers, instruction sets or achitectures. They just want something that works and is easy to grasp from previous experience. And while that's a shame, that's how the world works. Julia suffers because it cannot attract the "low-skill" crowd in the way that R or Python has.
For experts, as someone mentioned above, Julia might be an excellent framework. But for wider adoption, Julia has several issues to deal with.
Perhaps the saw company also invested in the prosthetics business?
Julia has a tremendous problem. It's not designed for users, it's designed for Julia designers. If they had said "let's create an environment for deep learning that is great for threading" everything would be fine. But instead they went with "Hey, let's do all those awesome and cool things that we always wanted to see in a programming language and also it should be great with deep learning and implicit threading". The result is a (possibly great) environment that takes far too long to learn, has way to many individual quirks and ways of doing things that differ from the standard approach, and just is a bitch to intuitively understand.
The environment may or may not be great, but the designers made sure that you couldn't just pick it up and go, you have to go "ahaaaa so that's how you do that" for every single thing. And when the option is using Python/R that you already understand or use Julia that you have to learn from scratch, the choice is easy, especially for the people that are scientists and not programmers at heart - which is the exact audience that Julia is targetting.
Hate to break your bubble here, but curing Hepatitis C *is* curing cancer in several cases. Same goes for HPV vaccinations (both male and female).
Long-term bacterial and viral infections are the root cause of *many* cancer cases.
I think you are confusing two parts here. The healthcare systems in the Nordic countries are largely socialised (there are private actors as well), but the development and R&D aspects are still the same capitalist organisations that you see in the rest of the world. Astra Zeneca, Pharmacia etc are all private corporations.
Strange, that's the same estimate I use when the wife asks me when I'll do the laundry.
They have to learn a lot of mental gymnastics to justify pirating all those games.
"I am advising T-Mobile and Sprint as they seek to accelerate the creation of an inclusive nationwide 5G network on how best to build a bridge across the digital divide that currently exists in our country."
It's good that they are building inclusive 5G networks as opposed to the old racist 4G networks that had those header bits for black/hispanic recipients. I wonder if they will also be accepting of non-binary traffic?
And you claim to speak for a community that by a vast majority doesn't agree with your viewpoints on the scientific applicability of race.
Which makes us more credible? Your defeasible argument from an authority that your own peers don't recognize, or mine from a standpoint of basic logic and the determinations of your community as a whole?
If you're wondering whom is more credible when it comes to genetics, the geneticist or the angry peasant cursing at the clouds, then I'm afraid the answer is the geneticist. Your "logic" is nothing but a rant based on morality, something that has no value when it comes to the natural sciences. And generally the civilized world dismisses the rantings of those that do not believe in evolution.
I vote me. So do most people. Carry on. I still await your paper on the scientific applicability of race as a proxy for genetic phenotypes.
Now you're speaking for most people on the planet as well? An impressive feat, well done.
You're all over the place, so it's hard to tell. You have after all accused me of being racist while using sweeping categorizations and claimed to speak for a community that you clearly aren't a part of nor understand. Expecting rational or consistent behavior from you would make me a fool.
I did conclude that you were qualified to ask if I wanted fries with that. Are you saying that you're not?
I wait with bated breath to read one of these papers.
Being it will consist of your opinion dressed up as fact, it'll likely be laughed right out of the journal like most work done on such topics by your type. You seem to think that it's ok to construct evidence to fit your opinion. So no, your opinion does not count. What you can back up counts.
You are woefully uneducated on how publishing in academia works. Something that would be "laughed out of the journal" would only get published in a predatory journal to begin with, at which point no one would bother reading it. Otherwise, it would never make it past the review stage. Second, opinion still counts for a lot since the author is free to interpret results in any way that doesn't contradict the results. I have read more papers than I can count which use the results as a starting point for the conclusions & discussion section rather than the endpoint.
So yes, my opinion counts.
With that pyrrhic victory out of the way, no one publishes on race in biology anymore. I said I "get to", not that I would or had any interest in doing so. Believe it or not, this is not a debated subject in biology circles. It is not anything interesting (unless you want to rile up the unwashed masses of Twitter), just a statistical background we scientists need to be aware of when designing studies and drawing conclusions; much like batch effects, standard deviations in differential expressions, or background metabolics in clinical samples. Race isn't a loaded word in genetics, it doesn't imply anything more than statistical patterns in a population. And your behavior is why we don't bring it up outside the university. It's just another example of the Dunning-Kruger effect with extra offense added.
Your view is a minority view. "Race" has no place in biology, except as a very imprecise proxy for certain phenotypes. And you've shown that with your own words, only you're too dim to understand what it means for your argument.
You paint criticism of your logic failures as tantrums, also a sign that you're just not very clever.
No, it isn't. "My" view is what I've seen in the studies I've conducted, and it is what my colleagues have seen in the studies they have conducted. You just don't understand how the statistics work, and as always, "ignorance more often begets confidence than does knowledge".
It's not me, it's the scientific community at large. You can say it's just me, but it doesn't make it true.
No, it's you and all the other simpletons. We that do actual genetics look at statistics, not skin color. I haven't seen a single study where skin color was used as a definition. Thinking back, I'm not sure I have ever seen a genetics study where it was used at all. We look at things on the molecular level.
You're a joke. You let me know when you publish that paper.
Look at the bright side, I'm just as bad. Calling you a racist piece of shit is nearly equivalent to you categorizing someone's biological traits by their "race"
It's peculiar that you seem to think that your opinions are in any way comparable to my facts. If anything, you should compare yourself to anti-vax proponent Jenny McCarthy or anyone from the Flat Earth or Creationism organizations.
Citation needed. Your opinion does not count.
Actually, since I'm a scientist, my opinion does count, funnily enough; I do after all get to publish findings on such topics.
This is a common claim among morons who like to paint the vast majority of scientists that consider racist tirades masqueraded as science as some kind of conspiratorial cabal suppressing the truth. Your colors are showing.
Ah, and here comes the brown smearing; quite expected. I would say the word 'emotional' was highly accurate.
Yes, I must be that. In all likelihood, my intellectual work has impacted your life at some point. Excuse me while I roll my eyes.
Yes, that's why I said it. You are deferring objective for emotional because it makes you feel better. That is indeed anti-intellectual.
It is fully possible that your work has impacted my life at some point; sometimes I do want fries with that.
Again, citation needed. I'm also curious how you can wonder how I came up with it when it is the scientific consensus.
I'll note that I said irrelevant to the said cell lines, which it is.
It is absolutely not the scientific consensus, at least not in the natural sciences. It might be in the humanities, I don't know. Is that where you learned about biology?
And no, it isn't irrelevant to the cell lines, because again, statistics.
I find it fascinating that you point this out, and fail to see how it completely derails your argument.
Race is asked in medical settings to judge the probability of a phenotype existing, to see if it is worth looking at pathologically speaking. It's hardly a rule.
Phenotypes do not follow sociological or anthropological concepts of race as a rule, only as a gross generalization that has little place in statistical studies or assumptions. That was physical anthropology 101.
Race is a probabilistic measure, yes. Well done.
Phenotypes do follow statistical distributions, and they have great relevance in statistical studies, such as GWAS. You would have known that if you actually understood basic genetics.
No, you're begging the question. Being we disagree that your definition of race is the correct definition, the above statement is categorically false.
It's not that we disagree; I have explained how it actually works and you have thrown a tantrum.
You're right, of course. It means a person lacking significant melanin in their epidermis and of European descent, which again, means precisely dick in the context you are using it in, except that there is a probability of said person expressing a phenotype.
This is why I worry; you don't understand even the most basic concept. Being "black" is only a single phenotype but in genetics you would look at many markers, not just one. That's why statistics are important.
Yes, the diagnostic phenotype, expressing exactly why race is a non-scientific term.
All you're doing is making my point for me, once you accept that your definition of race does not exist outside of your brain.
Unfortunately, only you have claimed that it's the diagnostic phenotype. Perhaps the problem here is that you are inventing your own strawman?
No they don't, they tell you that you're struggling really badly to cling onto something resembling logic in order to paint a veil of rationality onto your likely racist beliefs, and you know that. You know you're struggling.
No, it's pretty clear that you don't understand genetics or that biologists can talk about such things as race without adding their sociopolitical values to the concepts. That is also why you're anti-intellectual.
There's little qualification for that outside of being able to communicate and follow basic instructions and logic. So ya, I'd say I'm qualified for
It has a solid scientific meaning, you just don't like the particular emotional values that you have attached to it. And that's pretty much what one would expect from an anti-intellectual.
As for "Japanese" having a small set of irrelevant characteristics, that is profoundly wrong, and I do wonder how you came up with that. You see, it turns out that statistics are rather important in genetics, which seems like something you should know before making uneducated claims. I am also somewhat disappointed that you don't understand how science works while being so vocal about it.
Finally, and this is really strange since you are contradicting your own claim here about an individual sometimes lacking a phenotype from his own reference genome, Caucasian is not equal to melanin concentrations in the skin; that is only one phenotype, an incredibly basic factoid for those that have even the smallest knowledge of genetics.
These things tell me that you aren't qualified to assess whether or not I am a shitty biologist; but it does sound like you're qualified to ask me if I want fries with that.
Ahh, now I get it. You want to avoid the word, because it has a sociopolitical meaning you don't like. Okay, you're right. We don't have "races". We have "geographical origination profiles" that happen to correspond statistically to certain phenotypes. But concurrently we're also all the same, and any differences are purely social constructs.
Isn't this the oldest argument? The less appealing it is to purchase something, the more likely pirating becomes. Steam made it easy to buy games, and so games sales increased while piracy decreased. Before Steam, it was actually *easier* to pirate a game than it was to purchase it.
Then came Origin, the Ubisoft thingy, and now the Epic thingy, and as a result buying games became more difficult again in a fractured market, which resulted in games pirating once again increasing. no one wants to have 59 different launchers and storefronts.
Seeing a movie at home used to require a damn PhD. There were 50000 channels to choose from, and they all came in completely illogical bundles that made no sense. Online options were for some reason even more complicated. And it was bloody expensive too. Tadaa, pirating movies became a big thing.
Then came Netflix, it was cheap and easy. And suddenly pirating decreased.
But oh no, everyone wanted in on that sweet sweet deal, and now we have a fractured market which is bloody expensive if you want to cover even half of the good stuff. And guess what? Pirating has once more increased.
In short, the study is saying that if you offer a solid deal that covers the consumers needs, they will buy it. If you make it more appealing to pirate it (expensive and/or difficult to use), people will do that. I don't consider this rocket surgery.
I don't know where you have gotten this information, but down at the genetics department we would ask you to go back to the humanities department.
Did you know, for instance, that the cell lines GM18505, GM19099, and GM19238, are of the Yoruban origin, and therefor contain approximately 3-5 times as many rare SNPs as GM18951, which is Japanese in origin? That makes it pretty clear the two aren't the same race.
Did you know that Yorubans have an immune system that is genetically well-adapted to fight off bacteria, while Caucasians have immune systems better suited for dealing with viral infections? That seems like a pretty important difference, and I promise you that the immune system is not a social construct.
We have biological races, no matter if we like it or not.
We are all the same, humans, gorillas, and neanderthals. Intelligence, body hair, cranial shape; these are all just social constructs.
Still beats Windows ME.
Dude, heroin is natural.
Did anyone else read that as "Catheters in China Are Using AI To Spot Unhygienic Cooks, Report Says"?
I did not like that visualization.