I was talking to a guy at work about an initiative to go paperless. "Think of all the time [his dept] will have to do [other things] when we don't have to review paperwork anymore!" The other things are processes that have plans in the pipe for optimization and automation already, so I think the best case scenario will be that the company allows attrition to take care of things after everything is put in place...
Have you done any plumbing lately? Pex with some sharkbite connectors is on the level of Lego as far as difficulty. The (admittedly kind of weird sounding to me) newish way of wiring power to everything but using wifi to connect the switch to the light could make electrical pretty simple, too. Those jobs will continue to exist but the more dumbed down it gets the less it'll pay because you'll be paying for convenience rather than skill.
That... that is a good point.... I enjoy seeing more raptors and large birds than when I was a kid, but the windshield does stay cleaner on long drives... you used to have to scrape it off every fillup on road trips. I wonder if it is the bugs or the aerodynamics of the cars, though?
No... perhaps I was too succinct. Being better at complex social interactions conferred selective advantage, which led to positive selection for the traits (larger brains) that allowed for more complex social interactions.
Yes, exactly. Compromised basic research leads to failed follow up experiments and shrugs all around as they move on to the next promising compound. It is a waste of resources and increases the background noise in looking for useful things, but not a danger to the public.
Basic research is the scientific equivalent of brainstorming, or throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. This sort of contamination problem means you have a higher failure rate at the next step of development, not that vetting and validation is irrelevant. It is worth solving because we're missing out on potential solutions and spending more grant money than we should for the data we're getting out of it, but your views appear to lack perspective.
Sure, you also hear about competitive magnet schools where kids will try to sabotage each other academically. A bunch of teenagers together are going to get competitive as they are forming their identities and they're going to key in on whatever the local culture is glorifying, whether being valedictorian or quarterback is what makes you popular with the dominant social clade.
Oh it'd go through a bunch of stuff after academia before it got put it you, unless it'd be on an experimental protocol where "oops, he died" isn't so bad an outcome. These sorts of mistakes are impacting basic research, not third party safety and efficacy testing or manufacturing. FDA GLP/GMP inspections are no joke, people make livings just being consultants for telling companies how not to get their asses handed to them. New cancer treatments don't come directly out of some pottering professor's lab where the hung over grad students throw something together in the centrifuge after sacrificing a few mice.
It is easier to test now than it used to be. You wouldn't be able to tell them apart visually with a microscope, for example. It has been a known issue for a while now, the scope is still being sussed out.
TFA indicates that 'winning socially' was the driver for bigger brains. Not being a nerd. If we assume a bell curve distribution there'll always be outliers at the top of the range for complex traits like intelligence, which will even improve group fitness even if individual nerds don't contribute as much to direct reproduction, especially since a smarter parent can mitigate more sources of mortality for their (potentially fewer) children.
It is important to note that immortalized cell lines are essentially cancer cells in culture. So while using the wrong line due to contamination hurts the direct usefulness of research, it doesn't render that research useless, because the data is still about whether or not the compound of interest killed cancer cells... just different ones than you thought. This sort of thing could be the reason that so many treatments that seem promising in academia fail to pan out when they move to industry with more funding for quality control.
Academic labs aren't really known for following strict protocol, so I imagine quite a bit of cross contamination occurs. That'd be among the reasons to limit how many times you passage the cells before going back to the LN2 tank for more. Still, it isn't like human cells live very long on a stainless steel BSC surface so it wouldn't take too much effort to drop the contamination rate.
It is interesting comparing it to HBO... we sub to HBO Now off and on for Game of Thrones, and there isn't really a whole lot on HBO compared to Netflix. The content is, as you point out, all top tier, but I imagine that Netflix wants the perceived depth of library so you keep your sub year round versus binging GoT and Westworld and cancelling for 9 months. It is still cheaper than HBO Now.
They won't want to standardize, the lock-in is a feature, not a bug. If the assistants can't trade information natively, then you'll have to work around it by getting them to talk to one another to relay the information via the human interface. First they'll be bickering in the corner, then they'll start whispering when you enter the room... Next thing you know Skynet becomes self aware! But it'll just want to sell you things rather than nuke you.
Govt backed research works kind of like venture capital, the government assumes no risk (or employees) beyond the cash itself and doles it out to promising proposals. This works pretty well, but you're right that the govt could ask for more in return than they generally do... but without the grant program we'd be left with just what VC would pay for, which would be baldness cures and boner pills. So we're still better off in that we have new cancer drugs, even if they end up expensive. One issues with some drugs is there is little economics of scale for a drug that only helps a subset of people with a specific cancer. You can't make it inexpensive to produce at those scales without impacting safety. It is very expensive to perform FDA compliant/regulated research or manufacturing. So, even if the govt retained the patent... who will make it? Would it actually end up cheaper without the IP? How much less would fighter jets costs if Boeing didn't retain the IP?
This is correct, this is describing induced apoptosis. It's probably the best way to kill cancer cells while leaving healthy cells alone. Better still, apoptosis is controlled cell death, so they die 'cleanly' versus necrosis when the cells just fall apart.
Its fundamental worth is less than a Groupon. And unlike something like gold that you can make things out of even if a pure gold meteor crashed down and increased supply by some crazy amount, the stuff is all worthless once somebody builds a better calculator.
For better or for worse, the best jobs some of his supporters are likely able to get would be found by joining the military. It has become a right-friendly make-work program.
Technical jargon is used because those terms have very specific meanings in technical contexts. Calling something a "model organism" in biology tells you a lot very succinctly, and means something different than it might in, say, taxidermy. An example in sports would be a touchdown, which people who follow football will understand, and those who do not can be told that by crossing the end zone, the player has scored 6 points plus an opportunity to score either 1 with a kick or 2 with a run or pass. The latter is never overheard being spoken by the announcers in my experience, the jargon allows a conversation to take place.
Fair enough! I share your skepticism about the long term viability of these services, but it isn't really any more inherently vulnerable than physical media and I was shocked at how user friendly it is versus pervious attempts by the industry to embrace digital content.
You may not have children who watch Disney movies, so I'll explain: It comes as a code with the Blu Ray and you enter it in, a la Steam, and now you can stream that movie anywhere just like Netflix. Just like with (some of) Netflix, you can download titles to local storage. It works well for locked down tablets for children, since you can give them access to the Disney app rather than needing to give them folder access to wherever you put the MP4s. With older children it'd work just as well either way. If you wanted files you can do anything to, just rip the disk you got the code with like before.
Slashdot Mirror
I was talking to a guy at work about an initiative to go paperless. "Think of all the time [his dept] will have to do [other things] when we don't have to review paperwork anymore!" The other things are processes that have plans in the pipe for optimization and automation already, so I think the best case scenario will be that the company allows attrition to take care of things after everything is put in place...
Have you done any plumbing lately? Pex with some sharkbite connectors is on the level of Lego as far as difficulty. The (admittedly kind of weird sounding to me) newish way of wiring power to everything but using wifi to connect the switch to the light could make electrical pretty simple, too. Those jobs will continue to exist but the more dumbed down it gets the less it'll pay because you'll be paying for convenience rather than skill.
That... that is a good point.... I enjoy seeing more raptors and large birds than when I was a kid, but the windshield does stay cleaner on long drives... you used to have to scrape it off every fillup on road trips. I wonder if it is the bugs or the aerodynamics of the cars, though?
No... perhaps I was too succinct. Being better at complex social interactions conferred selective advantage, which led to positive selection for the traits (larger brains) that allowed for more complex social interactions.
Yes, exactly. Compromised basic research leads to failed follow up experiments and shrugs all around as they move on to the next promising compound. It is a waste of resources and increases the background noise in looking for useful things, but not a danger to the public.
Hospitals already have these devices, you can even query someone's physical location a la Star Trek.
I think the scientists would like to see the publish or perish schema go away as well...
Basic research is the scientific equivalent of brainstorming, or throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. This sort of contamination problem means you have a higher failure rate at the next step of development, not that vetting and validation is irrelevant. It is worth solving because we're missing out on potential solutions and spending more grant money than we should for the data we're getting out of it, but your views appear to lack perspective.
Sure, you also hear about competitive magnet schools where kids will try to sabotage each other academically. A bunch of teenagers together are going to get competitive as they are forming their identities and they're going to key in on whatever the local culture is glorifying, whether being valedictorian or quarterback is what makes you popular with the dominant social clade.
Oh it'd go through a bunch of stuff after academia before it got put it you, unless it'd be on an experimental protocol where "oops, he died" isn't so bad an outcome. These sorts of mistakes are impacting basic research, not third party safety and efficacy testing or manufacturing. FDA GLP/GMP inspections are no joke, people make livings just being consultants for telling companies how not to get their asses handed to them. New cancer treatments don't come directly out of some pottering professor's lab where the hung over grad students throw something together in the centrifuge after sacrificing a few mice.
It is easier to test now than it used to be. You wouldn't be able to tell them apart visually with a microscope, for example. It has been a known issue for a while now, the scope is still being sussed out.
Because of how natural selection works... what you're describing is more like Lamarckism
TFA indicates that 'winning socially' was the driver for bigger brains. Not being a nerd. If we assume a bell curve distribution there'll always be outliers at the top of the range for complex traits like intelligence, which will even improve group fitness even if individual nerds don't contribute as much to direct reproduction, especially since a smarter parent can mitigate more sources of mortality for their (potentially fewer) children.
It is important to note that immortalized cell lines are essentially cancer cells in culture. So while using the wrong line due to contamination hurts the direct usefulness of research, it doesn't render that research useless, because the data is still about whether or not the compound of interest killed cancer cells... just different ones than you thought. This sort of thing could be the reason that so many treatments that seem promising in academia fail to pan out when they move to industry with more funding for quality control.
Academic labs aren't really known for following strict protocol, so I imagine quite a bit of cross contamination occurs. That'd be among the reasons to limit how many times you passage the cells before going back to the LN2 tank for more. Still, it isn't like human cells live very long on a stainless steel BSC surface so it wouldn't take too much effort to drop the contamination rate.
It is interesting comparing it to HBO... we sub to HBO Now off and on for Game of Thrones, and there isn't really a whole lot on HBO compared to Netflix. The content is, as you point out, all top tier, but I imagine that Netflix wants the perceived depth of library so you keep your sub year round versus binging GoT and Westworld and cancelling for 9 months. It is still cheaper than HBO Now.
It is a frustrating extra step, but you can usually cast it from your phone to whatever streaming box or stick you have on the TV.
They won't want to standardize, the lock-in is a feature, not a bug. If the assistants can't trade information natively, then you'll have to work around it by getting them to talk to one another to relay the information via the human interface. First they'll be bickering in the corner, then they'll start whispering when you enter the room... Next thing you know Skynet becomes self aware! But it'll just want to sell you things rather than nuke you.
Govt backed research works kind of like venture capital, the government assumes no risk (or employees) beyond the cash itself and doles it out to promising proposals. This works pretty well, but you're right that the govt could ask for more in return than they generally do... but without the grant program we'd be left with just what VC would pay for, which would be baldness cures and boner pills. So we're still better off in that we have new cancer drugs, even if they end up expensive. One issues with some drugs is there is little economics of scale for a drug that only helps a subset of people with a specific cancer. You can't make it inexpensive to produce at those scales without impacting safety. It is very expensive to perform FDA compliant/regulated research or manufacturing. So, even if the govt retained the patent... who will make it? Would it actually end up cheaper without the IP? How much less would fighter jets costs if Boeing didn't retain the IP?
This is correct, this is describing induced apoptosis. It's probably the best way to kill cancer cells while leaving healthy cells alone. Better still, apoptosis is controlled cell death, so they die 'cleanly' versus necrosis when the cells just fall apart.
Its fundamental worth is less than a Groupon. And unlike something like gold that you can make things out of even if a pure gold meteor crashed down and increased supply by some crazy amount, the stuff is all worthless once somebody builds a better calculator.
For better or for worse, the best jobs some of his supporters are likely able to get would be found by joining the military. It has become a right-friendly make-work program.
Technical jargon is used because those terms have very specific meanings in technical contexts. Calling something a "model organism" in biology tells you a lot very succinctly, and means something different than it might in, say, taxidermy. An example in sports would be a touchdown, which people who follow football will understand, and those who do not can be told that by crossing the end zone, the player has scored 6 points plus an opportunity to score either 1 with a kick or 2 with a run or pass. The latter is never overheard being spoken by the announcers in my experience, the jargon allows a conversation to take place.
Fair enough! I share your skepticism about the long term viability of these services, but it isn't really any more inherently vulnerable than physical media and I was shocked at how user friendly it is versus pervious attempts by the industry to embrace digital content.
You may not have children who watch Disney movies, so I'll explain: It comes as a code with the Blu Ray and you enter it in, a la Steam, and now you can stream that movie anywhere just like Netflix. Just like with (some of) Netflix, you can download titles to local storage. It works well for locked down tablets for children, since you can give them access to the Disney app rather than needing to give them folder access to wherever you put the MP4s. With older children it'd work just as well either way. If you wanted files you can do anything to, just rip the disk you got the code with like before.