hirenj

Yes, that is exactly what I meant! Here’s an experiment to try: Frances Arnold got a nobel prize for work related to directed evolution. However, we know evolution is limited by the tools available to it as you mention. If we add random chaperones and co-factors to bacteria that we know other organisms use, can we push evolution outside of the known fold space? Is the limited fold space an absolute limit or the “accessible” limit?

I think there was a Twitter/Bluesky thread on the results from adding all the predicted folds from metagenomics too, and not ending up with many new clusters. If this continues to hold true as we keep looking at stuff, I will be relieved that at least natural protein folds and domains has a limited (tractable) solution space. All we need to do now is annotate the variation of these couple of thousands of fold variants. Challenging, but at least a bounded problem.

This looks very cool. Does the window picker for multi-window apps work with the pinning? So if I have a safari windows I want to have associated with a profile, and the option-tab will ignore all the other windows?

It is a constant pain when I cmd-tab in a space with safari, and it throws me out of the space to another one because the window that gets focus isn’t the “closest” one on the current space.

Even better, don’t ban it, but require companies to do age verification (above a certain age?) before displaying advertising. You get two wins in one: make the child market less attractive for algorithmic feeds, and you also can get a better product (no algorithmic feeds) without ads if you don’t age verify. Win-win situation!

Can you say what field that is? I hear this sometimes, but my feed there is significantly low signal to noise, and I have had to pollute my “connections” to the point where I accept everything, as I have been trying to advertise job openings using it too (which frankly has been pretty poor too).

It is a huge worry for me that unless we decouple the publishing “system” from the career pathways (i.e., rewards), we are going to lose access to both the careers (to robot-weilding bullshitters) and even worse, the shared space where scientific communication took place.

Does anyone know of any writing on the network effects of the publishing system? What would happen if the actual value of the journals (of the little they provide!) were to go away?

The death of scientific twitter, and the failure to establish any replacement makes me worry that we won’t be able to coalesce around a replacement system. Obviously preprints play a role, but we really need our scientific communities to engage with them in a more serious way.

For prosterity, the original report on the pilot program with the checklist including introducing names of participants (doi 10.1056/NEJMsa0810119).

Possibly popularised by Atul Gawande “The Checklist Manifesto”.

Meta-comment: LLMs continue to impress me in the capabilities with unearthing information from imprecise inputs/queries.

That is really insightful regarding the ritual improving outcomes through better communication - something I see reflected in many meetings I turn up to now which involve an introduction round between participants, and anecdotally improves participation in the meeting.

It would be amazing if someone had a link to a page with the MSF story, as that is a great reference to have! My google-fu hasn’t helped me in this case.

This is great - now I can get the authentic conference experience of a disengaged speaker reading out the slides in a monotone, without all the hassle of international travel and scheduling.

In all seriousness, there could be more utility in this if it helped explain the figures. I jumped ahead to one of the figures in the example video, and no real attention was given to it. In my experience, this is really where presentations live and die, in the clear presentation of datapoints, adding sufficient detail that you bring people along.

I was ruminating about how Atproto would be great for re-thinking the peer review system for scientific journals.

Imagine a world where a preprint is “published” onto the social web, from which you could aggregate reviews/comments. I eventually ended up thinking about exactly what you raise - it would be great to have some degree of access control on this so both comments and published things can be selectively shared (with an option to make everything public later on, maintaining all the links).

Arc institute probably.

It is a real shame that peer review reports were only first published relatively recently. These would have provided valuable training information as to what peer review performs. Unfortunately now, I fully expect the public peer review reports will be poorer in quality, and oftentimes superficial.

On this tool, I fully expect that it will not capture high level conceptual peer review, but could very much serve a role in identifying errors of omission from a manuscript as a checklist to improve quality (as long as this remains an author controlled process).

I will be interested to throw in some of my own published papers to see if it catches all the things I know I would have liked to improve in my papers.

I guess that whatever recognises the enhancers must be conserved ish in mice for us to be able to drop this region into the mouse genome. That might be interesting alone apart from the functions of the frizzleds. Always a curious question about how much new “machinery” we have in humans, vs us being a specific configuration of common machinery (i.e., if we were to swap out introns/regulatory regions from a mouse with human, and assuming we don’t screw up any checkpoints, how far would it get with looking/acting like a human?).