kiaansaraiya

GENARCH links the gap that happens when pieces are not in the same place. fGenes linked to a disease are in one database, with the local environmental exposure in another. Or perhaps molecular pathways are in a science repository, while the prevalence data is elsewhere. GENARCH bridges this exact gap by integrating free and public data including GWAS Catalog, CDC PLACES, EPA AirNow, and the USDA Food Atlas. GENARCH never provides individual risk data; it's solely built on association data. It's early and county coverage is still growing, so feedback and recommendations are highly appreciated.

GENARCH was made because the pieces never sit in the same place. The genes linked to a disease are in one database, with the local environmental exposure in another. Or perhaps molecular pathways are in a science repository, while the prevalence data is elsewhere. GENARCH uses free and public data including GWAS Catalog, CDC PLACES, EPA AirNow, and the USDA Food Atlas. GENARCH never provides individual risk data; it's solely built on association data. It's early and county coverage is still growing, so feedback and recommendations are highly appreciated.

An interesting point is that Colossus wasn't solving the same problem as the bombe. People usually group them together due to Bletchley Park, but they attacked different ciphers. It explains why Colossus ended up looking much more like an electronic programmable computer than bombe.

There is a difference between "AI is overvalued" and "AI isn't valuable". We've seen entire industries deliver real tech progress while still going through harsh valuation resets.

I like this phrasing.

I'd slightly rephrase the title to "everyone should know when SIMD didn't happen." Modern compliers are extremely good at vectorization until they suddenly aren't, an they'll often fall back to scalar code because if assumptions or a single-data dependent branch. Learning to check the compliers optimization reports is arguably more valuable.

exactly! it takes forever just to get a phrase down... much more with a whole song.

The first question that comes to mind is reverse causation (probably because I'm a debater). Is increased TV viewing contributing to the brain differences, or are people with say preexisting reduced brain volume simply more likely to engage in activities like this? Essentially, there may be more to this than surface level.