mc_maurer

There's also typically a ton of standing genetic variation that is relatively fitness-neutral, but can then lead to more rapid or directional evolution if conditions change. For example, standing variation in silk elasticity may have been more fitness neutral when capturing other prey, but after encountering this ant species, spiders with more elastic silk were more successful and had a fitness advantage.

You should read up on manipulative parasites too! Things like wasp larvae developing inside an insect and changing its behavior through chemical manipulation of neural pathways. Some really remarkable specialization!

Ultimately, it's probably due to the rate of encounter with this species and the evolution of the pheromone towards the most consistent and intense response from that particular species. It's likely that a more general pheromone wouldn't induce such a consistent response, since it would be a less specific and reliable cue from the ant's perspective. So if you encounter lots of different ant species, a more general pheromone with a 50% response rate could work, but if you primarily encounter this ant species, a more specific pheromone with a 90% response rate is going to confer a greater fitness advantage.

Could be due to the rate of encounter with this species vs. other species, could also be due to the consistency of response with more general vs. specific pheromones. You start with spiders with silk/pheromones that ants are a little more aggressive towards, then variance in that chemical makeup leads to fitness advantages. If the pheromone confers a strong advantage in a specific ant,

Couple things here:

First, ecosystems don't work on this concept of "balance" or "problems to fix". There are ecological niches that are exploited by a species or not. We have both generalists and specialists, predators that will eat anything and predators that have specialized in a particular prey or hunting approach. The world is full of organisms with remarkably complex behaviors, the field of evolutionary biology would collapse if this sort of behavior disproved it.

Second, there's really nothing hand-wavy about how specialized behaviors evolve, and in fact there is a mountain of research in the fields of evolutionary biology and behavioral ecology that have significant explanatory power here. I would argue that you're the one being hand-wavy saying "I don't think a simple gradient descent...". Evolution is not a simple gradient descent, and no evolutionary biologist would ever argue that it is.

You ever heard of Every Noise at Once? You can search for an artist, see the genres they belong to, and then look for artists nearby in 2D musical space (oversimplified a bit to be fair) within that genre. I've found it's generally pretty accurate, and I've found plenty of new artists this way.

Unfortunately no longer being updated, but still has a fantastic backlog of new-ish artists.

Yeah the story linked there is absolutely nuts.

A big thing I would add is to strongly consider how much you'll be moving, especially when it comes to footwear.

Boots that are rated to -40 during light activity can leave you with cold toes if you're standing still in -10 for an hour.

Activity levels also dictate how you layer and how easily you need to dump heat. If you're hiking, snowshoeing, XC skiing, you want some layers with zips so you can quickly let heat out.

I'd also add that the best scientists I know have, for the duration of their careers, put the question first and pursued methods to fit. I know folks who have the wildest set of skills, from next-gen sequencing to fish tattooing and all sorts of random engineering skills. Willingness to learn new skills in the pursuit of worthwhile questions is one of the hallmarks of a good scientist, in my experience.

Ecology PhD turned data scientist, I was looking to respond and you summed up my thoughts really well!

I will add that funding can complicate things a bit, funding sources often get wowed by more "advanced" methods, while the underlying science might be less than stellar. There are important questions that can be answered by small, elegant field studies, and there are questions that require larger datasets and more computation. When we start putting the methodological cart before the scientific horse, that's where we run into problems.

Sneaking some very devious stuff into a friend's .Rprofile when they're not looking

I'd even argue that the declining rate of scientific advancement is due to the academic track moving towards the same short-term thinking that plagues parts of the private sector. When the incentive structure is towards pumping out publications, there is way less breathing room for the patient development of good science and novel research. Plus, null results coming from excellent research are treated as useless, so the incentive is towards finding obvious, positive results, especially for early-career scientists.

The total result of the current academic incentive structure is towards the frequent publication of safe, boring positive results, especially pre-tenure. Academic research needs to become LESS like the quarterly return driven private sphere, not MORE like it.

If only it worked on Databricks serverless SQL warehouses...

The term for parasitoids that attack other parasitoids is a "hyperparasitoid". I did my PhD on parasitoids that attack aphids, but I've never heard of a hyper-hyperparasitoid, do you have any reference to that example?

I think some of it is self-selection, but I also think some of it is a filtering effect based on the much more competitive and stressful atmosphere. Getting funding and permits and equipment to study sharks is a way more stressful process than walking around in a field collecting bugs. Not that collecting bugs is always easy, but the barrier to entry is way lower.