Casey Muratori addressed this years ago with the windows terminal drama, https://github.com/cmuratori/refterm

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48562088

Points: 5

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47028049

Points: 40

# Comments: 50

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46704765

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46336979

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45290998

Points: 2

# Comments: 1

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45137598

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41365999

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Holmes#U.S._v._Holme....

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunny_Balwani#United_States_v....

Their API leaves a lot to be desired, but the data is much easier to access and analyze than the raw data from the US House or Senate websites.

Scientific editors do nothing for data validation. There is no accountability, even after retractions.

Scientific journal editors are glorified gatekeepers for "high impact" work (read: flashy), and then use free reviewer labor to cover themselves so they can call it 'peer reviewed'. In the rare cases when journals do require supporting data, they explicitly ask for excel spreadsheets :(

And really, even if you know python or R, are you really going to fire up a jupyter notebook, load the data, and run pandas queries every time someone in lab meeting or after a talk asks you about this gene or that gene in your data?

I think the important question is why is date conversion a default? Would it really break backwards compatibility for MS Excel users if date conversions were explicit instead of automatic? Turning that off by default would fix a lot of this.

In the lab, we use targeted genetic manipulations such as optogenetics [1] or chemogenetics (see DREADDS [2]) to achieve precise circuit manipulations that can (maybe/kinda) change emotional state (see [3] and [4] for manipulation of fear in mice, sorry may be pay-walled check sci-hub). But these are impractical in humans at the moment because they require specific genetic backgrounds (a CRISPR modified mouse expressing a specific artificial DNA sequence in certain types of neurons from birth), viral injections to add other genetic constructs that interact with the from-birth one, and implanting lights or adding drugs directly to the brain where the cells are. Precise electrical manipulation is not really done, even in animal labs because it is not precise or controllable for these types of things.

Again, I have no doubt that we will get there, maybe in a few decades too. But the techniques are much further from human use than the "reading" technology demonstrated here.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optogenetics [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receptor_activated_solely_by_a... [3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28288126/ [4] https://www.nature.com/articles/npp2015276/

"Reading" neural activity is much different than "writing", and modifying the circuits/neural activity precisely enough to modify emotions.

These devices are typically cortical surface level electrode meshes, placed over the motor region of the cortex, while emotions are thought to come from various deep brain structures. Not saying it won't happen, but we are much, much, further from the latter than the former.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26556042

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

The 'resolution limit' (Abbe diffraction limit [1]) is related to a few things, but practically by the wavelength of the excitation light and the numerical aperture (NA) of the lens (d = wavelength/2NA). When we (physicists/biologists) say 'super resolution', we mean resolving things smaller than what was previously possible based on the Abbe diffraction limit. So rather than only being able to resolve two points separated by a minimum of 174nm with a 488nm laser and a 1.4NA objective, we can resolve particles separated by as little as 40-70nm with STED (but it varies in practice).

STED does not accomplish this by estimating PSFs and fitting Gaussians, it uses a doughnut shaped depleting laser to force surrounding fluorescence sources to a 'depleted' state, and an excitation laser to excite a much smaller point in the middle of the depletion (see the doughnut in the STED wikipedia page, Stephen Hell and Thomas Klar won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for this in 1999 [2].

I know PALM/STORM uses statistics, blinking fluorescence point sources, and long imaging times to build up a super resolution image based on the point sources and computational reconstruction.

Not as familiar with that one or SIM, but I know the "Pure physics/optics" folks I work with regard STED as the most pure physics based one that doesn't rely on fitting, deconvolution, or tricks (not that any of that is bad or wrong!).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction-limited_system#The... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STED_microscopy