Because it's completely meaningless without validation, and even with validation, not really any better than the state of the art protein generation models. Which are also mostly just nice to have because coming up with a candidate is generally quite easy.
The rate limiting steps are generally testing, or characterizing. Not designing protein binders.
I'm not a MAGA or MAHA person. I just hate anecdotal pontificating about science.
First of all, regarding the trans-fat discussion - in general, yes, keep trans fats low. However there are a couple important things to consider. One is that not all trans fats are created equal, and trans fats from animals are generally found to be less dangerous:
>. We found no relationship between R-TFA intake levels of up to 4·19 % of daily energy intake (EI) and changes in cardiovascular risk factors such as TC:HDL-C and LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C):HDL-C ratios
(One author is from a dairy group, but that doesn't invalidate the data. Unfortunately this is par for the course with nutritional literature, a huge amount of it is "sponsored").
Another small sidebar is that there is of course the chance that monounsaturated turn into trans fats as well, and presumably those developed by seed oils would be riskier than those found in animal fats. But the data on that are sparse-to-nonexistant.
The other thing that irks me here is the typical dietitian take is to see everything through the lens of food. It makes sense when you deal with cardiovascular patients, but cardiovascular patients are already already pre-selected for genetic risk, that represents up to or even greater than 90% of the signal in CV events. CV events are way more visible than whatever supposed systemic inflammation omega-6s provide, but it doesn't meant that they should be the sole guiding factor in policy. If anything, they are over-represented relative to more chronic effects.
I'm not saying that there's some easy answer, just this whole article was annoyingly hand-wavy about science that we can actually mostly track.
Presumably they have unused compute in those hours and figure they may as well enable people to use it and get more invested into their ecosystem.
What I wish Anthropic would do is be a lot more explicit about what windows apply when. Surely they have the data to say "you get X usage from hours A to B, Y usage from B to C"
>Vaccinated individuals were older than unvaccinated individuals (mean [SD] age, 38.0 [11.8] years vs 37.1 [11.4] years), more frequently women (11 688 603 [51.3%] vs 2 876 039 [48.5%]) and had more cardiometabolic comorbidities (2 126 250 [9.3%] vs 464 596 [7.8%]).
This is interesting because of "supposed" cardiovascular effects of the vaccine that many folks were worried about. Even more confounding is the gender differences. You'd think skewing women would skew away from cardiovascular issues.
An alternate interpretation is that the at risk cardio unvaccinated died of COVID for some reason.
>Government actions that restrict the ability to privately own or make use of computational resources for lawful purposes, which infringes on citizens' fundamental rights to property and free expression, must be limited to those demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling government interest in public health or safety.
I work in drug discovery (like for real, I have a DC under my belt, not hypothetical AI protein generation blah blah) and had the opposite experience reading it. We understand so little about most drugs. Dialing out selectivity for a closely related protein was one of the most fun and eye opening experiences of my career.
Of course we've thought of all these things. But it's typically fragmented, and oftentimes out of scope. One of the hardest parts of any R&D project is honestly just doing a literature search to the point of exhaustion.
On the technical side, yes. The biggest new developments I can quickly think of are:
1) Cold field emission guns. The big challenge of an electron source is producing a coherent beam - that is a beam that comes off the tip one electron at a time, at the same location, the same angle, and with the same energy. The cooler the tip runs, the more coherent it tends to be. This has made a big difference and is just now widely commercially available.
2) Narrow pole-piece gap. The sample on most TEMs sits sandwiched between two objective lenses that operate in tandem - these are typically called twin objectives. The upper one ensures the beam is parallel, which primarily results in uniform defocus (or focus if one so desires) across the image. The lower one is responsible for image formation and initial magnification (actually, all of your resolution essentially). The gap between them is responsible for your primary aberrations: spherical and chromatic. Reducing this gap reduces the total aberrations in the image.
I will side bar that the physics of a microscope are not really holding it back from what I'm doing - generating structures of biomolecules. Really, I'm more limited by the camera technology than anything, because the cameras simply aren't performant enough to dose the images to the level I'd like, to collect as many images as possible in as short a time as possible. Fundamentally, I tend to be limited by number of observations.
For the really cutting edge stuff...check out ptychography:
>How does one become a microscopist as a profession? It seems like a specialized field with a narrow entry point and a lot of hoops.
There are basically two routes for TEM - material science, or biochemistry. The way to become a microscopist for me was to show up at a University that had a grant for a microscope, but no one to operate it. :)
In general, universities operate TEM cores, frequently called bioimaging or something. (Structural biology if it's newer although that's just one application among many). Frequently there are positions for all education levels - bachelor's through PhD, depending on what one wants to do. Training is a mix of hands on (interfacing with complicated systems) and theoretical (physics and image formation). Typically the operators aren't the most theoretical, but have a lot of very niche practical knowledge you only get from being around broken microscopes.
A lot of replies that are mostly true, or somewhat true, or simply missing the real reasons.
There are two factors here:
1) Vaccine-derived immunity is a function of the individual's immune response, which in general, weakens significantly with age. It is not unrealistic for a vaccine to simply fail to elicit any response in someone old enough.
2) It is very, very difficult to recruit folks without HPV that are over 40 for a clinical trial. Most people of that age, who were never immunized, most likely have had it. This significantly convolutes the signal.
3) This is all especially confounded once something becomes "standard of care". Every year there are fewer and fewer people age 40+ with HPV.
For these reasons, the vaccine is currently officially ??? in people over 40. Most doctors will prescribe it anyways if you ask. It may or may not infer immunity. It almost certainly will not harm you.
It started when I had my first kid and he wouldn't sleep and I would lay there awake all night just thinking of all the stressors in my life. I'd use the phone to distract myself. Then that gradually just turned into a crutch for all stress. That was pretty hard to stop.
I've tried a number of different things but nothing stuck. I've had this phone for a few months now and it has really done the trick.
I can confirm that this phone is perfect for it. Everything is there and usable if you truly need it, but I cannot wait to put the phone back in my pocket because of unpleasant it is to use.
I picked up one of these and have been having a number of issues, but have somehow managed to stick with it and my life is much improved as a result. Device usage has been much, much more intentional. I wouldn't say I'm cured of my scrolling addiction, but the time I spend scrolling has been relegated to just the latest hours of the night, and even then, significantly less.
The trick about this phone is that because it is full fat Android, everything is possible. But because it is low refresh rate black and white screen with a physical keyboard, everything is also a pain in the ass. Rather than hear a chat message notification and immediately get the urge to pull out my phone and engage, I actually now get slightly annoyed because typing out a proper response with proper grammar is going to be a pain in the ass.
The company is pretty lousy and doesn't communicate well. They have missed every single deadline they've ever set for themselves. The software is glitchy but usable (I have all the same issues mentioned in the article with the autocorrect, refresh settings, fingerprint, etc). All those things are fixable and hopefully do.
The phone itself is very weak hardware and the screen protector and case still haven't shipped. I had my phone in my back pocket and it did not survive that, I got two cracks along the edge and a slight bend. Still works though, but I have switched it to my front pocket.
Android Auto works great in both my vehicles, so maps/navigation are not an issue. Bitwarden works. Duo auth works. Banking apps work. Roon works. Podcasts work. Things that I need, that other dumb phones can't provide.
But the critical thing is, I am trying to avoid using the phone because it is just a pain in the ass to do things on. For this, honestly, I'd pay 10x the list price because it has given me so much of my life back. I actually had a mini crisis when I realized I was bored, with nothing to do in the evenings after work, because I had so much time back. (Don't worry, channeling that time into productive hobbies now).
I would highly highly highly recommend this if you want to spend less time on your phone but need certain functions a smartphone provides.