It's possible that the "functional" aspect of non-coding RNA exists on a time scale much larger that what we can assay in a lab. The sort of "junk DNA/RNA" hypothesis: the ncRNA part of the genome is material that increases fitness during relative rare events where it's repurposed into something else.
On a millions or billions of year time frame, the organisms with the flexibility of ncRNA would have an advantage, but this is extremely hard to figure out with a "single point in time" view point.
Anyway, that was the basic lesson I took from studying non-coding RNA 10 years ago. Projects like ENCODE definitely helped, but they really just exposed transcription of elements that are noisy, without providing the evidence that any of it is actually "functional". Therefore, I'm skeptical that more of the same approach will be helpful, but I'd be pleasantly surprised if wrong.
Such an advantage that is rare and across such long time scales would be so small on average that it would be effectively neutral. Natural selection can only really act on fitness advantages greater than on the order of the inverse of effective population size, which for large multicellular organisms such as animals, is low. Most of this is really just noisy transcription/binding/etc.
For example, we don't keep transposons in general because they're useful, which are almost half of our genomes, and are a major source of disruptive variation. They persist because we're just not very good at preventing them from spreading, we have some suppressive mechanisms but they don't work all the time, and there's a bit of an arms race between transposons and host. Nonetheless, they can occasionally provide variation that is beneficial.
You never go on vacation. Your family gets sick. Your friends need your help. You want to travel. You want to go to funerals for people who aren't in your direct family. You want to explore hobbies.
I'm not opposed to business books. It's true that most of them are in narrative form and try to extract anecdotal lessons into broad strategy, but I've found them useful for framing my own thinking about teams, strategy, and leadership. Thinking about your work, just in a different way, or though a different lens, I believe is helpful. How helpful? Probably not as much as making more decisions yourself, but at least in my environment I'm rate limited by circumstances beyond my control!
That said, there are a couple of "good" business books, and I agree with the author on the works of Michael Porter (esp. On Competition) and ET Jaynes, Probability Theory: The Logic of Science. The later was a major influence on my life and pivotal book I read as a young scientist, and it moved me into the direction of data science!
The other issue is the heating element. As the nozzle size gets larger, the rate limiting factor is no longer the motion system and whatever adaptive control, but how fast you can melt the plastic.
Most consumer 3d printers can't really take advantage of these large size nozzles, although you could print slowly and it'd still be cool!
Oh, the Genius of Jack Welch is simple. Lie to investors while dismantling the company you're in charge of. Use the profits from selling off the dismantled bits to cook the books so it looks like you're becoming more profitable, this will get you lots of bonuses and you'll become super rich, then just walk away before anyone figures out your bullshit. Sure you've destroyed hundreds of thousands of jobs, and ruined one of the most profitable companies in the world, but you're rich now, so fuck it. Pure genius.
I once received such a letter, in which Knuth explained how my bug report was in fact mistaken. I wrote back to him (on the same printout paper) to thank him for his reply, and included a check for $2.56. He cashed it!
It doesn't surprise me 75% of SWEs report retaliation based on my experience in tech, but credit to 100% of people with integrity that spoke truth to power and risked paying the price. The world would be a lot better place (in my humble opinion) if more people spoke up when things were wrong, and were less afraid of losing a job at a company crossing an ethical line they hold. I know that's a luxury opinion, but if you did the right thing and lost something important, that's a company throwing away the best of humanity and a clearly toxic culture.
More great corporate culture would be awesome. But it's very hard for the employee to distinguish between talk and policy versus reality on the ground. So even when the corporate culture and incentives are actually good and clean, it's risky for the employee to speak up.
What might help is more communication of the proportion of complaints or reports that resulted in what. In a "measure it if you want to see it happen" manner. The measure will then be gamed but hopefully that's only a second order effect.
I've both worked with infrastructure as code, Pulumi, and was a grad student researcher in bioinformatics for several years, and I've developed the following take:
Biology is messy, tangled, and sloppy system built over a billion years under evolutionary pressure. There's no clear analogy to intelligently designed software, and anytime you make an analogy, like DNA == Source code, there's a mechanism which would destroy it's predictive power to explain biological phenomena. Like with DNA, computer software doesn't create the machine it's executed on, code is 1d, while DNA is definitely multi-dimensional, where it's folding, epigentic modifications, and other modifications matter a lot.
All the interesting biology for complex animals happens during the first few stages of development. There's no computational equivalent to this recursively constructive process. Additionally, biology has a single guiding principle through which we understand everything: evolution, and using computer analogies really diminish that.
Therefore, biology is biology. It's not analogous to a Von Neuman architecture machine, or any other computing device we've created. The first principles are simple different.
My career is in both fields + PhD in one. Tortured analogies of biology as computers make me cringe, they're misleading at best. Sure the ribosome superficially looks like a FSM, but that gets you basically nowhere.
Comp-sci people: If you're curious about biology, spend some quality time at Kahn or edX, watch some university intro-bio lectures on youtube, read an intro-level undergrad biol textbook, etc.
I was reading "The Origin of Knowledge and Imagination" and the author was reflecting on the same thing. The mind is not a computer, you do not think like a computer. In fact, there is no separate concept called "the mind". The whole body is part of our perception and action ecosystem. It makes sense as software, while imperfect, is too orderly and simplistic.
People go to prison for three-ish reasons: To reform the criminal, to deter crime, and to offer restitution in the form of punishment to the victims of the crime, and arguably to keep society safe.
I feel bad that Sam is going to go away for life, and ideally we'd live in a society where we don't need prison to reform people, but Sam is a case where there is considerable deterrent effect and well as a public protection interest. When someone steals so much from so many and admits no fault, that's not a person who can go to a day program and reform their ways, they need severe consequences to get the to honestly reform.
There's also what the victims say should be done. Just thousands and thousands of people felt pain, and will get a say in the sentencing. If they all forgive, sure, it's okay to give him a light sentence, but the degree of suffering SBF caused is just so profound people will want justice to an un-repentant fraudster who stole their future.
I assume some people killed themselves because of the financial ruin his fraud created. I have to imagine a lot of people's lives fell apart, relationships were destroyed, families broken up. Because of the choices this man made to enrich himself.
Victims of crime deserve revenge in some part and the state is the mechanism to deliver that revenge. We should always remember the victims of crimes first.
R is fine, it's no more absurd than other non-typed languages like javascript. Most languages are very good at one or two things, then not so good or appropriate for other tasks. For R, that's statistics, modeling, and exploratory analysis, which it absolutely crushes at due to ecosystem effects.
Well… I also consider Javascript to be a horrible language. Python is horrible as well, but better than R. IMO python and javascript are in the same ballpark.
Not all non-typed languages are bad. Clojure, for example, is one if the most elegant languages I’ve worked with (despite my dislike of the JVM).
On a millions or billions of year time frame, the organisms with the flexibility of ncRNA would have an advantage, but this is extremely hard to figure out with a "single point in time" view point.
Anyway, that was the basic lesson I took from studying non-coding RNA 10 years ago. Projects like ENCODE definitely helped, but they really just exposed transcription of elements that are noisy, without providing the evidence that any of it is actually "functional". Therefore, I'm skeptical that more of the same approach will be helpful, but I'd be pleasantly surprised if wrong.