That was incredibly fun, although challenging on a smartphone. If you can guess the character it's a lot easier (100%, 99%, 96%, 85%), but even with ones I couldn't guess, it gave a reasonable score (Hollow Knight: 74%, Steve Harvey: 84%, Sirenhead: 69%) for following the directions.
I wasn't aware that the number of cases was so small that it might spoil for others. I see now, trying it on a desktop, that there are just 68 cases at present; there isn't an indication of that on the mobile version.
NB: The post was updated twice. The first changed the link to the Nature Reviews Drug Discovery article; the second changed it back to Derek Lowe's blog post with the NRDD article in the body.
Derek Lowe as a science communicator, and others like him, is sorely needed to understand the real meaning and significance of the study and others. I say that as someone with a PhD in chemistry who's been to plenty of presentations on drug discovery topics.
It's difficult to calibrate statements made by other scientists unless you're well embedded within a field: Is this someone whose opinions matter? Are they the subject matter expert they make themselves out to be? Is this research itself truly impactful? Is it really 5 years until it will be realized outside of academic labs? Etc...
It's difficult to decipher questions around credibility because they rely on real-world interactions and associations that extend beyond the physical tokens of paper counts, publication venues, citations, and author lists that typically lag behind the front of human knowledge which is generated from real-world interactions. It can be simple things, like the insightful question a grad student, with minimal publication history, asks in a seminar.
Of course, the paywall is also unhelpful too, but a good, brief commentary by an appropriate commentator is a better link for 99% of prospective readers compared to most "peer reviewed" (scare quotes because that's a real question nowadays) articles.
The world needs more communicators like Derek Lowe who can give a clear-eyed, de-bullshittified perspective on the world, while also being great writers who are a pleasure to read. I follow his blog, and while a lot of it goes over my head (or seems very niche), a lot is great. The only other such writers I know about is Matt Levine at Bloomberg, and Atul Gawande (who's a bit less blunt, perhaps). And of course the late Carl Sagan. Any others?
Professor Heather Cox Richardson (US History) has a blunt near daily summary with frequent call backs to significant high and low points of the past two and a half centuries:
Not that I'm a Derek Lowe fanboy or anything but the entirety of your comment is like "that guy needs to check himself" without, like, any specific context, any specific argument he's wrong on this specific question or like anything. It's like "deciphering questions around credibility" is hard ... all the way down. Where's yours? What are you saying?
Isn't the comment in fact praising Derek Lowe as a science communicator? In the second paragraph OP is just posing the questions that one might have when reading about a field not your own, that highlight the importance of reliable science communicators.
It's a very confusing comment since Derek Lowe is a chemist working in pharma but is being referred to only as a science communicator which I suspect most people would consider to be an implicit insult.
I think it says more about the person reading it as an implicit insult than it does OP. I am, I think, a fairly competent scientist, and know many great scientists. I know very few great scientific communicators.
Derek Lowe is someone whom I greatly admire and his work as a science communicator is a true service to the profession and to science at large. It is not intended as an insult in any way. I've known a great number of competent chemists, but few are as effective as communicators as he is.
My apologies for the lack of clarity in my prior comment; it was composed in haste. To be clear, I am a bit of a Derek Lowe fanboy. I value the work that he does in offering insight on his areas of expertise to the public at large because he has both the necessary understanding and the ability to communicate clearly. Few people have his level of background knowledge alongside the capacity to wade into the depths of pharmaceutical chemistry and then communicate that information and his personal perspective to enrich the commons.
What I was getting at with the issue of credibility is that I (or most others) would have time determining if a particular scholarly author in pharma is a good person to listen to on the subject. But having evidence that Derek Lowe is an honest broker of information in that domain, given his long history of commentary as well as other chemists I know who eagerly read his commentary, I'm willing to defer to his assessment.
Incredible. It's easy to just go on browsing and exploring. The massive, scrollable pixel art aspect reminds me a little of Floor796: https://floor796.com/
This is amazing, it got everything I could think of but not all, where’s little nightmares, silent hill, naruto, men in black, for a starter. But it’s neat regardless!
Noticing all of the Costco hot dog listings on the map reminds me: There's also an incentive for businesses to pose as users and misreport prices of competitors. My local Costco gas station constantly has a set of users misreporting the price of fuel, reporting the price as several cents higher than in actuality, seemingly in order to prevent consumers from refueling there. Something to watch out for.
Wow, thank you. Yes, we do have data validation and limit amount of update new users can do, but I should definitely think ahead to set some healthy boudaries.
> I was aggressively recruited for education as a math undergrad.
Was it because you were male or because you were studying math? Many schools struggle to find good math teachers; it's one of the qualifications in perpetual shortage.
Suggestion: Require a user to hit ENTER or SPACE to clear the word, even if it's a wrong word. Being able to see the letters laid linearly is useful to solving. Automated clearing of wrong words is unhelpful.
> I have never, ever – not even once – seen a graphical abstract that usefully “summarized the contents of an article”.
The author has never worked in chemistry. They are absolutely ubiquitous in scholarly journals for chemistry and I'd say that most people trained in chemistry often only read the graphical abstract when initially deciding whether the paper is worth a deeper read. Perhaps chemistry is a naturally visual field, given that we rely on visualizations of reactions and mechanisms from the very start of our university education.
The table of contents (TOC) graphic usually shows a key chemical structure (thus bonding connectivity, angles, elements, and electronic configurations), reaction mechanisms or conditions, models, or even core results as graphs. Now I do not claim to understand what is implied in every TOC graphic, however I can immediately see which branches of chemistry the article relates to faster than I can process the title, especially in a multidisciplinary chemistry journal.
That ability to categorize to identify relevance is a bigger issue in reading a multidisciplinary chemistry journal like the Journal of the American Chemical Society:
But graphical abstracts are still immensely useful within a subdiscipline such as organic chemistry, which I suspect were the early adopters of TOC graphics:
The better graphical abstracts tend towards simplicity, but it's a challenging task to distill a year or more of research into a single picture. And, unfortunately, graphic design is not a subject for which scientists generally receive additional training, despite it being a core element of digital communication.
A Bonferroni correction would be suitable. I usually see it used in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) that check to see if a trait or phenotype is influenced by any single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in a genome. So it's doing multiple testing on a scale of ~1 million.
> One of the simplest approaches to correct for multiple testing is the Bonferroni correction. The Bonferroni correction adjusts the alpha value from α = 0.05 to α = (0.05/k) where k is the number of statistical tests conducted. For a typical GWAS using 500,000 SNPs, statistical significance of a SNP association would be set at 1e-7. This correction is the most conservative, as it assumes that each association test of the 500,000 is independent of all other tests – an assumption that is generally untrue due to linkage disequilibrium among GWAS markers.
One persistent problem is that there isn't a Canadian English spelling option in most software with spellchecking functionality. Often we are forced to choose between US English and British English spelling defaults, when neither is quite right. I suspect that this was a stylistic choice not of Carney himself, but whoever proofread the document. There has been considerable erosion in Canadian orthography in of late, which has only been made worse with the widespread adoption of UFLI English language learning materials in our schools' elementary curricula, which emphasizes American spelling and pronunciation.
The reality is quite complicated. Canadian English is a version of North American English, with a distinctive pronunciation and sub-dialect, but still has vestiges of British English that are lost in America.
I feel like Canada is of two minds, awkwardly and indecisively straddling North American English and British English. It wasn’t until I worked overseas that I realized North America has a very distinctive English that imprints on people, even if they lived there a few years. As in Londoners who spent a few years in North America as toddlers have obvious North American tonality, which is baffling to me.
I have native relatives in Canada and the UK and I find the language dynamics across the anglosphere fascinating.
> The reality is quite complicated. Canadian English is a version of North American English, with a distinctive pronunciation and sub-dialect, but still has vestiges of British English that are lost in America.
Does Canadian English still use "gotten"? IIRC, that's a vestige of British English that's been lost in Britain.
New Englander here. Gotten is normal vocabulary. If it's not used in British English, then it's probably a feature of North American English, since most North American linguistic differences are snapshots of common features of 16th-17th century British English that somehow ossified over here.
What I'm most interested is not usage of "gotten", but whether somewhere in the English-speaking world, using "I've" standalone (without a follow-on got, been, had etc) is normal.
I see it from time to time online, and immediately assume they're a non-native speaker who doesn't understand the nonsensical nuances of the language.
Eg people will say something like "I've 3 apples", which is just "I have 3 apples", which is perfectly gramattical. But, for some reason, we use "I've got 3 apples". But I think we'd also say "I have 3 apples" and not "I have got 3 apples".
I'm British and I have sometimes chosen Canadian English as my OS language so that it will not constantly try to correct my usage of z in words like this.
