Hugh Everett's birthday! Pioneer of the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. Let us celebrate by thinking about ontological extravagance. I will do so by way of analogy, because I have found that everyone loves analogies and nobody ever willfully misconstrues them.
The physicist Hugh Everett III was born #OTD in 1930. His \u201crelative state\u201d formulation of quantum mechanics, which we now call the \u201cMany Worlds Interpretation,\u201d was published in 1957. pic.twitter.com/ZqMsZcPJDG
— Robert McNees, the bastegod (@mcnees) November 11, 2020
https://t.co/G19NR7Hvwa
HELL NO. This is an act of violence against the community.
— George Wrighster III (@georgewrighster) November 9, 2020
JAIL! pic.twitter.com/lx3JmrtS9f
More from Science
Recently I learned something about DNA that blew my mind, and in this thread, I'll attempt to blow your mind as well. Behold: Chargaff's 2nd Parity Rule for DNA N-Grams.
If you are into cryptography or reverse engineering, you should love this.
Thread:
DNA consists of four different 'bases', A, C, G and T. These bases have specific meaning within our biology. Specifically, within the 'coding part' of a gene, a triplet of bases encodes for an amino acid
Most DNA is stored redundantly, in two connected strands. Wherever there is an A on one strand, you'll find a T on the other one. And similarly for C and G:
T G T C A G T
A C A G T C A
(note how the other strand is upside down - this matters!)
If you take all the DNA of an organism (both strands), you will find equal numbers of A's and T's, as well as equal numbers of C's and G's. This is true by definition.
This is called Chargaff's 1st parity rule.
https://t.co/jD4cMt0PJ0
Strangely enough, this rule also holds per strand! So even if you take away the redundancy, there are 99% equal numbers of A/T and C/G * on each strand *. And we don't really know why.
This is called Chargaff's 2nd parity rule.
If you are into cryptography or reverse engineering, you should love this.
Thread:
DNA consists of four different 'bases', A, C, G and T. These bases have specific meaning within our biology. Specifically, within the 'coding part' of a gene, a triplet of bases encodes for an amino acid
Most DNA is stored redundantly, in two connected strands. Wherever there is an A on one strand, you'll find a T on the other one. And similarly for C and G:
T G T C A G T
A C A G T C A
(note how the other strand is upside down - this matters!)
If you take all the DNA of an organism (both strands), you will find equal numbers of A's and T's, as well as equal numbers of C's and G's. This is true by definition.
This is called Chargaff's 1st parity rule.
https://t.co/jD4cMt0PJ0
Strangely enough, this rule also holds per strand! So even if you take away the redundancy, there are 99% equal numbers of A/T and C/G * on each strand *. And we don't really know why.
This is called Chargaff's 2nd parity rule.
You May Also Like
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
