Live data from Hacker News

Living cells are very fast and crowded places (2012)

righto.com

81–86 of 86 posts

Re: Living cells are very fast and crowded places (2012)

#81

> cells are extremely crowded and busy places Cells are extremely crowded and busy... and random and violent places. Molecular biology dances in a nano moshpit from hell. The Inner Life of a Cell is badly misleading. It reinforces many educationally toxic misconceptions. Yes, the graphics technology was limiting. But the video doesn't attempt to mitigate the negative impact. For instance, adding a couple of frames of…

When we look, our visual system comprehends in terms of boundaries and empty space. Thus we know the location and motion of the different things we see. But "surfaces" and corresponding "empty spaces" don't occur at the molecular scale in living things. (What makes something a discrete "thing"? What makes something "empty"?) In cellular environments, nothing is empty, everything is touching, nothing is static, everyt…

Trajectories help. Some atoms travel together, others don't. And they go different places. Families on public transit are localized, and get on/off together. Cars are mixed together on the road, but with tracking data, you can tell the taxis from the commuters. And trajectory paths can be simplified, and described in aggregate ("average time to reach X").

Conformation spaces help. A thing changes shape, but the shapes are drawn from a family of likely possibilities. Your arm is likely to remain attached to your shoulder, and is less often raised up than not. Even in a tangled rugby ruck.

Some things are ambiguous, but others not. Youtube had a nice ab initio molecular dynamics simulation of water (which I've been unable to find again). As a H+ proton wanders, sometimes it seems bound to a particular water, and other times, there's more of an area effect involving several. But a water molecule's nuclei generally stick with each other.

The usual electron-density isosurface depictions have disadvantages. Picture traffic cones, say arranged in a tight grid. They have a peak, and their rims touch. Like the electron densities of atoms. But visually it isn't a problem. So replace the isosurface with a cloud, or just turn down the surface threshold, and the view is as empty as you want it to be. An electrostatic suspension of tiny flecks of neutron-star-like material floating in fluff.

With eye tracking and XR, one might play games of visual selection. Show a 3D mess of proteins, clearly rendering one protein deep inside, but leaving enough visual clues of the others, to serve a focus targets. When your eyes shift target, change which protein is rendered clearly. Or do more with that selection, like showing trajectory, or showing other proteins too, related by type or process or history. You might "see" a 3D gestalt.

The HCI of XR will be great fun.

Aside: Thanks for the youtube cytoplasm link.

Re: Living cells are very fast and crowded places (2012)

#82

> cells are extremely crowded and busy places Cells are extremely crowded and busy... and random and violent places. Molecular biology dances in a nano moshpit from hell. The Inner Life of a Cell is badly misleading. It reinforces many educationally toxic misconceptions. Yes, the graphics technology was limiting. But the video doesn't attempt to mitigate the negative impact. For instance, adding a couple of frames of…

> The Inner Life of a Cell is badly misleading.

This bit was bugging me, since the video undoubtedly was, and is, still useful.

One resulting (late night) thought, is that educational content might be viewed a complexes. A subunit which is toxic and/or dysfunctional in isolation, might be powerfully useful if other subunits or chaperones or cofactors are present. One might add content which prevents the misconception formation which would otherwise occur.

So Inner Life, if used in isolation, is badly misleading. Raising an interesting question of what it should be paired with, and how.

There may be ordering and timing constraints. Asking an eye witness a memory distorting question, isn't reversible - the damage is done. "How fast was the car moving?" "Did he have a beard?" So when seeing misconception-forming content, it may be better to inoculate first, than to treat afterwards.

And longer-term issues. If one subunit is more memorable than another, or otherwise gets more spaced repetition, it might end up isolated later. "The only thing I remember about C is X", where X by itself, is a toxic summary C.

Re: Living cells are very fast and crowded places (2012)

#83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, our understanding gets more refined the more we learn. It remains messy, error-prone and incomplete. So the solution can never be to learn things 'well' or get things right first time or produce perfect teachers/videos or something like that. The solution is to go on correcting misconceptions where we are interested. Ken Shirriff's blog, mncharity's website, comments here and so on simply are part of the ongoing…

Hi erasmuse, the Fallible Ideas mailing list ( http://fallibleideas.com/discussion ) would be a more fruitful place to discuss your ideas. There, openness to new ideas is valued, as is being willing to discuss disagreements persistently until resolution. http://fallibleideas.com/paths-forward

I doubt it. New ideas develop slowly and can't be communicated or explained until they are ready. If you look at creative intellectuals they work alone or, rarely, in pairs. Discussion to the point of resolution would be more like politics or opinion-leading; perhaps necessary for defence or for sorting out existing ideas but otherwise harmful to progress.

Re: Living cells are very fast and crowded places (2012)

#84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi erasmuse, the Fallible Ideas mailing list ( http://fallibleideas.com/discussion ) would be a more fruitful place to discuss your ideas. There, openness to new ideas is valued, as is being willing to discuss disagreements persistently until resolution. http://fallibleideas.com/paths-forward

I doubt it. New ideas develop slowly and can't be communicated or explained until they are ready. If you look at creative intellectuals they work alone or, rarely, in pairs. Discussion to the point of resolution would be more like politics or opinion-leading; perhaps necessary for defence or for sorting out existing ideas but otherwise harmful to progress.

Work has multiple parts. Some work is done alone, some in pairs, and some in a public group. The public group part has value and importance: for example, getting more variety of criticism and other feedback such as what people don't understand. Work done in a public group also helps others learn, so that's good.

If, hypothetically, you should join the group, in what way could you find that out? What would change your mind?

Example of Fallible Ideas thinking: http://fallibleideas.com/taking-children-seriously

Re: Living cells are very fast and crowded places (2012)

#85
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bad analogy - the instructions for making everything in the cell is in the dna, so you also have the blueprints for the hardware fabrication plant.

No, it's a pretty reasonable analogy. For the original point, if all we had was machine code, and that code had a complete description of the machine which could run it and how to create it, it would still be useless without a machine to process it. The code on its own would not be sufficient to create the machine. You can't make use of DNA without all the complex machinery required to transcribe it, translate RNA an…

>> if all we had was machine code, and that code had a complete description of the machine which could run it and how to create it

That's a reasonable analogy but it's not what the original poster said.

Re: Living cells are very fast and crowded places (2012)

#86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt it. New ideas develop slowly and can't be communicated or explained until they are ready. If you look at creative intellectuals they work alone or, rarely, in pairs. Discussion to the point of resolution would be more like politics or opinion-leading; perhaps necessary for defence or for sorting out existing ideas but otherwise harmful to progress.

Work has multiple parts. Some work is done alone, some in pairs, and some in a public group. The public group part has value and importance: for example, getting more variety of criticism and other feedback such as what people don't understand. Work done in a public group also helps others learn, so that's good. If, hypothetically, you should join the group, in what way could you find that out? What would change your…

>What would change your mind?

Something like historical examples of fundamental breakthroughs in science or great works of art produced by committee.

Criticism is for stuff one doesn't like, which is why it belongs firmly in the public realm of news, politics, etc. A group isn't public. When it comes to your private work, ignore criticism and trust your intuition. Ideas need room to grow just like children do.

Post reply on HN