Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supercomputer analysis of Covid-19 leads to new theory

elemental.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 154 posts

Re: Supercomputer analysis of Covid-19 leads to new theory

#11

Post by searine »

dekhn wrote: post #2

I can't really see why you would need a supercomputer to do the analysis they did (it shows SC centers are getting desperate for users; I wouldn't even have been allowed to run this code on a supercomputer when I was an academic, because it didn't need interconnect for strong scaling.

>I can't really see why you would need a supercomputer to do the analysis they did

The article is fluff.

98% of all bioinformatics is done on "supercomputers" or 'high performance computing environments" saying the researchers used supercomputers to analyze the expression data is like saying someone used a shovel to dig a hole.

Re: Supercomputer analysis of Covid-19 leads to new theory

#12

Post by logicallee »

klysm wrote: post #3

The anthropomorphization of computers (especially powerful ones) is pretty annoying. A _person used a supercomputer_ to analyze Covid-19, and I’m guessing the theory didn’t just ‘emerge’ from the computer.

Computer scientists this, researchers that. Come now. This humanization of silicon is annoying. Let's give credit where credit is due: electrons did the calculation, while humans stood and watched.

Re: Supercomputer analysis of Covid-19 leads to new theory

#13

Post by dekhn »

secondcoming wrote: post #7
dekhn wrote: post #2

I can't really see why you would need a supercomputer to do the analysis they did (it shows SC centers are getting desperate for users; I wouldn't even have been allowed to run this code on a supercomputer when I was an academic, because it didn't need interconnect for strong scaling.

Maybe to test the algorithms and results, so that next time something like this happens there can be a list of suggested treatments ready far sooner.

The issue is that, from what I can tell, the authors just used R to analyze some data, with no explicit parallelism. You would do a better job just renting time on AWS, saving money for everybody.

Re: Supercomputer analysis of Covid-19 leads to new theory

#14

Post by dooglius »

dekhn wrote: post #2

I can't really see why you would need a supercomputer to do the analysis they did (it shows SC centers are getting desperate for users; I wouldn't even have been allowed to run this code on a supercomputer when I was an academic, because it didn't need interconnect for strong scaling.

Or that COVID is getting priority over anything else and there were no COVID analyses that used the interconnect better

Re: Supercomputer analysis of Covid-19 leads to new theory

#16

Post by Jtsummers »

nr2x wrote: post #10
klysm wrote: post #3

The anthropomorphization of computers (especially powerful ones) is pretty annoying. A _person used a supercomputer_ to analyze Covid-19, and I’m guessing the theory didn’t just ‘emerge’ from the computer.

Likewise while a computer can produce data quite well, theories are still a purely human domain.

> theories are still a purely human domain.

Why do you believe that?

Theories are attempts to explain the mechanism of something based on the observed data. Given data on patient symptoms and known drugs (ACE inhibitors in this case) and their effects, a computer could easily produce a theory that the disease acted like ACE inhibitors. It'd still take a human to write the program to generate these theories, but a computer could do it.

Re: Supercomputer analysis of Covid-19 leads to new theory

#17

Post by vardump »

searine wrote: post #11
dekhn wrote: post #2

I can't really see why you would need a supercomputer to do the analysis they did (it shows SC centers are getting desperate for users; I wouldn't even have been allowed to run this code on a supercomputer when I was an academic, because it didn't need interconnect for strong scaling.

>I can't really see why you would need a supercomputer to do the analysis they did The article is fluff. 98% of all bioinformatics is done on "supercomputers" or 'high performance computing environments" saying the researchers used supercomputers to analyze the expression data is like saying someone used a shovel to dig a hole.

Don't we all have supercomputers in our pockets?

Re: Supercomputer analysis of Covid-19 leads to new theory

#18

Post by hellofunk »

> Interestingly, Jacobson’s team also suggests vitamin D as a potentially useful Covid-19 drug. The vitamin is involved in the RAS system and could prove helpful by reducing levels of another compound, known as REN. Again, this could stop potentially deadly bradykinin storms from forming. The researchers note that vitamin D has already been shown to help those with Covid-19. The vitamin is readily available over the counter, and around 20% of the population is deficient. If indeed the vitamin proves effective at reducing the severity of bradykinin storms, it could be an easy, relatively safe way to reduce the severity of the virus.

Re: Supercomputer analysis of Covid-19 leads to new theory

#19

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

robomartin wrote: post #15

Am I the only one bothered by the use of “theory” when this is a hypothesis and, in particular, the back and forth flipping between the two terms in the article?

Probably just you ;)

Lay people use the two interchangeably.

In at least two of the thesaurus I have at hand hypothesis is synonymous is theory.

Re: Supercomputer analysis of Covid-19 leads to new theory

#20

Post by falcor84 »

klysm wrote: post #3

The anthropomorphization of computers (especially powerful ones) is pretty annoying. A _person used a supercomputer_ to analyze Covid-19, and I’m guessing the theory didn’t just ‘emerge’ from the computer.

I remember a professor of mine (I forgot in which class) saying that humans generally make up 3 kinds of explanations about a system's behavior:

1. When a system is very simple, we explain its actions in terms of its properties and external forces acting on it.

2. When it's a medium complexity system, we tend to explain its actions in terms of its design, putting ourselves in the designer's shoes.

3. When it's a complex enough goal-seeking system, we begin to empathise with the system itself, thinking why "it chose" a course of action.

I remember how impressed I was with this classification and how much sense it made in terms of how we're able to understand the world and predict what will happen next.

From this angle, much of modern computer software is clearly in category 3, and it just makes things easier for us to think of it as having a mind of its own.

Post reply on HN