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

Scientists rename genes to stop Microsoft Excel from misreading them as dates (2020)

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 169 posts

Re: Scientists rename genes to stop Microsoft Excel from misreading them as dates (2020)

#121

Post by DonsDiscountGas »

KwisatzHaderack wrote: post #6

So let me get this straight: Scientists would rather rename genes, than to simply use a tool other than MS Excel?

Approximately 90%[1] of scientists who deal with this type of thing have in fact stopped using Excel (for this and other reasons), the problem is that the nature of this problem is such that the remaining 10% can really still screw it up for everyone. Also, next time you're having a problem with any of your tools, trying ditching that tool and picking something else. See if your productivity goes up or down.

[1] Source: POUMA

Re: Scientists rename genes to stop Microsoft Excel from misreading them as dates (2020)

#122

Post by michaelt »

anthk wrote: post #120
michaelt wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spreadsheets are irreplaceable because they're the only no-code software development tool that's ever succeeded. Nothing will ever replace spreadsheets, because the tech industry no longer believes in making products for power users. In modern thinking, any form of user training is an indication your product is too complicated, and any feature only used by 5% of users should be removed. The idea of a product where us…

Or any R or J user doing faster and secure stuff, even by using BioPerl/BioPython under a Jupyter instance. 1970's? This came from 2040, but brainwashed Excel users are still mentally locked in the 80's.

Python counts as no-code now? Roasted.

Re: Scientists rename genes to stop Microsoft Excel from misreading them as dates (2020)

#123

Post by DonsDiscountGas »

mrkeen wrote: post #16
KwisatzHaderack wrote: post #6

So let me get this straight: Scientists would rather rename genes, than to simply use a tool other than MS Excel?

That presumes that they don't like the situation. Perhaps there is a minority who thinks that automatic data conversion is unsound, and a majority who thinks it's 'pragmatic', and will let them move faster.

We're also talking about ~10 genes out of 20,000. Not 10%, 10. A lot of people don't even notice.

Re: Scientists rename genes to stop Microsoft Excel from misreading them as dates (2020)

#124

Post by anthk »

michaelt wrote: post #122
anthk wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or any R or J user doing faster and secure stuff, even by using BioPerl/BioPython under a Jupyter instance. 1970's? This came from 2040, but brainwashed Excel users are still mentally locked in the 80's.

Python counts as no-code now? Roasted.

J by design saves up tons of code.

Re: Scientists rename genes to stop Microsoft Excel from misreading them as dates (2020)

#125

Post by darby_eight »

makeitdouble wrote: post #30
ulrikrasmussen wrote: post #4

I think implicit conversions is the other billion dollar mistake in computing. It just shows up as a subtle source of mistakes in so many places. JavaScript, MySQL, YAML, Excel, PHP, just to make a few off the top of my head, have all caused countless bugs and security exploits due to implicit conversations of data which can be interpreted in multiple ways, and where the system happened to pick the wrong one.

I think these are billion dollar mistakes only because they've allowed for trillions in improvements in the first place. People choose these system with loose conversions over and over again because it's an advantage up to a point. Of course it becomes a liability when expanded too much and used in now critical systems, but IMHO the tradeoff usually ends as a net positive. Which is why, over and over we build more of…

> I think these are billion dollar mistakes only because they've allowed for trillions in improvements in the first place.

That's a hell of a claim to try and demonstrate when its initial advantage is far from obvious to begin with.

Re: Scientists rename genes to stop Microsoft Excel from misreading them as dates (2020)

#126

Post by DonsDiscountGas »

smeej wrote: post #44

The article has now been edited to note that Excel now offers a toggle to turn this feature off. How long did the entire genetics community struggle with this problem before deciding to rename a bunch of genes, making their own data harder to search, without just...asking Microsoft to add a new toggle for their use case?

About 20 years. And people have been begging Microsoft to add that toggle the entire time. It apparently took longer than naming the genes did. If you're having a problem, "just ask Microsoft" is about the worst possible plan to try and get it fixed. They don't GAF. And why should they? It's not like it cost them any money. Even if everybody stopped using Excel for data involving gene names they're not gonna stop using it entirely.

Re: Scientists rename genes to stop Microsoft Excel from misreading them as dates (2020)

#127

Post by DonsDiscountGas »

waffleiron wrote: post #50
smeej wrote: post #44

The article has now been edited to note that Excel now offers a toggle to turn this feature off. How long did the entire genetics community struggle with this problem before deciding to rename a bunch of genes, making their own data harder to search, without just...asking Microsoft to add a new toggle for their use case?

It has always been an option, however it's easy to miss it's happening when it happens to a really small subset of genes you are importing into an excel sheet. Most of the time people just don't pay attention, and excel does whatever is useful for most people (i.e. not biologists). Worked in bioinformatics in the past, and I think this is just an issue with people not knowing it did happen. You have many new biologis…

It has not always been an option, at least not one that's easy to find.

Re: Scientists rename genes to stop Microsoft Excel from misreading them as dates (2020)

#128

Post by vaylian »

shaan7 wrote: post #86
ulrikrasmussen wrote: post #4

I think implicit conversions is the other billion dollar mistake in computing. It just shows up as a subtle source of mistakes in so many places. JavaScript, MySQL, YAML, Excel, PHP, just to make a few off the top of my head, have all caused countless bugs and security exploits due to implicit conversations of data which can be interpreted in multiple ways, and where the system happened to pick the wrong one.

Call it cynicism but I think humans just prefer things to be implicit. I've been annoyed by how people do not want to be specific, but then rant about how someone did not understand exactly what they wanted. A certain CEO says that we won't need programming languages because you will be able to program AI systems with natural language. Well, the problem with natural language is not that we do not have the tech, it is…

> Call it cynicism but I think humans just prefer things to be implicit.

I agree with the implicit part, but not with the cynicism. Most human-to-human communication has implicit details, simply because there would otherwise be too many "obvious" details that need to be communicated. Suffice to say, humans tend to misunderstand each other when different assumptions are held and things can go horribly wrong.

People like mathematicians and programmers, who are used to formal thinking, know that you have to be rigorous in your statements. We understand that details and edge cases matter. And it can be frustrating when other people don't understand that you need to look at the full picture instead of a very rough sketch.

> I've been annoyed by how people do not want to be specific, but then rant about how someone did not understand exactly what they wanted.

I'm also annoyed when this happens. But then I say: This is what you requested. I can only work with the information that you provide to me.

Re: Scientists rename genes to stop Microsoft Excel from misreading them as dates (2020)

#129

Post by msh »

eigenket wrote: post #95
msh wrote: post #55

I dont really get why every tool must be suited for everyone. If excel (which was absolutely not designed for genetic research) is bad for genetic research purposes why blame microsoft. Its like a craft man complaining that a screwdriver is a bad tool if your job is to put in nails.

Well if the screwdriver sales guy takes your bosses bosses boss and their spouse out for a nice dinner, mysteriously leading to your org purchasing screwdrivers for everyone who is asking for a hammer to do their work then maybe the hypothetical craftsperson might start complaining. A ridiculously large number of people have excel installations and exactly zero budget to get access to a less shit tool.

Then blame their employer (especially if it's a billion dollar medical company) if they are so easily lead a stray.

Re: Scientists rename genes to stop Microsoft Excel from misreading them as dates (2020)

#130

Post by two_handfuls »

shaan7 wrote: post #86
ulrikrasmussen wrote: post #4

I think implicit conversions is the other billion dollar mistake in computing. It just shows up as a subtle source of mistakes in so many places. JavaScript, MySQL, YAML, Excel, PHP, just to make a few off the top of my head, have all caused countless bugs and security exploits due to implicit conversations of data which can be interpreted in multiple ways, and where the system happened to pick the wrong one.

Call it cynicism but I think humans just prefer things to be implicit. I've been annoyed by how people do not want to be specific, but then rant about how someone did not understand exactly what they wanted. A certain CEO says that we won't need programming languages because you will be able to program AI systems with natural language. Well, the problem with natural language is not that we do not have the tech, it is…

For humans it’s primarily a form of data compression. We rely on a shared understanding and ability to detect inconsistencies and ask.

This breaks down when someone starts talking outside of that shared understanding (say, on the internet) but do not realize more context is now needed.

Post reply on HN