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

YC Bio

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–155 of 155 posts

Re: YC Bio

#151

Post by yesenadam »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #146
jacobolus wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assumed none of those things. You are reading much more into my comments than is written there. I don’t really know why, but I don’t think I have time to unpack what went wrong with this communication. If you made fewer assumptions and parsed other people’s comments more carefully, critically, and charitably, not looking for personal attacks under every rock, you might find fewer discussions offensive. YMMV. Happy…

I didn't say I was offended. I consistently said this is simply not constructive. You are putting words in my mouth.

Maybe have a short holiday, breather, time-out Doreen? I've been a great admirer of your contributions to this site. But here in this thread an increasingly large fraction of all your posts are taken up with questionable accusations of bad behaviour in those you are talking with. Half of which seem to describe your own behaviour (or commmon human behaviour) as well or better than that of your opponent. It's hard to be sympathetic, with your jumping to high-strung, hypersensitive accusations of bad faith etc. The topics are areas of little knowledge and high uncertainty and perhaps strong emotions, by which it's easy to be blinded. Also from this and your AskHN about your websites, you are starting to sound sadly like you feel uniquely ignored and ridiculed...

And you said you want to stop being someone who cares. Don't ever do that! Well, I'm sure you won't. Best wishes. (Sorry if I put words in your mouth or sound condescending etc. I could see both sides of this..discussion, and I hope these words aren't a total waste of time or worse.)

Re: YC Bio

#152

Post by DoreenMichele »

yesenadam wrote: post #151
DoreenMichele wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say I was offended. I consistently said this is simply not constructive. You are putting words in my mouth.

Maybe have a short holiday, breather, time-out Doreen? I've been a great admirer of your contributions to this site. But here in this thread an increasingly large fraction of all your posts are taken up with questionable accusations of bad behaviour in those you are talking with. Half of which seem to describe your own behaviour (or commmon human behaviour) as well or better than that of your opponent. It's hard to b…

Your concern is appreciated, by it's a hair late to the party. This discussion is over with, largely at my request. People kindly respected my stated desire to discontinue it and the mods seem to have quietly deprecated it once I made it clear I wasn't feeling myself and just wanted to walk away.

Re: YC Bio

#153

Post by lsc »

comstock wrote: post #138
lsc wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, I came of age right in the middle of the first dot-com boom. My observation is that back then, no one with money knew what they hell they were doing. My observation during this dot-com boom is that a lot of the people who did well last round are now part of the VC infrastructure, like our own Paul Graham. My impression is that this time around, money is a lot more competent because of this. Because this made such…

True, but their competence isn’t is science based startups. In all honesty I think that makes them in general gravitate to Bio tech plays which involve a lot of traditional Tech. The thesis is easier, but much less likely to result in high reward.

my implication was that this is (to my knowledge) the first round of silicon valley biotech startups, and if it's like the first round of webapp startups, there will be a lot of failures, but the seeds will be planted for greater success in the next round.

My main point was "perhaps the first round failure is necessary" - of course, I weakened that with my assertion that this second tech bubble is also a bubble and bound to burst.

Re: YC Bio

#154

Post by xyhopguy »

jdale27 wrote: post #101
xyhopguy wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair though, we are really close with cancer. Like really really close. cfDNA is revolutionary for our measurements. Crispr is revolutionary for understanding. So close.

To be fair though, we are really close with cancer. Like really really close. cfDNA is revolutionary for our measurements. Crispr is revolutionary for understanding. So close. Just curious, on what do you base this opinion? Do you work in cancer research, or another biomedical field? These tools will definitely advance our understanding, but my feeling (as someone who worked in genomics for several years, though not…

can't say too much but I work on the stats side of liquid biopsy. Been in genomics (on the cs side) for the last 6 years. the encouring part to me is 1) we can predict the effect of a treatment given the tumors clonal composition, 2) we can test the effects of drugs much more quickly thx to crispr 3) easily profile a tumors composition with cfDNA.

1 and 3 imply we may be able to drive clonal evolution to a place where we can indefinitely treat patients. 2 gives us a lot more options.

Re: YC Bio

#155

Post by xyhopguy »

Fomite wrote: post #64
xyhopguy wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair though, we are really close with cancer. Like really really close. cfDNA is revolutionary for our measurements. Crispr is revolutionary for understanding. So close.

Note that it appears CRISPR will not be easy to implement in humans, thanks to some pre-existing immunities from frequently colonizing bacteria.

Personally I see crispr more as a tool for functional genomics. It took like two decades to knockout all pairs of genes in yeast. With crispr I've seen people do it in a single experiment.
Post reply on HN