Cells Talk in a Language That Looks Like Viruses • Hacker News Board

Re: Cells Talk in a Language That Looks Like Viruses

#31

Post by daveguy » Sun, May 06, 2018, 10:58 PM UTC

random314 wrote: post #25

daveguy wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, nitpicking on journal articles is how we do peer review. I'm not sure that needs a reference.

This is a popular science article, not a journal publication. This is also the first time I have heard of the peer review process being described as "nitpicking". Is this a new thing? Kind of hilarious! I want citations!

Would the word "meticulous" make you feel better?

I expect that is a better term. Nitpick implies unimportant, unnecessary finding of fault for the purpose of finding fault. Meticulous implies attention to detail and precision. They look the same after you submit your document for review.

Re: Cells Talk in a Language That Looks Like Viruses

#32

Post by rs86 » Sun, May 06, 2018, 11:14 PM UTC

This is obvious.

Re: Cells Talk in a Language That Looks Like Viruses

#33

Post by divs1210 » Mon, May 07, 2018, 9:50 AM UTC

derefr wrote: post #27

noonespecial wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worse than spam. They're like that chain email all your relatives kept forwarding you about Bill Gates giving you a trip to Disney World if you sent it on to 10 other people.

Viruses are memes. Something that a cell hears, and then can't stop repeating.

Just realised 'viral meme' is a redundant phrase.

Re: Cells Talk in a Language That Looks Like Viruses

#34

Post by RoyTyrell » Mon, May 07, 2018, 10:35 AM UTC

jdonaldson wrote: post #19

jdonaldson wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, in my analogy a vesicle is a special kind of ADT-wrapped result, and the Golgi instance does the routing.

Also fwiw I dropped the name vesicle from API and docs because I didn't think anybody would understand the connection. Now I'm inclined to add it back in.

Wait, what? Are... are you God?

Re: Cells Talk in a Language That Looks Like Viruses

#35

Post by random314 » Mon, May 07, 2018, 3:45 PM UTC

daveguy wrote: post #31

random314 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a popular science article, not a journal publication. This is also the first time I have heard of the peer review process being described as "nitpicking". Is this a new thing? Kind of hilarious! I want citations!

Would the word "meticulous" make you feel better? I expect that is a better term. Nitpick implies unimportant, unnecessary finding of fault for the purpose of finding fault. Meticulous implies attention to detail and precision. They look the same after you submit your document for review.

Meticulous review of journal submissions is one thing. What the parent comment is doing is something entirely different. It is nitpicking on a statement in a popular science article that states that viruses replicate. Nitpicking on this is just showboating.

Does this explanation make you think better?

> And it's literally that kind of nitpicking that keeps science on track.

Yeah, no!!

Re: Cells Talk in a Language That Looks Like Viruses

#36

Post by TheRealPomax » Mon, May 07, 2018, 4:45 PM UTC

mannykannot wrote: post #7

TheRealPomax wrote: post #3

The statement "There are fundamental differences between viruses and vesicles: Viruses can replicate and vesicles cannot" seems either paraphrased or dumbed down. Viruses can be replicated by cells, but they certainly cannot themselves replicate. And it's literally that kind of nitpicking that keeps science on track.

The distinction, I think, is the matter of where the genome resides. Viruses have their own genome; they need to hijack the mechanisms of cells to reproduce, but it is their genome that is being replicated and disseminated. For a vesicle, however, it seems that the genetic instructions for creating them are part of the cell's genome, and those instructions do not get copied into the vesicle (at least, not in a form t…

I know, I was pointing out that the phrasing "viruses can replicate" is incorrect in every sense of that active verb "to replicated". They can be replicated, and there is a non-trivial difference between those two descriptions that matter to this scientific explanation.

Re: Cells Talk in a Language That Looks Like Viruses

#37

Post by foxyv » Mon, May 07, 2018, 7:39 PM UTC

Imagine how cool a story it would be if viruses were just a weapon developed by intelligent microscopic life. Relics of an ancient war who's history is written in the telomeres of our DNA in an encoding which we cannot decipher.

Re: Cells Talk in a Language That Looks Like Viruses

#38

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 07, 2018, 8:09 PM UTC

random314 wrote: post #35

daveguy wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would the word "meticulous" make you feel better? I expect that is a better term. Nitpick implies unimportant, unnecessary finding of fault for the purpose of finding fault. Meticulous implies attention to detail and precision. They look the same after you submit your document for review.

Meticulous review of journal submissions is one thing. What the parent comment is doing is something entirely different. It is nitpicking on a statement in a popular science article that states that viruses replicate. Nitpicking on this is just showboating. Does this explanation make you think better? > And it's literally that kind of nitpicking that keeps science on track. Yeah, no!!

[deleted]

Re: Cells Talk in a Language That Looks Like Viruses

#39

Post by daveguy » Mon, May 07, 2018, 8:11 PM UTC

random314 wrote: post #35

daveguy wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would the word "meticulous" make you feel better? I expect that is a better term. Nitpick implies unimportant, unnecessary finding of fault for the purpose of finding fault. Meticulous implies attention to detail and precision. They look the same after you submit your document for review.

Meticulous review of journal submissions is one thing. What the parent comment is doing is something entirely different. It is nitpicking on a statement in a popular science article that states that viruses replicate. Nitpicking on this is just showboating. Does this explanation make you think better? > And it's literally that kind of nitpicking that keeps science on track. Yeah, no!!

>> And it's literally that kind of nitpicking that keeps science on track.

> Yeah, no!!

It looks like you are confusing the posts from two different people and repeating yourself. What you quoted was from TheRealPomax. I am a different person, and you already responded to that once.

> Does this explanation make you think better?

My thinking is perfectly fine, but thank you for your concern.

It has been a pleasure.

Re: Cells Talk in a Language That Looks Like Viruses

#40

Post by random314 » Mon, May 07, 2018, 11:54 PM UTC

TheRealPomax wrote: post #36

mannykannot wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The distinction, I think, is the matter of where the genome resides. Viruses have their own genome; they need to hijack the mechanisms of cells to reproduce, but it is their genome that is being replicated and disseminated. For a vesicle, however, it seems that the genetic instructions for creating them are part of the cell's genome, and those instructions do not get copied into the vesicle (at least, not in a form t…

I know, I was pointing out that the phrasing "viruses can replicate" is incorrect in every sense of that active verb "to replicated". They can be replicated, and there is a non-trivial difference between those two descriptions that matter to this scientific explanation.

Really? If you don't have anything to contribute to a discussion, please don't drum up noise. Splitting hairs over whether a virus replicates or is replicated is just spamming the forum!

I understand that with a wide enough audience, attention seekers will make some noise about some minutae they know that isn't relevant to the discussion. Don't be THAT guy.