31–40 of 143 posts
For those not familiar, this is the paper which first proposed the amyliod plaque theory (the original link mentions protiens, but not beta-amyloid or Tau specifically). https://www.drugdiscoverynews.com/what-now-for-the-amyloid-h...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They’re all wrought with dishonesty and self preservation.
Jennifer Doudna [1], who helped characterize* CRISPR, worked at Yale: > Doudna joined Yale's Department of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry as an assistant professor in 1994. ... and now works at UC Berkeley. David Liu [2], who pioneered base editing, a generational improvement on classic CRISPR, works at Broad Institute (which is a collab between Harvard and MIT): > He is the Richard Merkin Professor, Director…
Right, that is the nature of every human institution, and every human.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They’re all wrought with dishonesty and self preservation.
Jennifer Doudna [1], who helped characterize* CRISPR, worked at Yale: > Doudna joined Yale's Department of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry as an assistant professor in 1994. ... and now works at UC Berkeley. David Liu [2], who pioneered base editing, a generational improvement on classic CRISPR, works at Broad Institute (which is a collab between Harvard and MIT): > He is the Richard Merkin Professor, Director…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuelle_Charpentier?wprov=s...
That says a lot about how worthless the whole science journal and peer review process is. At this rate your assumption is that 50% of what is published is complete junk.
Still a good place to study, though.
I work with a lot of Stanford grads. They’re terrific folk.
But the concentration of corruption, delusion and depravity in its graduates, professors and administration begin to make one question if they were great and collected and resisted Stanford’s transformative effect, which increasingly (albeit with low confidence) looks like it may be net negative, or if they were transformed positively by the experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What was the interview pass rate for MIT grads and people without a college education?
Given that MIT grads are objectively superior to the rest of us that didn't get into any elite schools in basically every dimension I'd wager it's fairly high. With that said, the Square interview process isn't as algorithmic as most tech or finance companies and is instead more collaborative, so the raw IQ most MIT grads would use for their Jane Street interviews probably doesn't apply here.
Genuflect when you say that fella.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you grouping MIT into the same group as Stanford?
In a positive sense, they are the two top tech oriented universities, west coast and east coast counterparts. In the negative, you have this story at Stanford. With MIT you have the Jeffery Epstein connection, some high profile retractions, and the president part of the three Uni Presidents who flubbed the anti-semitism question in the congressional hearing.
> This retraction is Tessier-Lavigne’s fourth in as many months, a stunning turn of events for a researcher of his stature. That says a lot about how worthless the whole science journal and peer review process is. At this rate your assumption is that 50% of what is published is complete junk.
From the article:
> Retractions remain exceedingly rare for scientific papers: Just eight out of every 10,000 are retracted, according to a Retraction Watch database.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They’re all wrought with dishonesty and self preservation.
Jennifer Doudna [1], who helped characterize* CRISPR, worked at Yale: > Doudna joined Yale's Department of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry as an assistant professor in 1994. ... and now works at UC Berkeley. David Liu [2], who pioneered base editing, a generational improvement on classic CRISPR, works at Broad Institute (which is a collab between Harvard and MIT): > He is the Richard Merkin Professor, Director…