cup-of-tea (u/cup-of-tea)

cup-of-tea commented on Where Vim Came From twobithistory.org/2018/08... · Posted by u/janvdberg

jeremyjh · 7 years ago

> It would have to be a modal editor to use vim commands.

Or it would have to emulate them. Which is what VSCode, Atom, Visual Studio, Eclipse, Intellij, Netbeans, Kate all do. Those are just the ones I have used, I'm sure there are plenty of others.

cup-of-tea · 7 years ago

That's not a trivial feature that "every other editor" can do, though.

> I'm sure there are plenty of others.

Emacs, for one.

cup-of-tea commented on Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017) oceana.org/blog/seaweed-c... · Posted by u/propman

eganist · 7 years ago

Any large system can be undermined by a small actor imposing a miniscule change. It just depends on which component of the system is disrupted.

Granted your options dwindle as the disparity grows, but so long as a component is accessible to an actor, the system can be impacted.

cup-of-tea · 7 years ago

Can you prove that? I don't believe it.

Are there any theories supporting the end of all life on Earth?

cup-of-tea commented on Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017) oceana.org/blog/seaweed-c... · Posted by u/propman

matt42 · 7 years ago

>> Gaia theory suggests that the world is full of these stabilizing systems.

Earth may have tricks to save its ecosystem, one of them could be temporarily increase temperatures and sea levels, just enough to end humanity.

cup-of-tea · 7 years ago

This is surely the case. Nobody really thinks humans have the ability to wipe out all life on Earth do they? We might be able to destroy ourselves, but life will probably continue at least until the Sun turns into a red giant. Life on Earth has survived far more catastrophic events than anything we can manage.

cup-of-tea commented on Plan to replicate 50 high-impact cancer papers shrinks to just 18 sciencemag.org/news/2018/... · Posted by u/nonbel

buchanae · 7 years ago

I have been working on reproducing computational biology papers from the cancer field lately. I am very frustrated. When the inputs and outputs are machine-readable data, there's no excuse for not making your work reproducible, in my opinion. Often the problem is plain laziness and disorganization.

One major problem is that there's not much real incentive to make your work reproducible. Money granting organizations favor researchers breaking new and exciting ground, not those rehashing an already published method. Publishers don't require reproducible methods, and reviewers don't have the time, desire, nor expertise to do an in-depth methods review.

Wet lab experiments are 1-2 orders of magnitude more expensive and difficult to reproduce, that's true, but we're not even getting the basics right!

cup-of-tea · 7 years ago

It's quite difficult even for trained programmers to make their pipelines reproducibile. Just look at how much effort goes into build pipelines and the like. There isn't any good tooling for doing it so people build their own systems ad-hoc which they never document, that is if they use a system at all.

Big governments need to fund it and solve this problem once and for all. At the moment most grant procedures require something more concrete than just "solve the reproducibility problem", though.