I have never been known for my lack of directness and in given so, I used to work with an Indian developer who was very good at his job. So one day I just flat out asked him, I said Karthick why do a good portion of Indian developers suck, his response floored me.

Without missing a beat he responded, look it's a misaligned incentive system. When I go back to India the first question I am asked is how many people do you manage. If I go on a date, it's the first words out of a fathers mouth.

He went on to tell me that you see Indian has remains of the cast system still culturally in place and this stems from that way of thinking, but it has morphed into changing your cast by moving up the corporate ladder. The fastest way to managing people is IT given it's over representation in the Indian economy. So what you have is a bunch of would be MBA's getting tech degrees so they can do their time and make it to management. They have no passion for technology and look at it as doing their residency for management.

Then he looked at me and said, with a laugh. Put Simply they go into IT to get laid. Whereas I went into IT to become and American, because and Indian guy with citizenship is John Don (he meant Don Juan).

Sequencing today is done mostly using computational methods. Think of DNA as a couple long strings (Number of bases is effectively the character count of those strings, each string is a "chromosome" in higher organisms), so the problem is how do we read these long, physical strings. It turns out that parallel processing is way more effective, so we break the really long strings into much, much smaller strings that overlap (Millions of characters long to hundreds often). Because the strings overlap, we can construct a good portion of the actual sequence computationaly by exploiting this overlapping feature of our small strings.

The physical way they do this is by using machines (Think GPU vs CPU) that are effectively a bunch of parallel microscopes specialized to read those short strings and by "attaching" colors to each of the characters (DNA bases). Initial DNA sequencing methods lacked both the computational and physical devices to do this, so they were done by hand. The move from doing sequencing by hand to doing it computationally is why we see the significant increase in characters read (Number of bases).

Your last comment I think is the most interesting, as it effectively asks "Why do mice have a larger string size than us, which means they contain more information on an absolute level?". The answer is just because. The number of bases, or even the number of blocks of information that produce proteins (These blocks are called genes, and a protein is another chemical construct that mainly focuses on doing actions in the cell), is not strongly correlated with the complexity of the organism. The key is how those bases interact, not necessarily in how many there are.

If you have any more questions or need some clarification I'd love to address them, it is a wonderful time to be alive.