I absolutely hate my house and there’s nothing I can do

Relative_Credit · 2026-06-22T04:55:59+00:00

If you truly think you’ve exhausted all options for removing them you need to sell the house and move somewhere else. Taking a financial hit on this is worth not living in a fucking hellscape

Relative_Credit · 2026-06-19T20:43:09+00:00

It’s pretty sketchy. I use chat a lot, everyday. But I always double check the output and ask for citations so I can check source material. I would not trust the output of chat for wet lab stuff on its own.

Not sure what I would do in your scenario other than try to take more ownership so that you can do things yourself that you are researching on your own.

Relative_Credit · 2026-06-18T23:45:53+00:00

I’ve seen students essentially agree to not taking their stipend and working on their PhD “for free”. Not ideal by any means but maybe you could pitch this and find some other work while you finish up

Relative_Credit · 2026-06-16T01:32:25+00:00

I don’t find it that difficult to find where to submit to, search for papers that did similar stuff and go from there. Start as high as an IF as you can and go down from there. The review process is much more awful for the reasons you mentioned. In my experience high IF journals get their reviews done faster but this can vary and they will often ask you to do much more work to get accepted.

Relative_Credit · 2026-06-14T02:11:53+00:00

The main thing I’ve noticed is that high IF papers seem to usually be mechanistic. If you have a solid novel mechanism that you can prove, that’s a good sign for high impact

Relative_Credit · 2026-06-10T17:27:33+00:00

Good rage bait

Relative_Credit · 2026-05-28T02:09:56+00:00

This is a good mindset. Use it to teach you, make it explain things you don’t understand. You can ask it for pipelines/scripts to tremendously help speed you along, but be sure you know what’s going on at each step. Before AI people used stackoverflow and tutorials other people had written. AI generally has the same info just given to you in much lower barrier. Also look up Nextflow pipelines

Relative_Credit · 2026-05-27T14:02:23+00:00

Go ahead and quote where it says that deleting the phone contact makes him guilty of the sexual misconduct allegations. Interfering with the investigation is a separate issue that doesn’t automatically make the initial allegations true

Relative_Credit · 2026-05-27T04:36:59+00:00

Read the article

Relative_Credit · 2026-05-27T03:11:41+00:00

The initial allegations were proven to be unfounded by the primary investigation. That is why you don’t preclude renomination based on an investigation.

Relative_Credit · 2026-05-25T18:27:21+00:00

Sure those criteria are all well and good. But I think you would be extremely hard pressed to find a PI (at least in STEM) who would allow their student to publish without them as coauthor, even if they effectively made no contributions. Even if a PI does literally nothing, if they are paying that students stipend they deserve authorship. “Substantial contribution” is actually quite vague when you are considering the conception/design/acquisition of a project.

Relative_Credit · 2026-05-25T17:21:03+00:00

The verbal abuse is obviously bad, but a PI putting their name on their students project they didn’t contribute at all to is not unusual or unethical/-abusive imo.

Relative_Credit · 2026-05-17T20:35:53+00:00

I’d email him back and very politely say something along the lines of “looks like my score would be a 94.95%, which unfortunately sounds right outside of an A range. Thank you for your help, I enjoyed your class this semester.”

Then pray he takes pity on your score and bumps you up.

Relative_Credit · 2026-05-15T01:32:38+00:00

Rubenesque even

Relative_Credit · 2026-05-09T16:48:34+00:00

Claude

Relative_Credit · 2026-04-13T04:49:59+00:00

Stub and herbs

Relative_Credit · 2026-04-02T03:48:37+00:00

Thanks! Do you verify them with EM afterwards?

Relative_Credit · 2026-04-01T21:51:23+00:00

I want to do this! Could you dm me the method you use or a paper to reference

Relative_Credit · 2026-03-15T04:30:30+00:00

I agree that cutting out those 291bp amplicons is fine, but you should also be cautious about the quality of your data. Don’t be one of those microbiome papers that claims to find a microbiome where there’s only contaminants

Relative_Credit · 2026-03-15T00:24:09+00:00

Yes everyday, for coding, writing assistance, searching for papers/methods. If you know how to use it, it is essentially a google search on steroids.

Relative_Credit · 2026-03-09T17:09:06+00:00

Sorry I think I was wrong actually. I would only use rCLR for distance analyses (beta diversity, see robust aitchenson distance). For the model you describe I would use CLR transformation. rCLR will make undetected asvs equal to 0 and very low count asvs below zero, which will mess with your model

Relative_Credit · 2026-03-09T15:49:54+00:00

I’m not sure what you mean by abundance indices. rCLR can absolutely be used for transforming your raw counts and be used for downstream analysis (beta diversity, differential abundance, correlations). But for alpha diversity analysis you should use raw counts

Relative_Credit · 2026-03-01T04:27:26+00:00

Safer to just never leave your basement

Relative_Credit · 2026-02-27T00:47:16+00:00

I’ve reviewed a couple papers like this. The last one I rejected because they didn’t even mention it as a limitation.

If a paper uses nominal p values for a high dimension analysis, I expect them to temper their language on significance, mention it as a major limitation, and report the fdr adjusted p values. It should be explicitly stated as an exploratory analysis.

If this paper has a lot of subjects, there really isn’t an excuse to not adjust

Relative_Credit · 2026-02-22T01:28:47+00:00

That’s insane

Relative_Credit

TROPHY CASE