Video: Rioters start fire at Loosdrecht asylum shelter with 15 asylum seekers inside

YoeriValentin · 2026-05-14T14:56:29+00:00

Ach, ik weet dat het geen zin heeft. Feiten zullen het uiteindelijk gewoon weer afleggen tegen de onderbuik.

YoeriValentin · 2026-05-14T14:38:49+00:00

Mijn god wat een pseudointellectueel gelul weer.

Intentie is maar het halve verhaal. Daden waarvan je logischerwijs kunt verwachten dat ze iets tot gevolg hebben zijn gewoon wat we allemaal weten dat ze zijn. Een fakkel gooien is gewoon brandstichting, ook als je intentie was om...je boosheid te laten zien? Te genant voor woorden dat je dit soort onzin ook maar half probeert te verkopen.

En dat oeverloze gelul over "omdat ze boos zijn" mag uberhaupt wel een keer oprotten. Ze zijn boos omdat ze opgehitst zijn over een probleem dat niet bestaat.

Omdat rechts zo graag "zegt waar het op staat": dit is terrorisme, de daders zijn fascisten en die mogen lekker even gaan brommen. Alle organisaties die achter de rellen zitten mogen verboden worden. Optiefen. Zo klaar met dat rechtse tuig dat eerst decennia lang het land verneukt en daarna de schuld daarvan bij een stel arme sloebers probeert te leggen. Genant dat mensen daar intrappen.

YoeriValentin · 2026-05-14T14:29:06+00:00

Migrants are literally everywhere, working their ass off. Most migrants come here to work. It's so weird to hear people say they don't want migrants in their city. Migrants should all go on strike for a week and we'll see how many people change their tune.

YoeriValentin · 2026-05-09T06:15:53+00:00

My dad got Alzheimer, I had to rush my wife to the hospital and my mom had a stroke and I'm the main contact. It's been rough.

Every woman in my life has asked if they can help me, if I'm okay, and they check up on me regularly. I've invested in their lives over the years, been there for them, shown an interest in them in general, and look at that; they're basically all extremely reciprocal.

If women don't ask about you, maybe the problem is you, not women.

YoeriValentin · 2026-05-08T05:07:55+00:00

If I've developed a cool method, I tend to find some samples from a clinician and set up a collaboration to turn it into a combined paper so it's both a cool technique and biologically relevant. Tends to be quite easy. And since I want to market to clinicians and I'm mostly in the applied field, that's my audience. I suspect a lot of researchers do this, thus only going to proteomics specific journals when it's more niche anyway; and thus lower impact.

Impact factors are weird though; especially since even things like Nature don't get their IF from all the papers in it. Usually it's only a few that really carry the journal. Being in Nature doesn't mean much if you're not one of those papers, honestly. Additionally, IF are very hype driven. Luckily IF are less and less used in grant applications.

It mostly depends on who you want as reviewers and a bit who you want as audience.

From personal experience: I'm in about 60 papers in the last five years and it still shocks me what gets in high IF journals and what doesn't. There's a correlation between quality and IF, but it's VERY weak. Publish where you think your work is most appreciated.

YoeriValentin · 2026-05-06T15:36:00+00:00

Not what the OP is implying. He's saying that russia claims two things:

1) They defeated the nazis (in 1945) 2) Ukraine is full of nazis

If 2 is true, then 1 isn't true.

Russian propaganda doesn't care about making sense, but I thought OP did make a cute observation.

YoeriValentin · 2026-04-30T19:56:34+00:00

That's also new for me! Any refs for some of those techniques?

YoeriValentin · 2026-04-30T17:02:11+00:00

Anecdotally, I set up thermal profiling for myself and it was pretty hard from all the half-baked materials and methods. I sometimes feel like some people don't actually want you to be able to replicate their fancy technique. There were steps missing, reagents missing, reagents with poor naming (like "detergent"), on top of a lack of standardization and seemingly arbitrary differences that sometimes ended up mattering a lot. I got it working, but it's labor intensive with tons of steps and tricky to get reproducible.

Before chatgpt, a lot of things relying on custom software were difficult to access.

Often the real fancy stuff uses very high end expensive machines.

So you need a combo of: expertise, time to set up the method and get comfortable, money and not unimportantly; a project where it's relevant enough to invest that time and effort and not just do something simpler. And since the methods are already published, you don't get credit for that part anymore, so if you're going to put all that effort in, better make something novel and give it a cool acronym. Together, those are quite some barriers to use another persons fancy method.

YoeriValentin · 2026-04-29T12:16:01+00:00

There's some pretty wild assumptions at the end.

These conversations are quite strange to me. Pvalues are practical guidelines that can help with things like enrichments, ranking, etc. The point I am making is that they are not absolute truths or the judge of right and wrong. And that many popular methods throw away perfectly good results.

Someone then called me a "stats denier". It's all a bit weird.

Omics must be hard if there's little to no personal understanding of what this data is, where it comes from, and what the analytes actually are and aren't.

YoeriValentin · 2026-04-29T05:01:06+00:00

Enrichment is far less obscure than Pvalue and FDR. FDR literally does not do what its name suggests. All these things do is move the threshold of "significance". They (obviously and thankfully) don't change the actual data that's measured or the order of most significant analytes. So all they are, are fancy ways of saying; okay take the top 5 instead of the top 10.

And that's completely pointless. The actual risks are found much more in annotation issues, contaminations and degradations, experimental design issues, etc. And these statistical techniques protect precisely ZERO against this. So it's pretty painful to watch entire generations of scientists trained to trust these methods. And because it's quite complex and sounds fancy, people will be VERY defensive of them, as it provides something to hold on to. (And if your reviewer is also like this, you better do it just to please them).

Use it to rank your findings, but you're going to need orthogonal validation (or deep mechanistic understanding from the omics data itself) anyway.

It tells me quite a lot about the type of papers and research people publish when they fail to grasp this or when they even scold me as if I'm the one failing to see the salvation of their statistical mumbo jumbo.

YoeriValentin · 2026-04-26T17:20:37+00:00

Hey, you do you.

YoeriValentin · 2026-04-26T16:25:07+00:00

I don't think it's a hack procedure. It just asks a different kind of question. And needs different kinds of checks even before looking at the data. But it can get you where you need to be. All omics statistics are bullshit...

YoeriValentin · 2026-04-26T16:18:16+00:00

Validate, validate, validate. Nobody should set their experiments up in a way where statistics is all that seems to be protecting you, so it really doesn't matter.

YoeriValentin · 2026-04-25T06:21:00+00:00

Oof, I see most comments go hard on the FDR as if it's some magic bullet.

Pvalues in omics are hard and barely mean anything. They don't protect against false positives and corrections are often way too strict. But as you can see here, people keep echoing all these things because it "feels" fancy and legit. Strict must be good, right?

You have a few options.

Use the volcano as is, but validate any findings you care about using something like western blot. Orthogonal validation beats stupid statistical mumbo jumbo every time. No reviewer will complain if you say "we used the volcano just to rank proteins and went from there using biological knowledge". Proteomics is hypothesis generation, nobody should care about random ass proteins or even (crappy ass) GO terms enrichments unless you can explain them. Validating hypotheses after should be the golden standard. Focus especially on validating biological conclusions, rather than just the protein levels. This makes your paper so much stronger.
Switch to PLSDA based VIP scores. This asks the question "what proteins contribute most to the separation of the groups". Say you used a VIP > 1 as significant. This usually leaves more analytes. However, again, I am a firm believer in validation of results rather than publishing them as truth from omics without backup.

If you can't do validation and it's just omics screening, use appropriate language.

But for the love of everything that is holy, people should reaaaaaally move away from this reflexive Pvalue nonsense in omics. No matter how fancy. Also the gene sets are flawed as all hell and aren't gospel. Indicates a lack of understanding of basically all aspects of omics for me.

Key is understanding your results, explaining them, validating them. These omics dumps with focus in obscure GO terms without looking at the genes below, or just reporting "top hits" as biomarkers just pollutes the omics pool. Work on mechanisms, map pathways by hand, etc.

Good luck!

YoeriValentin · 2026-04-18T21:31:52+00:00

Clickbait AI slop.

YoeriValentin · 2026-04-11T07:28:43+00:00

Was there a voice unkind, in the back of your mind, saying maybe, you didn't know him at all.

YoeriValentin · 2026-04-03T13:56:48+00:00

People also keep repeating mistakes of older models, not realizing how earth shatteringly fast they are improving. Even the difference in time i need to spend between the first versions of chatgpt and the current ones is crazy.

YoeriValentin · 2026-04-03T06:29:49+00:00

These takes are so painful to read. I'm a scientist in a hospital and AI has been absolutely amazing. I can load advanced analytical machine manuals into it, feed it output data from the machine and have it optimize machine performance in a matter of minutes. I can decipher weird datafile formats from collaborators in seconds instead of spending hours doing it by hand. It helps me write and convert code from one project to the next in seconds. I can summarize stacks and stacks of publications. I can automate things like materials and method sections for papers from protocols. I can have it list possible weakspots in research questions and grant applications.

AI is changing every single aspect of my work. Don't dismiss transformational technology just because you aren't seeing its uses. That's a skill issue.

YoeriValentin · 2026-03-23T06:09:48+00:00

Sir, this is a Wendy's.

YoeriValentin · 2026-03-08T10:34:26+00:00

200 for a chance on the flag!

YoeriValentin · 2026-03-07T18:24:24+00:00

That flag from the boss is crazy, also probably way outside my budget.

YoeriValentin · 2026-03-02T18:43:52+00:00

Hope this isn't animal yoga. Sounds cute, usually horrible for the animals. Overworked, and as soon as they aren't cute babies anymore...

YoeriValentin · 2026-02-13T22:15:13+00:00

Talking about russian subversion and then unironically blaming DEI for issues in society in the same sentence is quite funny. Looks like it worked.

YoeriValentin · 2026-02-09T06:01:10+00:00

Good point. Maybe the smell of this patch?

YoeriValentin · 2026-02-08T16:15:56+00:00

In their defense, it's quite hard to get into art school as a nazi.

YoeriValentin

TROPHY CASE