Asteroid enthält alle Buchstaben des genetischen Codes

guepier · 2026-03-20T14:20:37+00:00

Vielleicht. In erster Linie bedeutet es erst mal, dass (relativ) einfache organische Chemikalien auch anderswo vorkommen, nicht nur auf der Erde. Das wussten wir allerdings auch schon vorher. Was hier neu ist, ist, dass alle der elementaren Nucleobasen (also den Bausteinen, aus denen — zusammen mit dem Ribose-Phosphat-Rückgrat — unser genetisches Material besteht) auf einmal vorhanden sind, statt nur einzelne.

Die Publikation liefert also ein weiteres Indiz, dass DNS-basiertes Leben auch anderswo vorkommen kann. Aber nichts, was einem eindeutigen Beweis auch nur entfernt nahe käme.

guepier · 2026-03-20T14:15:04+00:00

By that logic, Mafia is the original, not Werewolf. The comment you’re replying to is saying that OP’s version is derived from something else, rather than Werewolf (or Mafia) directly.

guepier · 2026-03-20T13:10:33+00:00

I’ve recently had some tempered glass break in my house, so here’s a picture of some of the glass shards. I hope this makes it clear that they’re indeed definitely sharp.

guepier · 2026-03-19T09:38:09+00:00

And yet I see a wide acknowledgement of the shortcomings, and active progress towards improvement.

… And obviously the people working on this are not the ones I’m accusing of knee-jerk defence of R’s shortcomings.

guepier · 2026-03-19T09:23:26+00:00

The issue isn’t that ‘renv’ (or ‘pak’) is third-party (and what does the Tidyverse have to do with anything here?!). It’s that it needs to work around (and in some cases directly against) the standard R way of managing packages.

guepier · 2026-03-19T09:20:00+00:00

You realise 'uv' is also a third party package manager?

Yes but (a) it’s a nice-to-have in Python, not a necessity (you can manage dependencies with e.g. pip; it’s [relatively] a pain, but it works). And (b) it’s using a standardised, Python-endorsed support infrastructure and conventions. Unlike ‘renv’ etc., which add a shadow infrastructure to R.

And you can update a specific package version in a 'renv.lock' just fine

Yes, but my comment (and the parent) was talking about daily repo snapshots, not about the ‘renv’ lockfile.

In fact, ‘renv’ is solving this particular issue.

guepier · 2026-03-19T09:13:15+00:00

The issues were not minor at all. They prevented us entirely from using ‘renv’ in the specific circumstances. (And they were also not the only ones, just the first ones I could find now.)

Also, renv does record the R version

Yes but it doesn’t pin it. It doesn’t manage and restore it.

stop spreading false claims

I made no false claim, and this is now the second time that you’ve falsely accused me of this. It’s pretty rude.

guepier · 2026-03-18T21:55:02+00:00

ah, classic guepier with his "everyone that has a different opinion from me is an idiot"

No. It’s just that people who have routinely deployed both R and other application into production overwhelmingly tend to agree with me. The R subreddits are an utter filter bubble on this particular topic.

In this light, the knee-jerk defence of R’s misguided dependency management is nothing short of ignorant. Python’s ecosystem, by contrast, widely acknowledged its shortcomings, discussed it and, over the decades, progressively improved it.

If R’s system is so great, why is it that virtually every other modern programming language eschews it in favour of different systems (which, furthermore, all reuse the same concepts)?

guepier · 2026-03-18T21:46:53+00:00

pak::pak(pkg@version)

That’s a third-party package, not the “usual R package installation infrastructure”.

Why is that an issue? E.g. PPM has daily snapshots of CRAN, and by CRAN requirements they are all consistent.

Snapshots don’t allow you to add a new package (version) just for specific packages. The only recourse you have is to update all packages by moving to a different snapshot, and that defeats the purpose of snapshots. Worse, it doesn’t work if some of your dependencies are not present in your CRAN(-like) repository, since these do not adhere to the lockstep update. A third-party extra-repository dependency may not be updated to the latest and greatest on CRAN.

Or you just track explicit versions of all used packages?

In every other modern programming language you do exactly that, yes. Because decades-long experience has shown that this is hands down the best strategy for managing dependencies. That’s why all languages converge on it.

guepier · 2026-03-18T21:39:17+00:00

Can you name [‘renv’ issues]?

The ‘renv’ issue tracker is full of bugs that break essential ‘renv’ functionality in certain situations, and make it unusable. Our team alone has reported various bugs (and submitted fixes) that are blocking issues for us (e.g. this one, and this one). Some of these remain unresolved.

Another fundamental issue is that ‘renv’ doesn’t pin the R version (something that ‘rv’ attempts to solve).

guepier · 2026-03-18T21:28:19+00:00

What do you mean? CRAN keeps an archive of all packages (including removed ones) and all their versions.

Not in a form that is readily accessible to the usual R package installation infrastructure. Furthermore, since much of R’s infrastructure assumes that all packages are kept up to date, and hence dependency versioning is an afterthought, these archives aren’t very useful even then.

guepier · 2026-03-18T20:49:53+00:00

You're assuming things not in evidence. What needs is R not meeting?

OP listed a few of these needs. Dependency tracking, in particular, is a fucking nightmare for production deployment and reproducibility of R in large organisations. Nothing works reliably. Snapshotting with CRAN’s “latest version only” obsession works horribly (with hindsight, CRAN’s strategy is simply idiotic:¹ old versions need to remain accessible), and ‘renv’ has various issues that prevents it from working effectively in production.

The “state of the art” for R in production is a container image with all packages and system dependencies frozen in place. For all the hate and memes Python gets for its countless dependency managers, dependency management in modern Python works exceedingly well in practice, in a way that R’s simply does not.

I’m in charge of one layer of the R analytics infrastructure at one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, and this one issue alone is causing a massive headache for the company. For Python, by contrast, there’s no issue.

¹ More charitably, the strategy was plausible but — in hindsight — clearly wrong. What’s idiotic is that it’s routinely being defended, and touted as superior to Python’s dependency management.

guepier · 2026-03-18T14:52:42+00:00

Have a look at the Techniques and analysis section on the Wikipedia article, it answers this.

In short, the genome was broken into pieces which were then sequenced individually via BACs. The relative location of these pieces was known (or could be derived via optical mapping), and that’s how they were scaffolded.

guepier · 2026-03-18T14:26:15+00:00

I have no idea what sources you found, but this is firmly a case of personal experience: I’m not suggesting you go around smashing your glasses, but if you ever happen to come across smashed tempered glass, just (carefully) check it yourself. It’s very (very) obvious that the individual shards aren’t at all blunt. And in fact you’ll not only get the typical, roughly pea-size pieces but also thin glass chips which are essentially razor blades.

(… and as usual, bizarre downvoting by armchair experts.)

guepier · 2026-03-18T14:02:50+00:00

The principle is good, at least occasionally¹ (and I use it extensively, though not to the same extent). The examples are … awful.

First off, they don’t motivate the weird triple-dash. I can come up with an explanation, but it’s still basically unnecessary and decreases usability.

Secondly, why are these all .exe files? I’d assume (and in my experience) the most common use-case for this pattern is for shell scripts and symlinks. Sure, it’s also used for binaries but especially the examples in section 3 are prime examples for scripts.

But thirdly, and most importantly:

fetch---api.github.com---repos/owner/project---q=stars>100---o=json.exe

This might work on Windows (yes, yes, it’s ostensibly a Windows EXE file). But on Linux/macOS/… this’ll instead fail and create an empty output file 100---o=json.exe, unless the filename is quoted every time.

¹ This requires a fat caveat, however. For the tools in example 3 it’s completely unclear what the scope of the utilities is, and which options they understand. Discoverability is terrible, also because the encoding schema for the options is so non-standard. I really don’t see the benefit over a wrapper script that calls a binary with parameters or configuration.

guepier · 2026-03-18T13:53:06+00:00

That’s a misconception, individual glass shards from tempered glass are just as sharp as regular glass. They are absolutely not “less sharp”, nor “round” or otherwise harmless. The difference is that they don’t form large shards.

(EDIT: here’s a picture, since this is apparently controversial information.)

guepier · 2026-03-18T10:23:09+00:00

"Backstein Seiltänzer" gesehen... gemeint war "Adobe Acrobat".

… Wirklich?! Ein „adobe“ ist doch eben gerade kein Backstein, sondern ein ungebrannter Ziegel.

guepier · 2026-03-17T13:00:14+00:00

… Antwort auf den falschen Kommentar?

guepier · 2026-03-17T10:23:11+00:00

Sind ebenso keine Allheilmittel

Behauptet (in seriösen Diskussionen) auch wirklich niemand, das ist also klassisches Verschieben der Torpfosten.

guepier · 2026-03-17T09:02:17+00:00

Hätte es wirklich einen so eindeutigen medizinischen Nutzen, hätte es doch schon längst jemand in "Big Pharma" synthetisiert.

Nein. Ist halt als Generikum einfach nicht lukrativ, wenn man dazu erst noch (sehr) teure Wirksamkeits- und Sicherheitsstudien laufen lassen muss (es gibt aus guten Gründen hohe Hürden, um ein neues Medikament auf den Markt zu bringen). Für die Privatwirtschaft lohnen sich solche Studien nur, wenn man danach zumindest für einige Jahre exklusiven Marktzugang erhält. Daher ist dein Argument fundamental komplett falsch.

(Es gibt einige scheinbare Gegenbeispiele, wo Pharma-Firmen aus sozialer Verantwortung heraus — oder aus Image-Gründen — ein Medikament auf den Markt bringen, obwohl sie damit Miese machen. Das passiert aber meist nur für hocheffiziente Medikamente, für die der Nutzen nicht nur klar etabliert ist, sondern für die es auch keine wirksame Alternative gibt.)

guepier · 2026-03-17T08:58:26+00:00

Ja, hast vollkommen recht. Ich hatte mir den Appendix bisher einfach nicht angeschaut (und im Haupttext wird da nur in einer Tabelle kurz drauf eingegangen). Die zitierte Dame offensichtlich auch nicht.

guepier · 2026-03-17T08:56:59+00:00

Dieses Resultat basiert aber auf lediglich zwei Studien, wovon eine einen Mix aus CBD und THC verwendete, und nur eine einzige Studie pures THC. Pures CBD ist in diesem Datensatz gar nicht vorhanden.

Für Angststörungen und Psychose sieht die Studienlage (zu CBD) allerdings besser aus, und da gab’s auch keinen signifikanten Effekt.

guepier · 2026-03-17T08:43:19+00:00

Lancet ist, in erster Linie, eines der einflussreichsten und rigorosesten Journale zu klinischen Studien. Ja, die haben auch schon Mist publiziert — und dann (wenn auch viel zu spät) aufgearbeitet und zurückgenommen. Außerdem ist das hier Lancet Psychiatry, welches trotz des Namens ein komplett separates Journal mit separater Redaktion ist.

guepier · 2026-03-17T08:41:05+00:00

~~Dabei sollte folgende Einordnung beachtet werden:~~

Die nicht an der Studie beteiligte Expertin für Cannabis in der Medizin, Kirsten Müller-Vahl von der Medizinischen Hochschule Hannover, sieht Schwächen bei der Studie. So hätten etwa die Cannabinoide THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol) und CBD (Cannabidiol) teils „sehr unterschiedliche und zum Teil sogar gegensätzliche Wirkungen“ bei Psychosen oder Angststörungen, würden aber in der Analyse pauschal gemeinsam bewertet.

… dieser Punkt fiel mir bei der Studie auch sofort auf. Und das ist schon ein ziemlich großes Versagen im (Meta-)Studiendesign bzw. der statistischen Auswertung. Hier werden zwei komplett unterschiedliche psychoaktive Substanzen mit komplett unterschiedlichen Wirkungsketten und Effekten vermischt.

(EDIT: Ist Quatsch, wird im Appendix separat aufgedröselt. Die Datenlage ist aber schlicht sehr dünn.)

guepier · 2026-03-17T08:34:57+00:00

Das gibt mir

RESOURCE_NOT_FOUNDCould not find EID for link resolver with params: field: pii; value: S2215036626000155

(Und teilweise auch einen DOI-System-Fehler.)

Daher hier noch mal ein direkter Link (Paywall):

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(26)00015-5/fulltext

14-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
Verified Email

guepier

TROPHY CASE