On the angenmap mailing list, I wrote:
Overall, I see little justification for believing that our current system [ of peer review ] is particularly good. It's just comfortable, especially for the people who have been molded by it.
Chris Moran responded:
read moreI frequently hear these assertions about weak correlations, false negative …
There are comments.
Continuing in the saga of "what do sequencing errors do to our de Bruijn graph density measure" (read the first post here), I have some new results.
The conclusion of the first post was that on random (non-real) genomes, both with and without repeats, we see that de Bruijn graph …
read moreThere are comments.
Are our reviewers correct or incorrect?
About two months ago we got back reviews for our assembly artifacts paper, in which we showed that there was a strong 3' bias in the reads towards higher graph connectivity. Since shotgun sequencing is supposed to be random, we asserted that this 3' …
read moreThere are comments.
The tech community is messed up in da head, yo.
Several times since Steve Holden's I'm Sorry post I've written long blog posts about my own views on codes of conduct and professional behavior, including the views informed by some of my own extraordinarily embarrassing transgressions. I never felt that …
read moreThere are comments.
A week or two ago, I posted a crazy idea about crowdsourcing a bioinformatics analysis pipeline. I may still try to do that. But in the meantime, here's another crazy idea.
First, some background.
I'm writing this as I fly back from …
There are comments.
Description
Random algorithms and probabilistic data structures are algorithmically efficient and can provide shockingly good practical results. I will give a practical introduction, with live demos and bad jokes, to this fascinating algorithmic niche. I will conclude with some discussions of how our group has applied this to …
read moreThere are comments.