Salt?

Or for vision ML intro: Chihuahua or muffin

blog.cloudsight.ai/chihuahua-or...

Datasaurus dozen?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datasau...

The human coder would have been been tasked with validating the code could be held responsible for any mistakes. If we don’t teach coding to students, who will be responsible for validating?

I know they can be very helpful for coding, but I have also seen LLMs make egregious and hard to detect mistakes in code and analysis. When you posed the question about whether it would be any different if you hired a coder to do this - I think the answer is yes, and it’s a matter of responsibility

Tbh, I CAN’T understand why they limit to senior undergrads and 1st yr grad students. Reviewers are assessing a graduate research plan from students that either don’t know what program or what lab they are joining. And then NSF provides funding decisions too late to influence those decisions

I thought arXiv accepted preprints?

Penn State's closing seven Commonwealth campuses and laying off up to 500 employees, but it can afford an extra $1M/year for the President's pay? www.centredaily.com/news/local/e...

Well yeah, but you said yourself above - an NoA is permission to get reimbursed for allowable expenses. If the NoA approves all funds and the end date is 4 years in the future, I don’t see where they can limit annual without a new NoA

I think it would be hard for them to implement any enforcement of annual spending levels when the NoA has all funds, right? Wouldn’t it require a new NoA that pulls back funds? I think the deviation would need to be extreme before they would do that

I’ve heard from those who have received NoAs with the full budget and the expiry set to the project end date. No limits in the NoAs as far as they reported and explicit guidance from POs that annual budgets are flexible

I know of some MYF awards that have already been made. Claus is correct- all money is available up front to spend on any timeline

We also see varied associations between ApiAP2 transcription factor binding sites and chromatin states, suggesting a new way to categorize the activities of these TFs.

Chromatin states are highly dynamic during Plasmodium blood stage development; almost two thirds of the genome changes chromatin state during the IDC.

We found 11 chromatin states during the P. falciparum IDC, defined by combinations of chromatin accessibility and histone modifications. Some of these states comprise unusual combinations of histone marks and associations with regulatory activities that are not seen in higher eukaryotes.

One example: we found a range of sonication settings that provide similar results (at least for CTCF in K562). I kinda expected to see different cohorts of sites in differentially accessible chromatin being "released" by different sonication settings, but we see no evidence for that.

The manuscript contains practical advice on protocol aspects such as crosslinking conditions and develops a newly library construction workflow to take advantage of newer kits and techniques.

MO-ChIP-exo offers improved signal-to-noise compared with other versions of the protocol (as measured by Fraction of Reads in Peaks - FRiP scores).

Daniela systematically investigated most steps in the protocol. Boxes with green highlights here are steps that were investigated and modified in our new mammalian-optimized ChIP-exo protocol (MO-ChIP-exo).