!Science! except it’s computer science

This is 100% true, there’s LESS THAN ZERO quality control in software engineering

iSteve posted a grand unifying theory of genetics from a couple of big names. Based on the PR statement, I immediately distrust it.

Since individual genomic regions are only inherited from one parent, either the mother or the father, the ancestry of each point on the genome can be thought of as a tree. 

https://phys.org/news/2022-02-largest-human-family-tree.html

That alone opens up half a dozen cans of worms. This sounds way too much like software engineering and not enough like genetics. (Knowing nothing of genetics, I will grant for the sake of argument that these guys are titans in their field, because for all I know that’s true. )

First off, genetics and software engineering are not the same thing. So not only am I not convinced a great geneticist can break into the software field, I’d be inclined to say he is less likely to succeed than a random basement dweller because I know a great geneticist by definition doesn’t have the necessary time on his hands.

Secondly, interdisciplinary projects are always a shitshow in the modern day. They require high trust combined with high competence. But hey, I’m sure the Big Data Institute (who co-authored this genetics paper) is as innovative as NASA in 1969. I mean, how much difference could there possibly be between FIRE and ancient genetics? They’re both forms of creative embezzlement, right?

Thirdly, big software projects NEVER succeed. Every software engineering undergrad can show you the graphs. This is what happens when your industry has the same complexity as theoretical physics and the same business model as the music industry, where you spend a million dollars up front in the hopes it will go viral but also everyone will respect your copyright. You’re more likely to find an American girl who’s a virgin than a successful 7-figure software project.

And last, the following sounds like an admission:

The results successfully recaptured key events in human evolutionary history, including the migration out of Africa.

What this tells me is the regression model got one of the points right, which is fine and all, but if this is touted as a success it tells me this thing is speculative in the extreme. You know who else got a data point right? Nietzsche, by channeling his racial blood memory…which is fine and all, but I wouldn’t publish it as a genetics paper.

Anyway, tl;dr I don’t trust it.

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to !Science! except it’s computer science

  1. Obadiah says:

    *reads Siener van Rensberg WW3 prophecies*

    *glances at current geopolitical situation*

    *gets on phone*

    *discretely switches all automated app settings to “Always bet on Neanderthal”*

    *continues day*

  2. Zeb Zebley says:

    “The algorithms predicted where common ancestors MUST BE [emphasis mine] present in the evolutionary trees to explain the patterns of genetic variation.”

    so when the archaeologists don’t
    find any ancestral matching bones there, then the logisticians would have to admit that they were wrong and rework the framework based on the evidence they do find, right?

    I think you’re right to distrust it.
    The migration out of Africa, regardless of whether it’s true or not, is part of the Cathedral’s canon. I’d trust it more if they had an offensive showing against the modern world, like Koanic’s old pigs-mating-with-apes theory.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s