Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

308

Big tech wants to re-write history by calling this the age of information, because these fucks make money off data. Data is important, but it's not revolutionary, our senses and our brains collect and interpret more data than any computer in existence. In fact all that data is useless unless there's someone to make sense of it and adapt to it. ALL software, all data just serves as a means to visualize something, a way to help you make decisions, the problem with data is that it's dependent on sensors, sensors that may or may not be measuring what you are trying to visualize. If you make decisions based on flawed or bad data, you will get flawed and or bad outcomes. Case in point, the models used to predict the spread and deadliness of covid. Total ass juice model, with total ass juice data generated as a result.

Data is overvalued, and it's only a matter of time before the market corrects this distortion.

Big tech wants to re-write history by calling this the age of information, because these fucks make money off data. Data is important, but it's not revolutionary, our senses and our brains collect and interpret more data than any computer in existence. In fact all that data is useless unless there's someone to make sense of it and adapt to it. ALL software, all data just serves as a means to visualize something, a way to help you make decisions, the problem with data is that it's dependent on sensors, sensors that may or may not be measuring what you are trying to visualize. If you make decisions based on flawed or bad data, you will get flawed and or bad outcomes. Case in point, the models used to predict the spread and deadliness of covid. Total ass juice model, with total ass juice data generated as a result. Data is overvalued, and it's only a matter of time before the market corrects this distortion.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (28).
[–] • 0 pt (edited )

It amplifies pieces of RNA, ie not a whole genetic sequence but a snippet. From the snippet that's amplified, they take an average of the particles generated by the polymerization and infer the sequence based on that statistical average. It's like taking a bag of pebbles, weighing the bag and using the weight to determine the physical shape of each individual pebble. It's not that reliable and it's prone to giving false positives, you have to use very limited material, and you have to be very careful about how many times you amplify it. If you amplify too little you can't see the protein because there isn't a statistical pattern you can be confident in, if you amplify too much you risk denaturing the proteins you're trying to amplify.

Plus the technique is rife with confirmation bias.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

They use primers to aplify specific parts of a DNA strand, and add flourescent dyes during the PCR process. The more the resulting liquid flouresces the more of that genetic material you had to begin with.

[–] • 0 pt

What is the PCR process? Without googling it.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

It's a way to amplify a specific strand of DNA. They split a DNA strand into two RNA strands. Use the polymerase enzyme to build one of the RNA strands back into DNA. Rinse, repeat.