ibern

9 ms·

1.
by ibern 2y ago
A lot of bioinformatics code relies very heavily on pipes.
2.
by ibern 2y ago
Don't underestimate American stupidity.
3.
by ibern 3y ago
Couldn't agree more. You can't really speak about sonics in absolutist terms. Even so-called audiophiles can't agree on ideal sonics - is it a hyperclean recording with zero distortion and incredible dynamic range on CD, or i
4.
by ibern 3y ago
Their therapeutic area focus was far too broad. Going after "dozens of diseases" in parallel was a recipe for disaster. It takes a very specific understanding of your disease to translate genetic insight into a mechanistic, testab
5.
by ibern 3y ago
The real value they tried to build was in pharma, which is much more lucrative than either of those. Their data is somewhat interesting but limited by the lack of rich phenotypic/clincial information paired with the genetics.
6.
by ibern 7y ago
The advantage is that it's faster to prototype/write on the command line and usually ends up being less verbose (although potentially harder to read). It's easy to see what you're data is doing as you work with it and in
7.
by ibern 7y ago
Here are some ways you could simplify some of the tasks in the article, saving on typing: cat data.csv | sed 's/"//g' can be simplified by doing this instead: cat data.csv | tr d '"&#x2
8.
by ibern 7y ago
Right now I'd say it's in competition with Workflow Description Language (WDL), Nextflow, and maybe Snakemake. CWL seems to be more popular than WDL, as far as I can tell, but Nextflow is probably more popular than both.