Could estimate the % of fragments that are currently unplaced? I’m curious to know how much structure has been pieced together so far and what remains.
Most of the fragments (sorry don't have a %) could be mapped to a genome. In cases where a fragment could not be mapped it's more likely because of degradation than novel biology.
That said we did identify some novel microbial genomes. Not clear if they are actually ancient though vs contamination in the last 100 years or so.
I think you’re referring to DNA fragments but I actually meant text fragments. Do you know how much of the text is recovered at this point? Trying to get a sense of whether or not the full text of the scrolls is able to be read at this point or if there’s more to piece together.
If I understand correctly, you have a bunch of pieces of scrolls and it’s kind of like piecing a shredded document back together. By analyzing the DNA material of the scroll fragments, you can tell which ones should be grouped together, to help put the puzzle back together so to speak.
Is that right? Or are you mainly analyzing the DNA to find out other information about the scrolls, like where and when they may have originated?
You have the right idea. In some cases the Dead Sea Scrolls were literally shredded- ripped up into small pieces that were sold individually to tourists.
The goal here was to identify parchment fragments that came from the same animal so the original (unshredded) document could be reconstructed.
While we were able to link a lot of parchment fragments we didn't go so far as to actually reconstruct the text on those fragments. While we constrained that task somewhat it's still nontrivial since we don't know what order the fragments should go in, if there are still missing pieces, etc.
Referring to no specific case in particular: that is not a circumvention but an application of the authority that Congress delegated to the President in the National Emergencies Act.
> His compound rate of wealth increase, post paying taxes on the sale, is around ~7.5%. That beats the S&P 500 over that time, which very few professional money managers can do.
Very few money managers that are accessible to people with less than 10^8 USD can beat the S&P after fees.
Bridgewater, (Ray Dalio's fund mentioned above) regularly gets 12.5% annual returns and they are most notable for being consistent, not high. Pre-2008 some investment banks were getting up to 20%.
A billionaire making 7.5% annually is fairly unimpressive if their goal was to make money (which it might not have been for Cuban).
Both would be illegal* since your keys are info that could deanonymize patient data. However, you would be allowed to store them on your own PC if you follow proper procedures.
This is more important than it might seem from a purely tech perspective. HIPAA is partly designed to guard against
1) improper use of encryption
2) downstream contractors who are malicious or careless
The one-time pad is probably fine but it's easy to imagine lesser encryption being broken (especially by bugs). This problem gets much worse once PHI is stored on a medium, like a blockchain, where it can never be taken down. After all you probably wouldn't be happy if your health data was on the internet protected only by SHA1.
There are probably better solutions to all of these issues but HIPAA is intentionally conservative. In many respects HIPAA is a financial, not a technical, law.
* HIPAA doesn't make improper storage illegal in the sense that you go to jail if you do it wrong. It exposes people who handle data improperly to massive fines, usually when actual breaches occur. This is part of why BAAs are so important.
The evidence required for these kinds of studies is far greater than it might initially seem. The sheer number of other variables (environmental factors) makes it very easy to assign causal relationships incorrectly. I mean to say that I’m willing to bet most individual studies involving “32” participants (or on that ballpark) are basically wrong. By individual studies I mean those where the evidence for the phenomena is almost just that study.
Some anecdotal evidence (lacking being able to share the resources that I’ve read in the past) is the “science” in (and media reporting of) the fields of nutrition, psychology, sociology and similar fields where the environment is impossible to fully control. They seems half-baked (or outright contradictory) because the media reports on findings that don’t have very strong evidence behind them (need further research) while making it seem like it is an established fact.
It's far too small of a sample size for something as complex as human diet and exercise. You'd need a much larger sample size with people of varying types of diet and exercise regimes.
