What's Misskey? Never heard of! Time to check.

For a moment I thought the "here's how" meant "here's how to play in mud and dirt". Let's do it like pros, folks!

Nobel prize in computer science. Looks like the Nobel Prize committee has forgotten what Physics is.

Thank you! I checked it. From what I understand I should use a link like https://matrix.to/#/@[user]:[server.zzz]. Then from there they are redirected to use their own Matrix app, if they have one.

Absolutely amazing!! I suppose you've seen some renderings like this one.

However, these molecules don't really have a will or a scope, and in fact I don't like how they are deceivingly represented in some of these animations. These animations show, say, some aminoacid that goes almost straight towards some large molecule and does this and that. And one is left with the question: how does it get there and how does it "know" that it should get there? The answer is that it's just immersed in water and moved about by the unsystematic motion of the water molecules. Some aminoacids go here, some go there. In these animations they only show the ones that end up connecting with the large molecule. OK, this is done just to simplify the visualization, but it can also be misleading.

Similarly with molecules like kinesin, which seem to purposely walk around. Also in that case there's a lot of unsystematic motion, that after a while ends in a particular more stable configuration thanks to electromagnetic forces. Simulations such as this or this give a more realistic picture of these processes.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the whole thing isn't awe-inspiring or mind blowing. It is. Actually I think that the more realistic picture (without these "purposeful" motions) leads to even more awe, because of the structured complexity that comes out of these unsystematic motions.

Neat idea! +1

Musk's attitude is "It's mine, I can do whatever I please". In the long run a person's reply to this attitude is "Fair enough, keep it. I'll use something else". Like I and many others have.

There are surely pros and cons, possibly good and possibly bad outcomes with such restrictions, and the whole matter is very complicated.

From my point of view part of the problem is the decline of education and of teaching rational and critical thinking. Science started when we realized and made clear that truth – at least scientific truth – is not about some "authority" (like Aristotle) saying that things are so-and-so, or a majority saying that things are so-and-so. Galilei said this very clearly:

But in the natural sciences, whose conclusions are true and necessary and have nothing to do with human will, one must take care not to place oneself in the defense of error; for here a thousand Demostheneses and a thousand Aristotles would be left in the lurch by every mediocre wit who happened to hit upon the truth for himself.

The problem is that today we're relegating everything to "experts", or more generally, we're expecting someone else to apply critical thinking in our place. Of course this is unavoidable to some degree, but I think the situation could be much improved from this point of view.

Works via browser too! Very expensive apples though – they better be really juicy.

Maybe there's some problem with the links? If I click the image or the title of your post I only get redirected to an image.

Usual question behind this kind of stats: what are the sources? I'm tired of having to believe stuff that appears on the net just by faith.

It's sad that they keep using flawed statistical methods in these studies...

Correction: as @Gaywallet@beehaw.org points out, they also use other statistical methods within the paper!