The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
we do it not just once is the answer so in fact when we read this out we have a term called rpth it's how many times we look at any one nucleotide in the genome and we don't look at each position just once uh depending on how much we want to spend doing it we might look at the rpth of 30X
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
so we might look at the rpth of 30X so we might look at every one position on average 30 times and if you see out of the 30 times 29 of one Al you know one nucleotide one of the other you say oh that one the odd ball there that's probably just a sequencing error that's an artifact of our method in the lab