Jonathan Somers

Of course, the study of how living cells function is "hard". But that doesn't mean it has to be learnt without joy. We tend to explore things we enjoy. A lot of the writer's essays [1] are about finding some aspect of a topic intriguing and following that rabbit hole.

My own research centered on one subset of functions within E. coli. I was lucky that I found a carefully engineered subset of plasmids and adaptions of E.coli, that could be mathematically modelled [2] [3]. I didn't have to know the whole functioning of E. coli. I didn't have to use mathematics beyond algebra. That is, no calculus was needed. The key task was to put together the quantitative research of about half a dozen labs. Okay, I had a "mountain" of articles to read. And it took 5 years of effort. But it was only doable, because I was modelling a carefully constrained subset of cellular functions.

[1] https://jsomers.net/

[2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8078069/

[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5425810/

I don't know the answer to the question in this case, but this quote from [1] has been stuck in my mind for a while and feels relevant:

"I wish my high school biology teacher had asked the class how an embryo could possibly differentiate—and then paused to let us really think about it. The whole subject is in the answer to that question. A chemical gradient in the embryonic fluid is enough of a signal to slightly alter the gene expression program of some cells, not others; now the embryo knows “up” from “down”; cells at one end begin producing different proteins than cells at the other, and these, in turn, release more refined chemical signals; ...; soon, you have brain cells and foot cells."

[1] https://jsomers.net/i-should-have-loved-biology/

No, it's not.

The subtext here is the text of this (very excellent) blog post:

https://jsomers.net/blog/it-turns-out

We all get it. Gladwell trades in "it turns out than" constructions as much as anybody else. But so do lots of mediocre writers. Gladwell is fun to read. People don't read him simply to scratch their chin and say "yeah, that's right, that's how the world works, I should uPdAtE mY pRiOrS", the way they do with other it-turns-out-ists. They read him because he knows how to bait a hook and cast a line, and if you make the mistake of nibbling at a Gladwell paragraph you're apt to get snagged. That's a skill, and it's as superficial and vapid as a Gladwell argument to pretend otherwise.

This looks great, congratulations to the author. I will be using it.

In case you’ve never read it, this 2014 blog post is an all time favourite of mine. It really opened up my thinking about words and definitions:

You’re probably using the wrong dictionary - http://jsomers.net/blog/dictionary

Ever since reading that, I have tended to use the 1913 Webster’s as my primary dictionary, supplemented by various modern ones where necessary. I found an acceptable iOS app for it - the UI is not good, but at least it has those shimmering definitions.

My dream would be if you could make a version of Wordnote that uses 1913 Webster’s as a dataset.

The article recommends having a good dictionary at hand, and that is absolutely correct advice. What I'd like to suggest is that, aside from writing that absolutely must use terms from the last 100 years, use the Webster 1913[1] as your dictionary of choice. It's become a fetish, of sorts, among writers like Cory Doctorow [2] and others who approvingly link to James Somers' May 18, 2014 post, "http://jsomers.net/blog/dictionary"[3].

Try it. Read its

[1] https://www.websters1913.com/

[2] https://boingboing.net/2014/05/29/you-should-try-the-1913-webste.html

[3] http://jsomers.net/blog/dictionary

Love this. Etymonline is one of my favorite websites, and often my first-choice dictionary (even though its word corpus is smaller than other dictionaries), because IME understanding the roots and origins of a word help me remember and use it better. It's the one dictionary I enjoy looking up.

Just in case someone hasn't seen it before... ;-)
If you're an etymonline fan, I would venture that you might find interesting "You’re probably using the wrong dictionary" by James Somers: http://jsomers.net/blog/dictionary