AnarchistArtificer

What a cutie. I'm glad I get to see him via a photo though, and not in the toilet bowl when I'm trying to pee — that must have startled whoever found him

I don't think the kind of compromise that is necessary is able to be stated in the way you're asking for, because of how values feed into beliefs.

Take abortion rights for example: someone who would describe themselves as "pro-life" may argue something that is effectively saying that murdering babies is never okay. I would be in complete agreement there. As someone who is "pro-choice", the core of my argument is usually some form of "a clump of cells that could become a person does not trump the rights to bodily autonomy that an existing person has". No progress will be made in this discussion unless we can address the fact that the vast majority of abortions are nowhere near "murdering babies". That's where compromise is most likely to happen, in the discussion that arises when trying to reconcile different word views, and coming to speak in mutually intelligible terms.

For example, one area where I and many other abortion advocates have compromised on this front is recognising that the line between "a clump of cells" and "a baby" is pretty blurry. Personally, I don't know where I stand on where the law should stand on that line; in my country, abortions after 24 weeks can only be done in exceptional cases (mother's health at risk, foetal anomalies etc.). I think a time limit like this seems reasonable, but I'm not sure whether at 24 weeks, a foetus is more like a clump of cells, or a baby. I have personally had a very early term abortion, and I'm grateful to have had that opportunity, because I have no idea how I'd feel if I was in that 20-24 weeks range. Acknowledging this uncertainty I feel is part of how compromise works. I would hope that someone on the "other side" of the argument would apply a similar approach to try to understand and entertain my argument wrt bodily autonomy. In a way, this is an easy example, because all the leeway in positions has been explored, and the core issue is something that can't be compromised on (such as how I can't have a productive discussion with people who are actively against women's bodily autonomy, or people who believe that life starts at conception).

An area in which I'm working on trying to compromise on is trying to reshape how I think about farmers and other similar social groups. Farmers are a good example because I am a very left wing, queer, university-educated city-living scientist who has Opinions on the climate, and I'm very socially progressive. To some people, I am the big bad Other, an inherent problem with the world. I don't like this, because certainly I don't see myself as "the problem". I'd actually rather like to be part of the solution, but I won't do that well if I take the easy route of dismissing people like this as just racist, idiotic bigots whose opinions I shouldn't care about. Many of them are bigoted, but if I don't want to mass exterminate people whose views are unacceptable to me, nor be exterminated myself, I need to try to imagine a world where I could break bread with these people. That's a pretty difficult challenge.

PhilosophyTube's video on Judith Butler helped a lot on this actually. I have been realising more and more that the common ground that exists between me and many of my "political enemies" is that we are humans who are scared and struggling, like me. When I feel hopeless, solidarity pulls me through, and thinking in this way makes it easier to feel compassion for people whose anger and bigotry isolates them from this kind of community support: a person can simultaneously be a product of their environment, and responsible for their actions; they can both be a victim of fascist ideology (through becoming isolated, disempowered and stewing in hate), and also an active perpetrator of said hate.

This reframing isn't itself compromise, but hopefully if I continue to work to see what I share with the people I most disagree with, I'll be able to have the kinds of conversations that build compromise. Successful compromise takes a small amount of shared ground and extends that, bit by bit, person by person. That's why I think your question didn't get the answers you were hoping for: by the time things become solidified into political parties and manifesto stances, there isn't much fluidity and ambiguity left to act as space for new, shared understanding.

If you made it to the end of this comment, thanks for bearing with my meandering. If you'd like to read an essay about compromise that's a much better story than my rambles, you might enjoy this article about a beautifully mundane yet improbable compromise helped build the internet. . The whole article is great, but I especially love this part:

"In the beginning, the disagreements seemed insurmountable, and Miller felt disheartened: ‘The first night we thought: This is gonna fail miserably. At first nobody saw eye to eye or trusted each other enough yet to let each other in and try to figure out the art of the possible.’ But as concessions and then agreements were made, people began to feel energised by the creation of a new system, even if imperfect; one piece at a time, their system could bring the content of the web within reach for everyone. As Caplan remembers: ‘By the second day, there was a lot of drinking and all-night working groups. We were running on adrenaline and energy. By the last day, we realised we were making history.’ "

I take heart in the understanding that compromise is messy, and hard to evaluate when you're in the thick of it.

I agree. Whenever I get into an argument online, it's usually with the understanding that it exists for the benefit of the people who may spectate the argument — I'm rarely aiming to change the mind of the person I'm conversing with. Especially when it's not even a discussion, but a more straightforward calling someone out for something, that's for the benefit of other people in the comments, because some sentiments cannot go unchanged.

That's fun, I'm stealing that

The data are stored, so it's not a live-feed problem. It is an inordinate amount of data that's stored though. I don't actually understand this well enough to explain it well, so I'm going to quote from a book [1]. Apologies for wall of text.

"Serial femtosecond crystallography [(SFX)] experiments produce mountains of data that require [Free Electron Laser (FEL)] facilities to provide many petabytes of storage space and large compute clusters for timely processing of user data. The route to reach the summit of the data mountain requires peak finding, indexing, integration, refinement, and phasing." [...]

"The main reason for [steep increase in data volumes] is simple statistics. Systematic rotation of a single crystal allows all the Bragg peaks, required for structure determination, to be swept through and recorded. Serial collection is a rather inefficient way of measuring all these Bragg peak intensities because each snapshot is from a randomly oriented crystal, and there are no systematic relationships between successive crystal orientations. [...]

Consider a game of picking a card from a deck of all 52 cards until all the cards in the deck have been seen. The rotation method could be considered as analogous to picking a card from the top of the deck, looking at it and then throwing it away before picking the next, i.e., sampling without replacement. In this analogy, the faces of the cards represent crystal orientations or Bragg reflections. Only 52 turns are required to see all the cards in this case. Serial collection is akin to randomly picking a card and then putting the card back in the deck before choosing the next card, i.e., sampling with replacement (Fig. 7.1 bottom). How many cards are needed to be drawn before all 52 have been seen? Intuitively, we can see that there is no guarantee that all cards will ever be observed. However, statistically speaking, the expected number of turns to complete the task, c, is given by: where n is the total number of cards. For large n, c converges to n*log(n). That is, for n = 52, it can reasonably be expected that all 52 cards will be observed only after about 236 turns! The problem is further exacerbated because a fraction of the images obtained in an SFX experiment will be blank because the X-ray pulse did not hit a crystal. This fraction varies depending on the sample preparation and delivery methods (see Chaps. 3–5), but is often higher than 60%. The random orientation of crystals and the random picking of this orientation on every measurement represent the primary reasons why SFX data volumes are inherently larger than rotation series data.

The second reason why SFX data volumes are so high is the high variability of many experimental parameters. [There is some randomness in the X-ray pulses themselves]. There may also be a wide variability in the crystals: their size, shape, crystalline order, and even their crystal structure. In effect, each frame in an SFX experiment is from a completely separate experiment to the others."

"The Realities of Experimental Data" "The aim of hit finding in SFX is to determine whether the snapshot contains Bragg spots or not. All the later processing stages are based on Bragg spots, and so frames which do not contain any of them are useless, at least as far as crystallographic data processing is concerned. Conceptually, hit finding seems trivial. However, in practice it can be challenging.

"In an ideal case shown in Fig. 7.5a, the peaks are intense and there is no background noise. In this case, even a simple thresholding algorithm can locate the peaks. Unfortunately, real life is not so simple"

It's very cool, I wish I knew more about this. A figure I found for approximate data rate is 5GB/s per instrument. I think that's for the European XFELS.

Citation: [1]: Yoon, C.H., White, T.A. (2018). Climbing the Data Mountain: Processing of SFX Data. In: Boutet, S., Fromme, P., Hunter, M. (eds) X-ray Free Electron Lasers. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00551-1_7

Unfortunately no. I don't know any research scientists who even make 6 figures. You're lucky to break even 50k if you're in academia. Working in industry gets you better pay, but not by too much. This is true even in big pharma, at least on the biochemical/biomedical research front. Perhaps non-research roles are where the big bucks are.

He doesn't directly control anything with C++ — it's just the data processing. The gist of X-ray Crystallography is that we can shoot some X-rays at a crystallised protein, that will scatter the X-rays due to diffraction, then we can take the diffraction pattern formed and do some mathemagic to figure out the electron density of the crystallised protein and from there, work out the protein's structure

C++ helps with the mathemagic part of that, especially because by "high throughput", I mean that the research facility has a particle accelerator that's over 1km long, which cost multiple billions because it can shoot super bright X-rays at a rate of up to 27,000 per second. It's the kind of place that's used by many research groups, and you have to apply for "beam time". The sample is piped in front of the beam and the result is thousands of diffraction patterns that need to be matched to particular crystals. That's where the challenge comes in.

I am probably explaining this badly because it's pretty cutting edge stuff that's adjacent to what I know, but I know some of the software used is called CrystFEL. My understanding is that learning C++ was necessary for extending or modifying existing software tools, and for troubleshooting anomalous results.

A friend of mine whose research group works on high throughout X-ray Crystallography had to learn C++ for his work, and he says that it was like "wrangling an unhappy horse".

You're right, that is pretty funny. I didn't notice until you pointed it out in this comment

You've bamboozled my attempt to make the same joke at your expense by only mentioning one number in your comment, giving me nothing to add to it. From this point on, I conclude we should only ever mention one number in each comment, for clarity.

Memes that are autistic memes without explicitly mentioning autism

It reminds me of how there is a gene that determines whether eating asparagus makes your pee stink, and there's a different gene that determines whether you can smell it. I had a friend who didn't have the stinky pee gene, but her boyfriend did, and she complained of the smell when she used the bathroom after him occasionally. He had the stinky pee gene, but not the gene to be able to smell the stink.

This came up in a random conversation with my friend, before she knew about the genes thing. I was so excited that I got to tell her about a cool science thing that I couldn't speak for a few moments.