Timothy Raben

Personal key issues: *All 5 US territories & DC offered statehood (if they want it) *ind redistricting *ranked choice voting *meaningful contribution limits *end of dark $(all donors disclosed back to their origin) *court reform Everything else relies on fair representation

@TheAnfieldWrap Huh? Trent played well in defense but lost a lot of balls. Nunez never got much of a chance but kept running hard and delivered in the end. Ditto Salah.

📍 Trent 🥶 Nunez 🎯 Salah

Hello! We’re scientists from @NASAGoddard, Brown University, Arizona State University, and StarSpec Technologies, and we work on EXCITE (EXoplanet Climate Infrared TElescope), a scientific balloon mission. Read more about EXCITE: go.nasa.gov/3NvesOO

@DamienMorris @richbrucebaxter @AlexTISYoung Without more data my intuition/edu. guess is the traits where the sign of the correlation is flipping are more likely to end up being consistent with 0(i.e. no correlation) as we collect more data. Would be very interesting if a decently strong signal flips sign in the end.

The error bars are 95% CIs (not SEs) Fyi, but you don't need to eyeball these to know if the results are significantly different for Family GWAS. This was formally tested with correction for multiple testing using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure and is flagged by the red asterisks. The CIs are just there to show which genetic correlations are significantly different from zero. You're right that it's too early to draw strong conclusions, and that we need larger FGWAS studies, but it's a worrying start that half of the genetic correlations investigated might go in the opposite direction!

After reading this new Family GWAS paper, I will never look at genetic correlations the same way again. Here are the genetic correlations for Cognitive Performance calculated from Family GWAS shown side by side with genetic correlations calculated from standard GWAS. First, note that the Family GWAS genetic correlations are almost invariably smaller. Second, note that after correcting for multiple testing the Family GWAS genetic correlations were statistically different from the standard GWAS values for four traits: BMI, height, ever-smoking, and number of children. The Family GWAS genetic correlations were non-significant and close to zero for BMI, height, and ever smoking. The genetic correlation for number of children went from being non-significantly negative in the standard GWAS to significantly positive…quite an unexpected development! Indeed, the sign of the genetic correlation reversed for 15 out of 29 traits (!), making many positive pleiotropic effects negative and vice versa (though wide confidence intervals made these sign-reversals difficult to interpret). It’s a shame not to have details for anorexia and Autism Spectrum Disorder to see if the negative pleiotropic effects for cognitive performance previously derived from standard GWAS results survive the general onslaught.

@SashaGusevPosts As the authors mention in the first paper you linked, why the big discrepancy between them and the work by Young et al. nature.com/articles/s4158…

@SashaGusevPosts I've been working on PGS applied to siblings/families for 5+ years now and I feel like there are still a lot of really interesting open questions.

Two cool papers using siblings to estimate within-family heritability. Sidorenko et al. (nature.com/articles/s4158…) showing higher heritability estimates with sibling regression than from prior population based SNP or WGS studies for BMI and (to lesser extent) height.

@mattmfm It's still her pinned tweet!

Seems this story deserves some greater scrutiny given tonight’s revelation about the author.

@pulvinator Sometimes it has worked out well for the physicists but often not... Not happy to see the judiciary usurping this unearned authority.

@pulvinator It's funny because physicists have a historical reputation of switching fields and thinking they know better than their new colleagues.

@vsbuffalo I'm with you a 100% but I don't think it would be that hard to increase funding without imcentivizing the publish or perish mindset. Longer (and smaller) grants, more stability, more small grants for risky research, more permanent non TT research positions, etc.

Nah. I’m all for increasing scientific funding, but not under the current system. More papers ≠ more knowledge. Everything in the current system over-incentivizes the former with no guarantee of the latter.

@peteronyisi1 On the flip side the CFT book by Di Francesco et. al. was one of those yellow cover Springer books and it was great! Also reminds me of Tony Zee's QFT in a nutshell: an amazing "vibes" based QFT book. A few of the follow up books in that series are just normal adv. grad books

The Quantum Theory of Fields, Volume 1: Foundations

@notstevenwhite I think this problem can be circumvented if polling was reported with more serious uncertainty estimates.

This is not the first election cycle where Dems have gotten some appealing poll numbers in light red states. In October 2020, University of TX at Tyler, Data for Progress, and Public Policy Polling all separately released polls showing Biden winning TX. Didn't turn out that way!

I would really like for someone to write up a detailed analysis of why we should (or shouldn't) think presidential polling is better now than in 2020. 538's final 2020 polling average for Texas had Trump up just 1 percentage point, but he won by nearly 6 percentage points.

@ddiamond already makes me fear for 2028. That vacuum is gonna be *hard* to fill.

Truly awesome to watch Bron, Curry, KD all make huge plays, on a major stage, in a must-win game — yet again! But this time all together! Just special to see.

2028 gonna be *rough* without Lebron, Curry, and likely KD.

@TheAnfieldWrap Seems to be really improving. If Jota, Diaz, and Gakpo are around and healthy then I'd like to see Carvalho go out on loan.

Fabio Carvalho Keep - Sell - Loan? 👇

@OrinKerr @beau_baumann I think it's totally fair to argue (though we probably disagree!) that there was some shifts or drifts of these court members. I was mostly taking umbrage with the claim that it was the "commentariat" and the "criticisms" of them that *caused* the claimed changes.

@beau_baumann @TimothyRaben I think it was probably accurate with respect to Justice Blackmun. I think Souter moved left mostly because he really hadn’t thought about the issues until he was on the Court, and after a few terms his views came out more fully formed.

@steve_vladeck Very interesting stuff! I really enjoy your writing on these topics and have thought you always do great when you are a guest on other people's podcasts: have you ever thought about having your own podcast? If you talked about NatSec law, con law, or even parenting--I'd listen!

With news that three of the 9/11 defendants are taking plea deals in the #GTMO military commissions, today’s bonus issue of “One First” looks back at #SCOTUS’s denials of cert. in Al Bahlul & Al-Nashiri—and the lingering legal uncertainy that resulted: stevevladeck.com/p/bonus-92-the…

@baym In this case my "first mind" is winning out. I think the much broader and maybe more important issue is that funding overall is getting tighter and tighter, and we too heavily focused on rewarding safer and more conservative research. (I think this is a trend in that direction)

@baym I generally agree! I don't think the issue can necessarily be solved by just focusing on changes for postdocs. What I meant by "pipeline" was that to fix this there would have to be changes in the "flow" at multiple steps along the academic journey.

I'm of two minds: (1) I generally agree wholeheartedly that the time/money pressures of early career academia prevent people from being ambitious in their career or from having a meaningful family life.