/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1730821]

Post your degrees/careers.

[Anonymous No.1730831]

computer science
computer science
computer crossed out science crossed out

[Anonymous No.1730837]

>>1730831
coz computer science isnt about the science of computersz

[Anonymous No.1730874]

[Anonymous No.1730882]

Template

[Anonymous No.1730894]

1st degree: Fine Art/Painting
2nd Degree: Computer Science

[Anonymous No.1730939]

sup sup sup

[Anonymous No.1730942]

[Anonymous No.1730972]

[Samefag No.1730984]

It is absolutely fucking amazing, the capacity one has to be utterly depraved in my field.

[Anonymous No.1730994]

>>1730984

Are you doing your part to contribute to transhumanism?

[Anonymous No.1730995]

[Samefag No.1731008]

>>1730994
I'm talking with the head of the department of intellectual property at my university tomorrow at 3PM to see about getting a patent.

Nondestructive, nontoxic, long-term, highly specific measurement of action potential activity on a neuron by neuron basis.
Transhumanism starts with humans, and if this goes as I plan, it's a potential big step forward. So, you bet your ass I am.

I'm nervous as fuck, too. Hold me, /sci/,

[Anonymous No.1731023]

[Anonymous No.1731025]

>>1730942

Manchester Uni Physics graduate?

Safe.

[Anonymous No.1731027]

>>1730995
fuckin lol'd

CAPTCHA: University afthoott

[Anonymous No.1731032]

>>1730995
what degree is that

[Samefag No.1731033]

>>1730995
Bitch, weld those doors faster!

[Anonymous No.1731057]

>>1731008
the fuck is this shit

[Anonymous No.1731150]

>>1731057
The fuck is your shit?

[Anonymous No.1731187]

>>1731057
It's a really shitty webcomic by some faggot posted by some faggot with shitty taste in webcomics

[Samefag No.1731205]

>>1731187

[Anonymous No.1731237]

[Anonymous No.1731246]

>>1731008
Is it real time?

[Anonymous No.1731255]

any science degree get 8 hours infront of matlab or any mathematical software.

[Anonymous No.1731260]

[Anonymous No.1731270]

>>1730984
FUCK YEAH.

[Samefag No.1731289]

>>1731246
Yes.
And it's compact, as in, the scale of the things in contact with the neurons are on the .01uM scale, compared to the 1.1uM diameter of an average neuron. That means you can do a lot of them together, on adjacent neurons. Like in the spinal cord.

Potentially a complete real time modeling of spinal cord activity with individual neuron resolution.

[Anonymous No.1731295]

[Anonymous No.1731296]

Turned out better than expected. I never thought I would get to use knowledge from every single class I took.

[Anonymous No.1731303]

>>1731295
did you at least bang them nuns?

[Anonymous No.1731317]

>>1731237
i lold

[Anonymous No.1731335]

>>1731008
>>1731289

and you have a working prototype?

[Anonymous No.1731339]

>>1731289
Any keywords/people I should keep a look-out for?
For an update on this sometime in the future that is, it sounds badass.

[Samefag No.1731393]

>>1731335
Yes, in a mouse. I monitored twenty adjacent neurons in a mouse spine for proof of concept, and my method worked perfectly without a huge amount of interference from neighbors. Because of the physics behind it, the quantity you measure falls off very fast with increasing distance. You end up seeing around an 8th of the intensity for nearest neighbors, and nothing (that I cared about, far too small to measure) for second-nearest.

>>1731339
I'll post it on here once I get everything straightened around patent-wise. Kinda loath to post keywords because the method behind it is so simple, a person of average intelligence would probably be able to make the connection with a series of like four nouns.

[Anonymous No.1731437]

>>1731393
Fair enough, you wouldn't want someone to steal your thunder (but I'm selfish and want advancements ASAP)

:(

[Samefag No.1731441]

>>Because of the physics behind it, the quantity you measure falls off very fast with increasing distance. You end up seeing around an 8th of the intensity for nearest neighbors, and nothing (that I cared about, far too small to measure) for second-nearest.

The implication being, you can iterate this for as many neurons as you want, so proof of concept in 20 is essentially proof of concept in an entire system.

Forgot to include that part.

[Anonymous No.1731443]

>>1731339
Do you understand that your image is the inverse of clever. If you do and are only trying to fit in with literary device impaired morons, then ok, otherwise fack you dumb fack

[Anonymous No.1731454]

>>1731443
mite b cool

[Anonymous No.1731460]

>High school diploma
>running a company that sells Lamborghinis on the grey market
>100k+ a year starting

[Samefag No.1731465]

>>1731437
I came up with this in the shower about two weeks ago, went the lab I work in (lolgradstudent saying "my lab") and got preliminary positive results (in a mouse) within four hours of having the idea.

The aforementioned prototype I started the following day. She's healing nicely. Two weeks later I'm initiating the patent process and pushing ahead.

I am going as fast as I possibly can, lol

[Anonymous No.1731474]

>>1731460
HAHA NO SCIENCE DEGREE? FUCKING LOSER! FUCKING HUMANITIES FAGGOT! FUCKING FUCK FUCK!

HURRRRRRRRRRRRR

[Anonymous No.1731471]

How expensive is the process? How long do the sensors last in vivo? Do you have a flashcool method of representing the data yet?

[Anonymous No.1731493]

>>1731465
Have you heard of "optiogenetics"

I don't really get it, but it seems like it might do a similar thing as what you are talking about, except better.

[Samefag No.1731513]

>>1731471
The sensors are incredibly stable in vivo (and anywhere else, for that matter). The sensing molecule is shown by a number of papers to be stable at biological conditions, and we (read: no organism) has a mechanism to degrade it.

It costs almost nothing. It requires a reusable catalytic surface and consumes only a very cheap reagent.

Proof of concept experiment cost probably less than $50.

[Anonymous No.1731525]

only one class obviously

[Samefag No.1731529]

>>1731493
not useful for in-organism use. It has been suggested that the technique, involving fluorescent proteins, alters function...and can also be toxic. It's also not feasible for long term.

[Anonymous No.1731535]

>>1731513
>my face when you could do the same thing by laying neurons against unshielded SDRAM and monitoring disruptions

[Samefag No.1731540]

>>1731535
mfw when you suggested putting unshielded sdram into a person's spine.

[Samefag No.1731543]

>>1731540
"my face when when"
ugh.

[Anonymous No.1731554]

>>1731540
>my face when they already put much worse things in human spines

[Anonymous No.1731559]

Plz do keep /sci/ informed. I'll keep an eye out, and this really does deserve its own thread (lol, OC coming out of a lulzy pic thread).

Also what sort of data visualization are you thinking of using?

[Anonymous No.1731571]

I think I just figured it out. I'll let you take the credit, though, as I've had my thunder stolen a few times by copypastas. If this works, then you've achieved something that I personally think is pretty incredible.

As for me, I'm a high school and college drop-out, self-educated, who planned to be a youth pastor but instead ended up with a teaching job at a Christian college teaching a course on the Trinity based on several papers I've written.

[Samefag No.1731573]

>>1731559
I was thinking about mapping the db variations directly to a pair of jiggling virtual breasts. For science.

[Anonymous No.1731744]

>>1731573
GODSPEED

[Anonymous No.1731758]

goddamnit /sci/