The problem that I see is that change takes time to take effect,. Education for example takes a long time before we see results and those results are usually benchmarked with exam grades. Early years is key to a childs education outcomes much later (e.g GCSEs at 16) so any changes won't take effect or be seen immediately
Gettting more medical professionals means we need to perhaps invest in STEM in primary, secondary and at higher levels, so thoses who are interested can be taught to a high level with fully resourced classrooms / labs etc. But that could be a 20 year plan if you take in to account a doctor needs to do graducate, then post graduate study (even if going the apprentice route still takes a long time).
In 5 years time, if people have not seen immediate change they will say LabM our have failed even if they have succeeded in laying a foundation for the future.
Perhaps the Tories are right in that we need to get rid of so called Mickey Mouse courses and focus university on acaemic topics such as STEM or it is STEAM as the A is arts. I fail to see a benefit in a degree in the Beatles or Taylor Swift for yexample.
We also need to teach critical thinking at all levels, good reserch skills, yes embrace AI but in a beneficial way. If a student can't write without the use of AI to write it for them, we have failed them. AI is a tool to help, not a tool to replace you doing the work.
I just hope who ever gets in is not the Tories and can, as you said make bold decisions and be honest about the time scale they need to say this is going to be a 10-15 year plan, we hope to carry on in 5 years and how we perform over 5 will determine the long term outcomes.
Labour's Rachel Reeves rules out increasing income tax or NI
What is the actual point of this? We know the country is on its knees. We need to invest. I'd gladly pay more taxes to have functional NHS, roads, schools, etc.
OpenFold is a big deal. And a great showcase for free open source software, enabling scientists to improve on each other's work in the best scientific tradition.
Open letter to Nature editors complaining about the lack of code availability for AF3 (Publishing code is normally a prerequisite for publishing in Nature)
(Yes, I am fully aware of the irony of using a Google form to do this - not my idea, just sharing.)
@graemewinter@xtaldave@markus Yes, they are doing it to make money. But I have used extensively AF2 and I feel they did greatly help me in my research. I believe they gave back to the community AF2 which is already a huge thing, as well as the idea that it can be improved.
They are letting academics make limited use of AF3.
I don't feel like they misbehaved in any way.
Sure, they could have just considered AF an academic project and kept it fully public.
I don't know, I see a bunch of IT companies now trying to move part of their business towards drug design.
Google, nvidia, microsoft.
I can understand they want to use it as some competitive advantage over the others.
I still believe this will be beneficial to the community in general.
The Nature article is an advertisement, that is clear. Probably should not be on Nature itself for what it is worth. But on the other side, we may give a little leeway to the people who did bring great innovations to the field.