"""
We'll only start making real progress in curing these kinds of illnesses when we form a deep understanding of whatever is going on in that very large component that we already know is not purely genetic.
"""
You have zero clue regarding what you are talking about. Your comment is just meaningless combination of platitudes. Even if we find a target and develop a drug that treats 20% of the cases, it still counts as a real progress if not a revolution. Look at the other comment in this thread by Chris Patil.
As you say in your "But I'm no scientist or medical expert", yes that's the reason why you find an obviously flawed blogpost appealing. Since the post was written/designed to make you feel better about your pessimism/skepticism.
This trend of "Contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism" is a sophisticated version of click-baiting where bloggers/commenters displaying classic case of dunning kruger spread FUD about any new discovery/result.
Commenters on Reddit/HN quickly lap up these articles/comments since it resonates with their sense of technological pessimism, often disguised as skepticism. As a result its now fashionable to criticize every new discovery/progress and get guaranteed pageviews/upvotes. It helps if its in form of a scary slideshow or contains assertions or scenarios that are not under question.
As I said, I'm bored of emotion-driven debates about medical science, but it's an important topic that I care deeply about so I'll engage.
Whilst I have no medical qualifications, my skin in the game is that I've experienced debilitating depression, anxiety and an apparent auto-immune fatigue illness for at least 15 years (but with evidence of the early stages of these conditions tracing well back into childhood), and I've witnessed people close to me succumb to other mental illnesses including schizophrenia and bipolar.
I desperately want all these illnesses cured.
In the absence of the medical profession's capacity to identify and treat my conditions, I've had to become "my own physician" and have spent much of the past 10 years researching the topic very deeply.
As a result, I've been able to find a system that seems to be succeeding in reversing these conditions. I've also been doing whatever I can (within a very limited budget and access to diagnostic facilities) to gather data that might demonstrate physiological changes - e.g, inflammation markers, antibodies for known chronic infections linked to auto-immunity, hormone levels.
My research and self-experimentation has given weight to the notion (which I derived from a number of medical researchers who have solid credentials but whom I suspect you'd find contemptible) that having a genetic predisposition for a chronic illness (which I seem to, given that other members of my family exhibit similar symptoms) doesn't necessarily condemn you to experiencing that illness, and that you can reverse or avoid the condition by altering your environment or your perception of your environment (I.e., epigenetics).
This is why I find it relevant to point out the data (<= 50% identical twin concordance) that indicates that the genetic predisposition is just that - a predisposition, not a sentence.
So when you say it would be major progress if this discovery led to the development of a drug that helped 20% of sufferers, I say sure, but wouldn't it be more revolutionary if we could understand precicely why these genetic predispositions express in some people and not in others, then use this knowledge to develop techniques to resolve or prevent the illness in 100% of people?
I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts on that.
For what it's worth I think I'm the bigger optimist here. I think we are in a position to be able to cure many of society's most burdensome illnesses by understanding and addressing their environmental triggers. I believe that because I'm doing it myself with good success, and I believe the same kind of technique would be beneficial for other auto-immune illnesses, of which - according to this very research - schizophrenia is one.
Yes it needs a lot more validation and research, which is what I'm hoping to see, and am indeed doing what little I can to facilitate.
As a side note, your comment is quite personally abusive, which is against the HN guidelines. The guidelines seek to promote civility and substantiveness above all else.
This is a topic that is personally important to me and important to the world and is one I'm pleased to discuss at any opportunity with others who are knowledgeable and well-intentioned about advancing their understanding of it, and that can only happen when people are civil and respectful.
Since I lost password to above account, I am using a new account to reply.
First if you think my reply which merely pointed out that your remarks were meaningless or that you were unqualified (as you yourself pointed out) was "Abusive". You ought to re-read the article which is an open political attack, along with a photoshopped image mocking a researcher.
"""
So when you say it would be major progress if this discovery led to the development of a drug that helped 20% of sufferers, I say sure, but wouldn't it be more revolutionary if we could understand precisely why these genetic predispositions express in some people and not in others, then use this knowledge to develop techniques to resolve or prevent the illness in 100% of people?
"""
The issue with such statements/questions E.g. "But wouldn't it be great if we could prevent cancer instead of curing it?" or "But it will be more awesome if achieve true AI instead of just some game benchmark" or "Wouldn't it be great if achieved faster than light space travel". Is that at best they are meaningless from point of view of scientific inquiry. They offer no benchmark, or even a reasonable plan of action. At worst they are often used to mislead from real scientific achievements.
Such statements are feel good equivalent of "World Peace!" or "End Hunger!" or "All you need is loveee!". While most users on this site would be able to quickly figure out the futility of "World Peace now" they don't recognize it when the similar statements are formulated in medical / healthcare domain.
To conclude this, what the researchers found regarding schizophrenia is awesome, they published in Nature, and as other comment points out most of the scientific community thinks its amazing if not revolutionary. There is no reason to dismiss it by quoting a politically motivated attack by some blogger and citing impossible to achieve goals without any feasible roadmap.
- The main reason I engage in discussions like this is to test how much of a "clue" I in fact have about these topics, and identify what gaps in my knowledge need to be filled. This one has been as valuable as any in that regard. (FWIW I found Chris Patil's response to the post most insightful, as well as researcher Kevin Mitchell's followup comment.)
- It's untrue, your implication that pointing out the importance of the non-genetic component in the development of illness is a pointless diversion. There are compelling hypotheses around this (some going back decades) and promising studies in this area [1]. Yet they are often marginalised or contemptuously dismissed by the segment of the scientific community that remains fixated on genetic determinism (e.g., Richard Dawkins' recent public attacks on epigenetics - based not on any evidence but on his own ideology and ego). The point is that there could be much more progress in resolving these illnesses if researchers/institutions were less focused on fanning their own egos with over-the-top claims, less constrained by the existing commercial model for medicine (we can use this to make new drugs!), and more open to other researchers' insights and discoveries that could help to complete the whole picture.
- It's no big deal to me as I can handle it, but you were abusive in a way that is outside HN guidelines. Your perception of the tone of the original article doesn't change that. When I couched my comments with "I'm no expert", as a point of modesty and a disclaimer, that didn't warrant such a confrontational assertion as "You have zero clue regarding what you are talking about", followed up with a string of accusations that seem to be grounded in your own grievances with other people who engage in this topic, but were not evident in anything I wrote myself. Like I said, I can handle it, but if you make a habit of that style of commenting, you may attract the attention of the mods and other participants who value HN as a place where people treat each other with politeness and respect (HN is very deliberately not Reddit).
- HN has a password recovery feature FYI. And you can email the mods at hn@ycombinator.com for help with this or any other aspect of the site.
Thanks for the discussion.
[1] Prominent researchers and advocates in this area include Harvard medical professor Rudy Tanzi, former Stanford researcher Bruce Lipton, and general physician Lissa Rankin. I comfortably concede they all suffer the propensity to align themselves too much with the new age woo industry - though that is partly due to their banishment from the scientific mainstream for having non-conformist ideas that question genetic determinism (Lipton in particular). FYI My personal quest is to gather hard data as I apply their hypotheses in an attempt to completely cure my own illnesses, then work with professional researchers to investigate these hypotheses more widely.
I wish that NYTimes would differentiate between Individual indian States. Individual states have significant autonomy and depending upon the government elected can range from moderate to leftist. Largest indian states have populations similar to large nations such as Mexico ~ Maharashtra. And have huge variation in metrics like literacy rates ranging from 93% (Kerala ~ Canada ) to 63% (Bihar ~ Philippines).
~ is used to show country with similar population.
Who cares? The government is hardly the solution here. This kind of problem usually requires major grassroots efforts, usually lead by insiders within all these sub-cultures. The government at best could band-aid the solution, at worst, it'll antagonize them.
> I know they are openly anti-Muslim in some times and places.
What makes 'anti-Muslim' inherently right-wing? Certainly in the US and Western Europe, there's no shortage of Islamophobia to go around in the left-wing parties.
But Internationalism[1] is a left wing doctrine, and while it can be quite anti-religious it promotes unity across ethnic and religious divides.
It's probably fair to say most left-wing anti-Muslim movements are anti-religion in general. I'm sure the exceptions to this will be pointed out to me soon (The Zionist movement is probably worth noting here. Interestingly the early (pre-WW2) socialist Zionist weren't particularly religious and generally had quite good relations with Muslims).
Left-wing nationalism[2] is worth examining in this context. For example the Indian National Congress is generally seen as a left-wing nationalist party, and primarily endorses social liberalism – seeking to balance individual liberty and social justice, and secularism – asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings.[3]
Hmmm ... could you give examples? In my experience nationalism, xenophobia, and religious prejudice overwhelmingly are only on the agendas of right wing parties.
"right wing" in the US has a very different meaning than the rest of the world. At its core, left/right is a statement about social (in)equality and the government's involvement in the same. It often is tied with conservative or nonsecular politics (inextricably so in the US, less so elsewhere), but that does not define it.
India's government is pretty heavily involved in trying to break down social inequality. Whilst people disagree about the intentions and/or impact; we have plenty of policies trying to break down this inequality. We're also more on the socialist side of the capitalist-socialist spectrum (the constitution, for example, explicitly calls India socialist).
As far as cross-party agreement on government "interference" in equality is concerned, India has it much more than the US AFAICT. Whether this makes the main parties left-wing; I don't know, but it's not clearly right-wing. Then again, Wikipedia seems to call the BJP right-wing.
.... terminology sucks.
(IMO this dichotomy isn't particularly useful in India.)
> India's government is pretty heavily involved in trying to break down social inequality.
Is the current BJP administration trying to do that, or is that the long-term trend? Also, is the BJP trying to help the Muslim minority or only Hindus?
As far as the Muslim minority is concerned, there haven't been any changes in law that I am aware of regarding them (besides, India has a bunch of laws that make it hard to remove laws pertaining to minorities without involvement from minority leaders. Or something like that).
There probably have been internal policy changes. I don't know. One would expect them to focus on fixing "Hindu rights" issues over Muslim rights, sadly. I'm not sure what they have done so far in that direction (and there's a lot of debate over this right now; whether or not the atmosphere in the country has changed due to them). I'd rather not get into that debate here.
Obviously googling will quickly show each party's stance on any issue of interest. There are a finite number of significant parties in the EU and they are not secretive about what they stand for.
And it's hard to imagine anyone being unaware of a US politician's alignment or the difference between say Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump on say the issue of xenophobia. But perhaps chimeracoder is such a person.
I do not know about India but chimeracoder only mentioned Europe and the US
In fact, the US definition of left vs right is nearly identical to the European understanding of that difference. What differences there are would stem from the prominence of far right ideas in the US: In Europe, parties form all sides generally agree on issues such as firearm regulation, climate change, the wisdom of the metric system and the right to medical care
Right-wing parties often sell themselves as bringing more order. Famously, Benito Mussolini, who openly embraced fascism in Italy, promised to make the trains run on time.
(It's order for the groups the fascists represent but state-imposed disorder for the minorities and others that are oppressed.)
Because this is Hacker News and we can have opinions with more nuance and respect people with intellectual differences to improve our understanding of the world...
we should also note that, at its best, there can be wonderful things that you get from certain principles of order and uniform civil codes and right-wing thought, such as the Rule Of Law (Not Of Men) and the idea of Equality Under The Law. but we shouldn't.
These principles, if combined, mean that no one is unfairly oppressed by the legal system and the government (that most powerful of all potential oppressors) and that no one is favored with special rights and privileges and handouts. This is not the sole essence of freedom in and of itself in isolation, but it's an important component of the foundation of freedom, and a powerful check on dictators like Mussolini. Our strong tradition around these principles here in the Anglosphere is why our tyranny rate has been so incredibly low for centuries.
If you are attributing to me any disrespect toward conservative members of HN, please point out the words. We need to be able to say things that are critical of ideas without people jumping to the conclusion that it's personal disrespect.
I absolutely agree that order and many other ideas that are more associated with the right, such as the free market, are extremely valuable. I don't happen to agree that everything you named is actually right-wing, including the rule of law, equality under the law, or resistance to tyranny. As a simple example, conservatives in the US supported slavery and segregation for centuries, and still work to limit voting and other rights of minorities.
Nah, I'm not accusing or anything. though I should have stricken the "because we shouldn't." from the previous post but didn't because I was on the edge of falling asleep and editing nonlinearly and missed it. But if you can compare a wing to Mussolini I can surely point to the virtues, no? :)
> conservatives in the US supported slavery and segregation for centuries
while progressives in the US only supported eugenics and forced sterilization of minorities - thank God that's behind us, amirite?
> and still work to limit voting
You mean that they work to limit voter fraud? ;)
> I don't happen to agree that everything you named is actually right-wing, including the rule of law
Look at the current American right wing's complaints about President Obama and the rule of law. They've been complaining since his administration railroaded the GM bankruptcy settlement through the courts and gave big-money to the unions (reliable Democratic campaign contributors) instead of the senior bondholders who had paid extra for the legal right to first dibs. Later, it became a question of executive agencies being Excessively Creative with the way they wanted to enforce things: The use of the Clean Air Act, originally passed to clean up acute and toxic pollution like acid rain, in order to fight global warming, a gas which has always composed a substantial portion of the atmosphere. Various maneuvers regarding Obamacare, like whether an exchange established by the federal government should count as "established by a state". Immigration laws.
Is this noise at least as much situational whining as it is right-wing principle? Hell yes it is. Normal in most parties, obviously - one of the reasons they need each other to be healthy, and keep each other honest.
I have no idea whether the right wing of India (which sparked this thread) does the same. I won't dismiss the idea out of hand just because they're being dinged as 'right-wing' and they're pursuing uniform civil codes (though the allegations of being hostile to religious freedom will in fact bother me).
Khemer Rouge, Gulags in USSR, The Great Leap and Cultural Revolution in China etc. Sorry , Commies/Left too sold themselves to people as crusaders of justice and there by order. The trains on time, thing was also promised in India esp. in a era that is remembered in INDIA as "EMERGENCY", and that violation of civil rights was brought to you by....(drum roll) Center-Left Indian National Congress.
> Khemer Rouge, Gulags in USSR, The Great Leap and Cultural Revolution in China
I agree these groups are radical left (Communist) and did horrible, horrible things. However, I don't think they are examples in this case:
1) I was talking only about some specific problems as characteristic of the right wing: nationalism, xenophobia, and religious prejudice. The Communists were anti-nationalist; a core tenant was internationalism, effectively erasing national borders for their movement (their anthem was The Internationale[1]), incompatible with xenophobia. Secularism, or an outright rejection of religion, was another principle, IIRC.
2) I was referring more to current parties in democracies (though I did bring up the Italian fascists as an example).
So I agree, the radical left can be just as dangerous as the radical right - in fact I agree with many who think the political spectrum is more of a O shape, with the extremes closer to each other than to the center. But in my comment above I was speaking about the characteristics of the current mainstream-to-far (not extreme) right.
> The Communists were anti-nationalist; a core tenant was internationalism, effectively erasing national borders for their movement (their anthem was The Internationale[1]), incompatible with xenophobia.
In theory, sure.
In practice, have you no idea about ethnical relations and discrimination in USSR?
I agree that theory and practice are much different. However, Russia long has had those problems (and still does); I don't see it correlated with the Communists. Also, the USSR supported communists all over the world, from China to Angola to Nicaragua.
Large Scale Medical Data Mining research, similar to OpenAI.
Specifically Computational Healthcare a Search and Aggregation Engine for Medical Records & Claims.
We believe that this is a classic Software eating the world situation and the time is perfect for it.
We have access to almost 130 Million de-identified medical records from approximately 36 Million patients (~10% of US population) this includes all Inpatient, ED, Ambulatory Surgery records between 2006-2011 from California. To put simply if you lived in California and went to a hospital there is 95.9% chance that we have your data. This data has been available for quite some time but its use has been hindered due to lack of good software. The data has led to significant research, e.g. my collaborator (not me) published a paper showing risk of strokes following pregnancies in New England Journal of Medicine last year.
At Cornell Tech & Weill Cornell Medical College, we have developed a Search and Aggregation engine that will revolutionize how researchers and physicians use this data. Imagine your mother with Leukemia in Remission just got admitted for Pneumonia. With our software, the Physician will be quickly able to asses likelihood of this occurring and rule out any confounding adverse events. Or consider that there is a rare combination of diagnosis e.g. Graves Disease and Clotting disorder that is indicative of a unique genetic mutation likely to offer novel insight into disease process. With our software questions like these can be answered within second, Today & Right now.
The Data, Legal structure and fully functional prototype are available right now. We were counting on support from AHRQ, but sadly the agency has run into trouble due significant budget cuts.
I agree this sounds a great candidate for YC. I hope you are looking to take this global. The cost/benefit in health outcomes would be enormous.
Most importantly, I think a system like this must be non-profit and freely available for global usage. Privacy issues can be solved with careful ETL process. Ideally a single global platform...although political realities may force multiple instances.
Regardless of implementation details - this seems to fit the YC Research charter in terms of medium/long horizons and big 'change the world' payoffs.
Thanks, Alex.
I agree that such system should be global / non-profit & free. We have also studied privacy issues surround such system in detail. A large motivation is that regardless of the privacy preserving technique employed the system is a huge improvement over current practices which involve sending out entire data to each individual research group.
Today a physician suspecting novel association e.g. Adverse event particular to a co-morbid condition. Usually has to wait multiple weeks for Ordering data from US government, Developing SAS scripts and finally conducting the study. Wrth our stack the underlying question can be answered within seconds. With enough legal permissions we can modify it to deliver only the required data, for further statistical analysis. Sure such a system might not be completely public, but there is nothing that prevents us from giving access to say all board certified physicians globally.
>"We have access to almost 130 Million de-identified medical records from approximately 36 Million patients (~10% of US population) this includes all Inpatient, ED, Ambulatory Surgery records between 2006-2011 from California"
Not to put a spanner in your works, as I agree your goal is worthy of a lot of effort from the general public. But, how exactly did you get access to this data, and is it legal?
Additionally, from my point of view, even if my medical "records" were de-personalized and made anonymous, I still want to have full control over who/what get's access to it.
Hi zo1, its perfectly legal, in fact the entire program (HCUP) is carried out by the US federal government agency itself (Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research) for last two decades. We have only made the system available internally to a select group of doctors who sign agreements with the US government. Misuse of this data is punishable by a felony. I have personally met the director of the agency and they know about it, and have seen a demo.
Regarding your point second point, the patient ownership of the data is not very well understood legally. Since most of it is transactional in nature. E.g. consider the Sorrell vs IMS Health judgement by the Supreme Court few years ago.
Following paper in Harvard Journal of Law and Technology gives a good overview of the issues.
By suitably modifying queries to make them "differentially private" (technical term), one can allow queries on the data set which have an arbitrarily low probability of releasing personal information.
Building a database which can be locked down to differentially private primitives (differential privacy composes) would allow researchers to partially unlock this data while ensuring that your medical records are private.
As long as we choose epsilon (the privacy parameter) sufficiently low there is then no ethical need to ask a bunch of fickle data points for permission.
We do something similar. We precompute/aggregate exhaustively by following certain aggregation strategies. The aggregated statistics are further processed to ensure privacy.
Differential Privacy cannot be directly applied since the underlying assumptions are too strong. An important consideration is that the error/noise added is independent of the answer. Which means that the system becomes unusable for almost all queries other than general trends.
By restricting the query structure, we no longer need large amount of noise. Privacy of hospitals and providers is also very important and cannot be encoded in the Differential Privacy framework. Again this is still a hotly debated issue. But even the most vocal supporters of differential privacy agree that it might not be directly applicable for healthcare domain.
Following are some of the paper that discuss this:
So I'm not really an expert on privacy (my main interest in differential privacy is avoiding overfitting), but isn't differential privacy by definition necessary on an individual level?
I.e., if you don't have differential privacy, then by definition there is a de-anonymizing query and you can get PII out.
Privacy of hospitals/providers is a separate issue, and yeah, it's pretty clear that differential privacy doesn't work for them. Thanks for the links, I'll check them out.
Edit: after reading your second article, it's deeply misleading. They assume that to compute a mean, one must compute 2 queries - sum(x) and len(x), each of which must be differentially private. But that's totally wrong! You can in fact run the query mean(x) + noise, and this last query itself can be differentially private.
The article also notes that queries on small data sets require more noise to be differentially private, which is totally true, and obvious.
This also, however, ignores the fact that most statistical inference drawn from such queries will be nonsense even without differential privacy. See, e.g., this article for an example of why: https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2015/ab_testing_segments_...
This is a very bad critique of differential privacy.
The second article is undoubtedly flawed in several aspects, that's why I put clifton et. al. first, which I think lays out the case for studying non-formal models.
Regarding
"""This also, however, ignores the fact that most statistical inference drawn from such queries will be nonsense even without differential privacy."""
This is not true. Just because the number returned by a count query on a very large dataset (~100 Million visits) is very small (~100) does not automatically means that the result is nonsense or can be disregarded as error. Doing that requires understanding the query and a hypothesis with good prior on expected outcome. E.g. intersection of two rare diseases. Where you would otherwise expect it to be very small, but there might be an underlying genetic reason / physiological process which might lead to higher prevalence. Or a group of hospitals using tainted batch of medicines leading to unexplained increased mortality.
Consider this paper where there were only 1000 cases (only 248 strokes) per 1.6 Million patients (even larger if you consider the entire 20 Million patients present in the data). However in spite of the small number the authors showed that the increase was statistically significant by comparing with same period a year later.
Again I am not denying what you wrote in the blogpost. But in medicine and the analyses for which such databases are used, the investigators have access to very good priors.
Out of all the proposals I'm reading, this seems to be one of the most realistic, for one reason only: this is something where a little money and a lot of computer science knowledge can go a very long way.
This data is available through Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality HCUP project. Getting access to it is straightforward if you are affiliated with a teaching hospital and/or a university. There might even be some researcher at your institute who already has access to it. Getting access to it as a private entity (E.g. a startup) is more challenging and often requires a stricter review.
According to their KDD paper, they showed modified / trained alexnet performing as good as VGG with significantly less computation time. Not sure what they actually use in practice.
I beleive that most of the strength of VGG (and Inception) vs Alexnet is that it was able to learn the feature relationships better, not because it learnt better features.
VGG is pretty computational intensive, which is why Google concentrated so much on the computational complexity for GoogLeNet/Inception/ReCeption
So if you are just using the features directly then it would make sense to use whatever was the quickest to compute.
Yes, being able to compute quickly is especially important in reducing query latency, much more so than during indexing. What stood out for me in the paper was that out of box performance of VGG (trained on imagenet alone) was as good as fine tuned alexnet.
I am interested in assessing if there are any tricks that could be used when querying from a mobile device. In such cases feature extraction can be performed on the device itself, with only feature vectors sent over the network. In case of pinterest, another special case is that a lot queries are performed on images already present in the system. The user simply readjusts the bounding box to highlight the object of interest. In this case they can simply pre-compute 4~20 crops per image. Online feature computation is much more expensive / complicated than offline.
TensorFlow runs on Android, right? And AlexNet runs on an RaspberryPi, so it should be fine on a phone.
But it would be interesting to know if that is better. I'd imagine most phones have some kind of hardware support for resizing images, so it might be better to take advantage of that and then do feature extraction on a server?
Inspired by the Pinterest paper at KDD on implementing Visual Search, I have created this barebones but functional implementation of a Visual Search server using ~450,000 Female Fashion images crawled from an image aggregation website. The code uses Pool 3 layer features extracted from the Google's latest Inception model using Tensor Flow. The extracted vectors are then indexed using an Approximate Nearest Neighbor implementation from Nearpy. The AMI provided contains both images and pre-computed vectors.
In future I plan to add more images ~2 Million in the same domain. Test various combination of nearest neighbor indexes and multiple vectors per images using some form of a multibox style detector. I will also add a script to launch spot GPU instances via Cloudformation to economically index images using S3 and SQS. I am building a companion iOS swift app however, since Tensor Flow hasn't been ported to iOS yet, its still in development.
You have zero clue regarding what you are talking about. Your comment is just meaningless combination of platitudes. Even if we find a target and develop a drug that treats 20% of the cases, it still counts as a real progress if not a revolution. Look at the other comment in this thread by Chris Patil.
As you say in your "But I'm no scientist or medical expert", yes that's the reason why you find an obviously flawed blogpost appealing. Since the post was written/designed to make you feel better about your pessimism/skepticism.
This trend of "Contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism" is a sophisticated version of click-baiting where bloggers/commenters displaying classic case of dunning kruger spread FUD about any new discovery/result.
Commenters on Reddit/HN quickly lap up these articles/comments since it resonates with their sense of technological pessimism, often disguised as skepticism. As a result its now fashionable to criticize every new discovery/progress and get guaranteed pageviews/upvotes. It helps if its in form of a scary slideshow or contains assertions or scenarios that are not under question.