[dvdt]

"When you’re fundraising, it’s AI When you’re hiring, it’s ML When you’re implementing, it’s linear regression"

The core of our machine learning is Ax=b :grins:

More seriously, the main reason why traditional sanger sequencing can't be used for COVID-19 testing is because it would be unclear whether a lack of signal is truly due to lack of virus, or if it is just because the assay failed (happens all the time!)

What we've done is introduce a reference sequencing signal that is biochemically very similar to viral RNA, but produces a distinct vector of electrical signals that is different from the signals emitted by viral RNA. Since we know what both the reference and viral signals look like, we can perform linear regression analysis to fit the linear combination of viral and reference signals that best match our data.

[twic]

> Since we know what both the reference and viral signals look like, we can perform linear regression analysis to fit the linear combination of viral and reference signals that best match our data.

Does this mean you assume a linear relationship between the quantity of viral RNA and the strength of the signal?

I know that when back i used to draw calibration curves from my positive controls, there was usually a sublinear relationship, across all sorts of different assays, at least at the upper end.

[dang]

For HN it's better to drop the fundraising language and use the implementing language, so I've s/machine learning/linear regression/'d your text above.

[raphlinus]

~~Please change it back. I appreciate ~dvdt's humorous yet candid explanation that they're using the simplest of machine learning techniques, but unless they explicitly say that it is indeed simple linear regression, I think it risks inaccuracy to describe it so specifically.~~

ETA: never mind, ~dvdt signed off on the change. Appreciate the collaboration!

[freepor]

Wait, are you saying that you actually edited the text of someone's comment?

[dang]

I do that occasionally when coaching YC startups with their HN launches (https://news.ycombinator.com/launches), which this is a variant of.

[freepor]

So, you have explicit permission to do this ahead of time, from the user?

[dang]

I don't make them sign a contract or anything. It's part of the coaching that we do with YC founders on HN (example here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22808556). Most of that is at https://news.ycombinator.com/launches. We act as the editors of those posts and work closely with the founders for quite a while beforehand. Today was different, but it's a similar relationship.

I wouldn't make a major edit without letting them know. In the present case, I just let the whole community know, because the edit was a substantial one. Had it been a trivial one, I wouldn't have bothered. The priority is interesting discussion, not punctilious bookkeeping, and you can't necessarily have both.

In the flurry of these threads, the founders are focused on responding to substantive questions. That's what they should be doing: satisfying community curiosity in their area of expertise. It's my job, not theirs, to prevent the discussion from getting derailed by things like the unfortuitous use of a buzzword which they have no clue the community has been tired of hearing for years already.

If the users weren't YC founders that we have an explicit coaching relationship with, I'd always consult with them before offering help. That would happen by email. By the way, if anyone wants this sort of coaching, we're happy to help as much as we can via [e-mail]. I give this sort of advice to startup founders, project creators, and article authors all the time, and everyone is welcome to it. Just don't worry if you don't hear back right away. The inbox has gotten to the point where it piles up regularly.

[mrkurt]

dang has built up a ton of trust from yc founders, and hopefully from HN commenters. We love when he improves our HN posts.

[freepor]

I would not love it if he improved my post, so I am glad to have the clarification that this is only done to YC-affiliated commenters and with at a minimum some kind of implicit buy-in from them.

[sjg007]

Wow...

[tomrod]

Seems reasonable, as dang explained the impact and the rationale.

Thanks Dang!

[dvdt]

Thanks!