I had the same thought, but then I realized that everyone on my team actually _does_ have experience with JavaScript async, so I just rolled with it. Not sure what that's about
I'm not familiar with Margaret Oakley Dayhoff, but I am aware that Rosalind Franklin [1] was extremely important for our understanding of DNA, comparable to Watson/Crick, with whom she co-discovered the structure of DNA. So it seems "Rosalind" is at least very appropriate as a name for a genomics tool such as this.
Not to say the other names mentioned aren't also deserving of similar honors
Rosalind Franklin was the team lead of the research team that photographed DNA.
The actual team member that took the key photo[0] was Raymond Gosling.
That team didn't interpret the double helix structure of DNA that the photograph had captured - that was Watson and Crick working it out from the photograph.
It's not quite that clear-cut. Franklin was pretty clear on the helical structure in both research notes and papers, but she didn't quite nail the overall structure (2 strands with opposing winding, complementing bases).
Fundamentally, she suffered the curse of the experimental scientist - waiting for actual data before being willing to build a model. Watson & Crick postulated ahead based on partial data.
> Franklin was pretty clear on the helical structure
the type of diffraction her lab was doing only makes sense on helical structures. it being helical was already kind of? established -- linus pauling was contemporaneously working on some sort of alpha-helix inspired single helix model.
watson and crick immediately recognized the position of the diffraction spots fit the distances suggested by their chemical modeling of a, t, c, g, which franklin was not able to do since she hadn't made a structural prediction.
> postulated ahead based on partial data
not quite. if you know that a t c and g are the raw chemicals made, you can make a (possibly even literal) model and say, "this ball and stick model predicts diffractions here".
this is arguably better science than waiting for data and fitting a model to the data, falsifiability and all that.
> So it seems "Rosalind" is at least very appropriate as a name for a genomics tool such as this.
Indeed. The only argument against it might be that Rosalind is already a pretty well-known website for doing bioinformatics exercises and have them automatically graded:
Could really use a post-mortem to set the story straight. The apparently-hallucinated support response copied-pasted by the submitter showing up in the github issue thread is very misleading without scrutiny
Really great book (and series). Though it's not "hard sci-fi" by any means, the technology feels real enough to keep my brain from focusing on the holes and enjoy the fun philosophical and ethical problems that Scalzi comes up with
IIRC, it started out as a reimagining of Space Cadet by Heinlein but instead of the young it was with the old.
After the first book, he then goes to explore all the questions that it brought up. The question of identity (to me) seems like the most reoccurring question.
Btw, there's a new book in the series. The Shattering Peace was released in September.
The other side to the localizers is the communication / mesh networking, and the extremely effective security partitioning. Even Anne couldn't crack them! It's certainly a lot to package in such a small form
reply