A step in the right direction. But it’s not like reviewers/authors take those journal submission portal acknowledgements boxes very seriously anyways…

- Have you heard of Gaussian process?
- it rings a bell

I guess that is similar to ggrastr? I like ggrastr because you can rasterize a layer of choice

Sauron called, he’s pissed that people are stealing his business model

I love the "Preferred sandwich making parent", definitely a thing with my 5yo.

I am disappointed there’s no analysis plan including the sandwich estimator 🥪

That’s worries me the most, especially given the propensity of the bots to satisfy the user. If you prompt with an expected outcome, it might bend backwards to get you that outcome.

There’s the nebula package: cran.r-project.org/web/packages...

Annotate(geom = "tile", x = inf, y = inf)

I’ve seen "expansion scores" that are just the log(#cells) for a given clone. But it sounds way more elaborate to say expansion score!

Wasn’t cell reports meant to be that?

Sorry I cannot join the faculty meeting today, I need to urgently fill out the war outbreak report form. Yet another case of scientists swamped by bureaucracy 😆