Folding@Home - Approaching 3 Million

Folding@Home is close to a total of 3 million contributors. It will probably reach the milestone in ~12 hours.

Are you already donating your temporarily unneeded computing power to the advancement of humanity?

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Redpill me on it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >While you are going about your everyday activities, your computer will be working to help us find cures for diseases like cancer, ALS, Parkinson’s, Huntington’s, influenza and many others.
      >https://foldingathome.org/start-folding/
      You can donate your computing power to researchers from poorgay institute that cannot afford their own high performance computing.

      Also:
      >With heightened interest in the project as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic,[8] the system achieved a speed of approximately 1.22 exaflops by late March 2020 and reached 2.43 exaflops by April 12, 2020,[9] making it the world's first exaflop computing system.
      >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding_at_home

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >no achievements or breakthroughs tab

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          ???
          https://foldingathome.org/category/fah-achievements/

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Didn't help with anything Covid related because it's open source and big pharma can waste billions on renting compute for even better results. As a result no Covid related drugs have been developed with the help of the folding home data and if they were they're big pharma drugs that used the open data.

            Didn't help with breast cancer but just discovered that maybe some protein can do something.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10055475/

            >Help with designs of new drugs
            >improve drug discovery
            >test many possible drugs in parallel
            >for new potential drug targets

            Entire article yet not a single drug, procedure or accomplishment is named resulting from millions of nerds jacking up their power bills. It's just "discovery" and no actual real world results.

            Citizen-scientists, unite!

            Do show some graphs and papers with no real world impacts for almost 15 years.

            I did this shit on my PS3 when you could. I did nothing but waste electricity to get some number in a leader board.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            At least they tried. That's better than nothing.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No it's better I don't waste electricity on this.
            Let the universities and others that get state financing and other peoples money run their PCs overnight. This is my money and I'm not giving it away.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That is very egoistic of you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If anything Folding at home owes me money because after doing that I was sure bitcoin was a waste of time.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Are you moronic?
          https://foldingathome.org/category/fah-achievements/

          https://i.imgur.com/0qXsp0u.png

          Folding@Home is close to a total of 3 million contributors. It will probably reach the milestone in ~12 hours.

          Are you already donating your temporarily unneeded computing power to the advancement of humanity?

          I'll probably do this in the winter

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Here is more:
          https://foldingathome.org/papers-results/

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >offloading useless research to crowdsourced resources
        wow how incredibly useless.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You increase your electricity bill and shorten the lifespan of your hardware so that you can provide free research for big pharma to find "cures" to patent and sell for exorbitant prices.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      they tricked millions of people into turning their PC's into a massive botnet- enabling them to further protein synthesis research. Which, in turn, made possible permanent biologica harm in people with the likes of the C0vi d "cure".

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is there anywhere I can donate computing power to the regression of humanity?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why not buy stocks of video game companies?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Write a script to generate artificial story views on tmz's website
      Or willingly infect your computer with a botnet

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That's what this does. It helps create products, that are not vaccines, which help kill off all the smart people, and are sold as vaccines.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Why would da joos kill all the smart people and leave only behind moronic antivaxxers like you? Somehow that doesn't seem very logical. Not that I expect you to think logical ofc.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No more competition.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            But then they have a bunch of moronic antivaxxers around who hate them. If anything, doesn't it make more sense to kill off all the antivaxxers and keep the good goys, as you call them, around?

            >he thinks 80% of this research isn’t complete in reproducible BS
            oh to be young and naive

            That figure is based on a study for social sciences. Ironic, isn't it?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It includes medicine, unfortunately.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            But then they have a bunch of moronic antivaxxers around who hate them. If anything, doesn't it make more sense to kill off all the antivaxxers and keep the good goys, as you call them, around?
            [...]
            That figure is based on a study for social sciences. Ironic, isn't it?

            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-019-0079-z

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >A sense of crisis itself began with the widespread awareness of reproducibility failures among the public, when the Center for Open Science announced in 2015 that it could confirm just 39 of 100 published studies in psychology.
            The only figure I could find and psychology has long been known to be a meme science.
            But for medical science, they say the following
            >Digital medicine findings may have to be more robust because they will be subjected to more, and more intensive, scrutiny than other scientific findings have historically been—and they will be subjected to that scrutiny sooner.

            According to literally any researcher worth their salt
            [...]
            The paper cites sources.

            >According to literally any researcher worth their salt
            Which researchers?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a

            Here is their source suggesting this issue is plaguing all fields of study.

            > The best-known analyses, from psychology1 and cancer biology2, found rates of around 40% and 10%, respectively.
            You can stop playing stupid at any time now.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            see

            >Although 52% of those surveyed agree that there is a significant 'crisis' of reproducibility, less than 31% think that failure to reproduce published results means that the result is probably wrong, and most say that they still trust the published literature.
            >Data on how much of the scientific literature is reproducible are rare and generally bleak. The best-known analyses, from psychology1 and cancer biology2, found rates of around 40% and 10%, respectively.
            It's fricking nothing.

            10 fricking % not reproducable.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Incorrect. 10% reproducible, my ESL friend.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            http://go.nature.com/kbzs2b

            Here is one specifically for a cell biology journal.

            The replication crisis is pretty bad in health and pharmaceutical research.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It doesn't say that 70% of papers are not reproducable but that 70% of the people there have EVER encountered a paper they couldn't reproduce. And in half the cases they eventually ended up resolving their issues.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Lol confirmed illiterate. The study in the post you’re linking is showing a link between non reproducibility and custom models used during research.
            It shows that many of these research papers are not reproducible by design, which is a fricking issue.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Learn to read, antivaxxtard. It's been 3.5 years since the vaccine and all-cause mortality is still falling.
            >inb4 you post a study of some super rare form of cancer cases in Irish women between the age of 45-54 rising by 3% and then go on to ignore that total cancer deaths are down

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            this comment has nothing to do with my post. Are you having trouble, anon?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            According to who?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            According to literally any researcher worth their salt

            [...]
            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-019-0079-z

            The paper cites sources.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a

            Here is their source suggesting this issue is plaguing all fields of study.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Just leaving this here
            https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3576915.3623130

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Although 52% of those surveyed agree that there is a significant 'crisis' of reproducibility, less than 31% think that failure to reproduce published results means that the result is probably wrong, and most say that they still trust the published literature.
            >Data on how much of the scientific literature is reproducible are rare and generally bleak. The best-known analyses, from psychology1 and cancer biology2, found rates of around 40% and 10%, respectively.
            It's fricking nothing.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >10% reproducibility rate in cancer research is nothing!
            Nothing worth relying on, hence the concern over the reproducibility crisis.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >he thinks 80% of this research isn’t complete in reproducible BS
          oh to be young and naive

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >complete non reproducible BS
            fixed

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Just mine any crypto

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yay! To celebrate I will contribute one work unit.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm already doing it. Big Pharma has regrown my hairline so I'm sure it can also make me immortal.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    For me it is Seti@Home. Too bad it's not active anymore

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Hasn't SETI switched over to looking for technosignatures like dyson swarms because expecting aliens to be at the same tech level as humanity in the 20th century with radio signals is fricking moronic?

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Sorry, all my free resources go to AV1 encoding.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    if research was worth doing they'd hire cloud compute and have results in a week instead of getting autists to burn years of shitty PC time where every unit has to be run by 2-3 different people

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >you wasted your time with folding when you could have gotten into the buttcoin meme instead

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    every winter i use an old desktop running folding@home as an idle heater for my hamster

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Is he a good boy?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        extremely

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Really funny that the bulk of folding at home users are doing it to get drops of a completely worthless shitcoin.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >not joining the coolest team
      https://stats.foldingathome.org/team/162

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a

    This paper suggests that almost HALF of the studies that researchers attempt to replicate fail. Meaning that the initial study is not detailed enough to successfully replicate the results.

    HALF.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments.
      So 70% of scientists couldn't replicate at least a single study in their entire career (out of dozens to hundreds) so far and 50% couldn't replicate their own study at least once (out of dozens or hundreds).

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Incorrect. Again you prove a failure to be able to read the Nature article in question.

        Why are you purposely misconstruing what is represented in that article? It even has a nice graphic for morons like you to help you understand.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Then post said graphs so I can help you figure out how wrong you are.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They are in the link. Stop being lazy.

            > Survey respondent Michael Adams, a drug-development consultant, says that work showing severe flaws in an animal model of diabetes has been rejected six times, in part because it does not reveal a new drug target. By contrast, he says, work refuting the efficacy of a compound to treat Chagas disease was quickly accepted
            It’s clear for any intelligent adult that there exist pervasive motivations behind which papers are accepted and which aren’t.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Then post said graphs so I can help you figure out how wrong you are.

            Here in case you’re missing the point
            >drug-development consultant
            >drug-development consultant
            >drug-development consultant

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >They are in the link.
            I did post the quote directly from the study. It's you who keeps claiming shit.
            > Survey respondent Michael Adams, a drug-development consultant, says that work showing severe flaws in an animal model of diabetes has been rejected six times, in part because it does not reveal a new drug target. By contrast, he says, work refuting the efficacy of a compound to treat Chagas disease was quickly accepted
            Oh wow so some guy who doesn't get grants for his animal study means that science must be unreproducable. Troll logic at its best.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He was a survey respondent. One of many.
            >it’s you who keeps claiming shit
            I’m not the one doubting a peer reviewed publication in Nature, while denying that research reproducibility is a thing.

            The irony of your argument isn’t lost on me.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >He was a survey respondent. One of many.
            Okay and how does him not getting grants for his animal research somehow lead to science being le bad and wrong?
            >while denying that research reproducibility is a thing.
            It's an issue, but in the papers you cited it's only been mentioned that a big share of survey participants had issues with reproducing their own papers and others AT LEAST ONCE and not that 50-70% of papers are unreproducable and therefore must be faked.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Such a big issue in medicine that medical labs are the most likely to institute higher standards for publication
        > One-third of respondents said that their labs had taken concrete steps to improve reproducibility within the past five years. Rates ranged from a high of 41% in medicine to a low of 24% in physics and engineering. Free-text responses suggested that redoing the work or asking someone else within a lab to repeat the work is the most common practice. Also common are efforts to beef up the documentation and standardization of experimental methods.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Or, more likely, they impose higher standards upon themselves to improve reproducibility.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            In response to the reproducibility crisis that affects medicine worse than other sciences.
            >source?
            A peer reviewed article published in Nature magazine, a widely respected research publication.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You are a total fricking moron who doesn't know what he is talking about.
            >source?
            A peer reviewed article published in Nature magazine, a widely respected research publication.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Absolutely fricking SEETHING after getting BTFO so hard that your dumb ass is denying a fricking peer reviewed nature article while claiming there is no flaw in research publication.

            You’re a fricking moron LOL

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I directly quote actual figures and quotes from the studies you quoted while you quoted some literal who who is salty about not getting grants for his animal studies. If you weren't literally moronic I would be mad but I just can't.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    why should i do this when i can mine monero instead

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      *crickets*

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Sorry my 4090 is used to render standard windows11 wallpaper instead. Quite important task.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just 16 more contributors!!

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is the code for it open source? Because if not then enjoy mining crypto for free

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      F@H is a lot older than crypto.
      And yes, the new client is open source: https://github.com/FoldingAtHome/fah-client-bastet

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just 9 more contributors!! Counting down!11

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      5 more!

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I have temporarily unused computing power, but I never have any unused electric power, thus I cannot donate the former without paying out of pocket for the latter.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, the premise is dumb. If you have free power, mine crypto or something. It's not unused, people do it in teams for upcummies.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >never have any unused electric power,
      Lmao, get a PV system.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >invest thousands to donate your hardware and electricity to pharma companies

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        A what, Black person

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Photovoltaic system, either way it's still not free even if you exclude installation cost as it's usual (at least where I live) to sell excess energy back to the grid, although I only get about 1/3 cost of what they charge me for it...

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Are you already donating your temporarily unneeded computing power to the advancement of humanity?
    I don't know if I run on green energy

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *