Reminds me of the quote by Kent Beck (allegedly):
"Make it work. Make it right. Make it fast".
First throw something together that works, then refactor it to make it "right" (clean, readable etc). Finally optimize it if it's necessary.
Like the author of this article describes it "Write more bad code. [..] Get answers. Learn as much as you can about the problem you’re trying to solve [..] it’s much faster in the long term to write bad code then make it good, than to try to write good code in the first place" https://medium.com/swlh/coding-faster-make-it-work-then-make...
I wonder if you could get the same unexpected result when copying images of Western blots?
It's probably not the case here but it could be devastating for a researcher to be accused of fabricating data by using an affected copier/image editor/file format.
No. The xerox machine had a digital analysis phase with a feedback loop between the image being recorded and the output being printed.
A western blot is a direct measurement.
It's like asking whether the xerox example might explain why the splatter pattern is identical in sections of two putatively different Jackson Pollock paintings.
Maybe I didn't make myself clear, but the image in the article looks like it could have made both one and two passes through a Xerox machine before it ended up in the paper.
First throw something together that works, then refactor it to make it "right" (clean, readable etc). Finally optimize it if it's necessary.
Like the author of this article describes it "Write more bad code. [..] Get answers. Learn as much as you can about the problem you’re trying to solve [..] it’s much faster in the long term to write bad code then make it good, than to try to write good code in the first place" https://medium.com/swlh/coding-faster-make-it-work-then-make...