If you like Subtree of Life, you're going to love 'Onezoom' (https://www.onezoom.org/) which is a very attractive 'Google Maps of life' sort of site, and TimeTree (http://www.timetree.org/) which is similar but the visualisation is much more traditional (not fractals) in comparison with the first.
This is a risky thing to do when the patient's name is attached to it. Insurance companies, salesmen, etc., could do quite a lot with such information.
I whole-heartedly support the general idea, and making a centralised database of things like this would be great. Such a database would probably make it easier to anonymise the data as well.
Even without the patient's name attached it is easy to identify people because of the necessary metadata in the record. If you expect to get useful information about, for instance lung disease the record will have to contain information about exposure to likely causes, age, occupation, region of the country (possibly town), sex. It will also contain marital status, whether one has children, drinking and smoking habits, weight, ethnicity.
This is pretty close to unique, just like a browser finger print.
Actually, if you read that, they aren't government mandated methods (in the technical sense) there's an option of either using a government-specified safe harbor method or getting an "expert determination" that the data is deidentified.
I should have said "there is a government mandated method, but that's not the only way" It's more of a starting point than anything else. Also if you get HIPAA audited you either have to follow the government way (easiest for broke startups) or go the expert way but that is a bit more costly to prove out.
Very picky, but beware constantly using "set.seed" throughout your R scripts. Always using the same random number is not necessarily helpful for stats, and makes the R code look a lot trickier than it need be
I can't comment on much of this article, but it doesn't apply to the UK (as is implied), where essentially every student has full funding for their 3-4 years. Sometimes people hang around for an extra six months, but it's nothing like the US system.
I'm a post-doc at a university. I asked around at conferences, and emailed people whose work I liked. I'd be surprised if the process is very HPC-specific; you'd be trying to make scientific job-hunting more efficient. But please do that if you can :D
Points 2 and 3 make no reference to previous years' data, so aren't really talking about trends. Point 1 ignores the (trend that they state) that there are more post-doc positions.
Post-docs are safer jobs, because you know what will happen at the end of them (you get kicked out and find another job). Fewer people going straight into tenure-track means fewer people spending years at an institution, not getting a job (because they lost the race) and starting elsewhere. Sounds very healthy to me!
