|
Hello Edward - successfully joined!
Will check my records for the e-mail addresses of other S16264s. ?Thank you for setting this up.
Nigel
|
Hi Nigel -
Hope your summer is going well.? We're still all by our lonesome in this group.
Edward
|
?Hi Edward - all good here. ?Apologies for not sorting our S16264 distribution list. ?I have been busy with other interests / activities. ?It is now several years since I had any new Y-DNA matches and I confess I have lost much of my motivation for keeping the group going. ?Still I agree we should not let links lapse as we might all learn more from future matches. ?Will try harder! ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 30 Jun 2022, at 15:58, Edward Hammond <manager@...> wrote:
?Hi Nigel -
Hope your summer is going well.? We're still all by our lonesome in this group.
Edward
|
Completely agree that there's not much new to discuss.? My intent
was to simply have a point of contact should anything interesting
arise.? Since you were frequently the emcee, I thought you might
have the best list and judgment as to who to place here.? If you
simply pass along the list of names and e-mail addresses you think
are appropriate, I can send an invitation to join to those
people.? If you think its not worth that effort, fair enough, it's
certainly true that we haven't had any news of note for some time.
I've turned into a very low power - milliwatts - high frequency
radio nut in the absence of anything genetic to do!? That and
journeyman forester, trying (often in vain) to contain the
unbelievably aggressive invasive species trying to consume the
little shred of forest I own.
Edward
On 6/30/22 18:29, Nigel B via groups.io
wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
?
Hi Edward - all good here. ?Apologies for not sorting our S16264
distribution list. ?I have been busy with other interests /
activities. ?It is now several years since I had any new Y-DNA
matches and I confess I have lost much of my motivation for
keeping the group going. ?Still I agree we should not let links
lapse as we might all learn more from future matches. ?Will try
harder! ?
Nigel
?Hi Nigel -
Hope your summer is going well.? We're still all by our
lonesome in this group.
Edward
|
On a slightly different note, have you noticed how AI / machine
learning seems to be producing some pretty interesting results at
ancestry.com?? I'm not crazy about yet another pay site, but I've
been amazed by its ability to (seemingly ... I haven't fully
proofed very many) accurately match rather distant autosomal
hits.? The sort of people that you scroll by in the autosomal
results at FTDNA and think "that one just isn't worth pursuing".
EH
On 6/30/22 19:11, Edward Hammond wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Completely agree that there's not much new to discuss.? My
intent was to simply have a point of contact should anything
interesting arise.? Since you were frequently the emcee, I
thought you might have the best list and judgment as to who to
place here.? If you simply pass along the list of names and
e-mail addresses you think are appropriate, I can send an
invitation to join to those people.? If you think its not worth
that effort, fair enough, it's certainly true that we haven't
had any news of note for some time.
I've turned into a very low power - milliwatts - high frequency
radio nut in the absence of anything genetic to do!? That and
journeyman forester, trying (often in vain) to contain the
unbelievably aggressive invasive species trying to consume the
little shred of forest I own.
Edward
On 6/30/22 18:29, Nigel B via
groups.io wrote:
?
Hi Edward - all good here. ?Apologies for not sorting our
S16264 distribution list. ?I have been busy with other
interests / activities. ?It is now several years since I had
any new Y-DNA matches and I confess I have lost much of my
motivation for keeping the group going. ?Still I agree we
should not let links lapse as we might all learn more from
future matches. ?Will try harder! ?
Nigel
?Hi Nigel -
Hope your summer is going well.? We're still all by our
lonesome in this group.
Edward
|
There's my best Hammond example of a nice machine learning
match.?
I would never have been able to link Sandy Mocilan to myself on
the basis of a tiny genetic match (10cm) with anything less than
her (him?) having a well-developed genealogy.?
I haven't run down Sandy's line myself, but it looks plausible.?
In effect a probable 7th generation link made possible by AI.
Maybe not revolutionary yet, but I suspect we're at the early
stages.
EH
On 6/30/22 19:25, Edward Hammond wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On a slightly different note, have you noticed how AI / machine
learning seems to be producing some pretty interesting results
at ancestry.com?? I'm not crazy about yet another pay site, but
I've been amazed by its ability to (seemingly ... I haven't
fully proofed very many) accurately match rather distant
autosomal hits.? The sort of people that you scroll by in the
autosomal results at FTDNA and think "that one just isn't worth
pursuing".
EH
On 6/30/22 19:11, Edward Hammond
wrote:
Completely agree that there's not much new to discuss.? My
intent was to simply have a point of contact should anything
interesting arise.? Since you were frequently the emcee, I
thought you might have the best list and judgment as to who to
place here.? If you simply pass along the list of names and
e-mail addresses you think are appropriate, I can send an
invitation to join to those people.? If you think its not
worth that effort, fair enough, it's certainly true that we
haven't had any news of note for some time.
I've turned into a very low power - milliwatts - high
frequency radio nut in the absence of anything genetic to do!?
That and journeyman forester, trying (often in vain) to
contain the unbelievably aggressive invasive species trying to
consume the little shred of forest I own.
Edward
On 6/30/22 18:29, Nigel B via
groups.io wrote:
?
Hi Edward - all good here. ?Apologies for not sorting our
S16264 distribution list. ?I have been busy with other
interests / activities. ?It is now several years since I had
any new Y-DNA matches and I confess I have lost much of my
motivation for keeping the group going. ?Still I agree we
should not let links lapse as we might all learn more from
future matches. ?Will try harder! ?
Nigel
?Hi Nigel -
Hope your summer is going well.? We're still all by our
lonesome in this group.
Edward
|
Sorry, I'll stop now... but imagine when you can bridge to Sandy
Mocilan's other faint contacts that might bear "Hammond"
centimorgans that I've lost.?
Hell, for all we know now, Sandy Mocilan may have a faint
autosomal match to a Turner, or a Braginton.
I bet it doesn't take that long for it to be figured out how to
make those sort of connections 'in silico'.
It's funny, in my day job one of things I am paid to worry about
it all the exabytes of DNA sequences of plants, animals, microbes,
etc... that have no geographic origin ascribed to them.? I was
just talking last week with a data scientist about the idea that
you could probably, quite soon, unleash an AI on a massive
biodiversity sequence database and have it figure out how to more
or less reliably tell you where each sequence came from.?
In a similar way...
EH
On 6/30/22 20:01, Edward Hammond wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
There's my best Hammond example of a nice machine learning
match.?
I would never have been able to link Sandy Mocilan to myself on
the basis of a tiny genetic match (10cm) with anything less than
her (him?) having a well-developed genealogy.?
I haven't run down Sandy's line myself, but it looks
plausible.?
In effect a probable 7th generation link made possible by AI.
Maybe not revolutionary yet, but I suspect we're at the early
stages.
EH
On 6/30/22 19:25, Edward Hammond
wrote:
On a slightly different note, have you noticed how AI /
machine learning seems to be producing some pretty interesting
results at ancestry.com?? I'm not crazy about yet another pay
site, but I've been amazed by its ability to (seemingly ... I
haven't fully proofed very many) accurately match rather
distant autosomal hits.? The sort of people that you scroll by
in the autosomal results at FTDNA and think "that one just
isn't worth pursuing".
EH
On 6/30/22 19:11, Edward Hammond
wrote:
Completely agree that there's not much new to discuss.? My
intent was to simply have a point of contact should anything
interesting arise.? Since you were frequently the emcee, I
thought you might have the best list and judgment as to who
to place here.? If you simply pass along the list of names
and e-mail addresses you think are appropriate, I can send
an invitation to join to those people.? If you think its not
worth that effort, fair enough, it's certainly true that we
haven't had any news of note for some time.
I've turned into a very low power - milliwatts - high
frequency radio nut in the absence of anything genetic to
do!? That and journeyman forester, trying (often in vain) to
contain the unbelievably aggressive invasive species trying
to consume the little shred of forest I own.
Edward
On 6/30/22 18:29, Nigel B via
groups.io wrote:
?
Hi Edward - all good here. ?Apologies for not sorting our
S16264 distribution list. ?I have been busy with other
interests / activities. ?It is now several years since I
had any new Y-DNA matches and I confess I have lost much
of my motivation for keeping the group going. ?Still I
agree we should not let links lapse as we might all learn
more from future matches. ?Will try harder! ?
Nigel
?Hi Nigel -
Hope your summer is going well.? We're still all by
our lonesome in this group.
Edward
|
That is interesting. ?Thrulines has predicted some distant links for me too. ?It is powerful technology but can be thrown by people inputting accurate trees. ?Unfortunately that is not always the case, particularly earlier than say 1800. ?Other users copy those inaccurate trees and they are then given weight as ‘high confidence’.
I am occupied with environmental projects too - around a local stream and also campaigning to reduce sewage ‘storm overflows’ into our river system.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 1 Jul 2022, at 01:10, Edward Hammond <manager@...> wrote:
?
Sorry, I'll stop now... but imagine when you can bridge to Sandy
Mocilan's other faint contacts that might bear "Hammond"
centimorgans that I've lost.?
Hell, for all we know now, Sandy Mocilan may have a faint
autosomal match to a Turner, or a Braginton.
I bet it doesn't take that long for it to be figured out how to
make those sort of connections 'in silico'.
It's funny, in my day job one of things I am paid to worry about
it all the exabytes of DNA sequences of plants, animals, microbes,
etc... that have no geographic origin ascribed to them.? I was
just talking last week with a data scientist about the idea that
you could probably, quite soon, unleash an AI on a massive
biodiversity sequence database and have it figure out how to more
or less reliably tell you where each sequence came from.?
In a similar way...
EH
On 6/30/22 20:01, Edward Hammond wrote:
There's my best Hammond example of a nice machine learning
match.?
I would never have been able to link Sandy Mocilan to myself on
the basis of a tiny genetic match (10cm) with anything less than
her (him?) having a well-developed genealogy.?
I haven't run down Sandy's line myself, but it looks
plausible.?
In effect a probable 7th generation link made possible by AI.
Maybe not revolutionary yet, but I suspect we're at the early
stages.
EH
On 6/30/22 19:25, Edward Hammond
wrote:
On a slightly different note, have you noticed how AI /
machine learning seems to be producing some pretty interesting
results at ancestry.com?? I'm not crazy about yet another pay
site, but I've been amazed by its ability to (seemingly ... I
haven't fully proofed very many) accurately match rather
distant autosomal hits.? The sort of people that you scroll by
in the autosomal results at FTDNA and think "that one just
isn't worth pursuing".
EH
On 6/30/22 19:11, Edward Hammond
wrote:
Completely agree that there's not much new to discuss.? My
intent was to simply have a point of contact should anything
interesting arise.? Since you were frequently the emcee, I
thought you might have the best list and judgment as to who
to place here.? If you simply pass along the list of names
and e-mail addresses you think are appropriate, I can send
an invitation to join to those people.? If you think its not
worth that effort, fair enough, it's certainly true that we
haven't had any news of note for some time.
I've turned into a very low power - milliwatts - high
frequency radio nut in the absence of anything genetic to
do!? That and journeyman forester, trying (often in vain) to
contain the unbelievably aggressive invasive species trying
to consume the little shred of forest I own.
Edward
On 6/30/22 18:29, Nigel B via
groups.io wrote:
?
Hi Edward - all good here. ?Apologies for not sorting our
S16264 distribution list. ?I have been busy with other
interests / activities. ?It is now several years since I
had any new Y-DNA matches and I confess I have lost much
of my motivation for keeping the group going. ?Still I
agree we should not let links lapse as we might all learn
more from future matches. ?Will try harder! ?
Nigel
?Hi Nigel -
Hope your summer is going well.? We're still all by
our lonesome in this group.
Edward
|
There will be some spectacular failures when erroneous
genealogies are widely replicated and feed too much garbage into
the AI, and when there are uncanny genetic similarities that occur
in isolation of one another, but I'll bet these (sometimes
frightening) machines will fairly quickly develop the ability to
filter out the vast majority of bad genealogies.?
It feels to me like the situation may parallel the time 25-30
years ago when the majority of the human genome was dismissed as
"junk DNA" by scientists, mainly because they couldn't determine
its function.? In the same way, we effectively dismissed autosomal
DNA for serious genealogical purposes because of the all the
recombination.? But rather than rendering it meaningless, maybe
all the mixing just rendered it too complicated for our, uh,
single core processors (brains) to manage.? Whereas if you have
dozens or hundreds of threads that you can hold in your
(electronic) brain at once, relationships appear...
Optimistically,
Edward
On 7/1/22 03:06, Nigel B via groups.io
wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
That is interesting. ?Thrulines has predicted some distant links
for me too. ?It is powerful technology but can be thrown by people
inputting accurate trees. ?Unfortunately that is not always the
case, particularly earlier than say 1800. ?Other users copy those
inaccurate trees and they are then given weight as ‘high
confidence’.
I am occupied with environmental projects too - around a
local stream and also campaigning to reduce sewage ‘storm
overflows’ into our river system.
Nigel?
?
Sorry, I'll stop now... but imagine when you can bridge
to Sandy Mocilan's other faint contacts that might bear
"Hammond" centimorgans that I've lost.?
Hell, for all we know now, Sandy Mocilan may have a faint
autosomal match to a Turner, or a Braginton.
I bet it doesn't take that long for it to be figured out
how to make those sort of connections 'in silico'.
It's funny, in my day job one of things I am paid to
worry about it all the exabytes of DNA sequences of
plants, animals, microbes, etc... that have no geographic
origin ascribed to them.? I was just talking last week
with a data scientist about the idea that you could
probably, quite soon, unleash an AI on a massive
biodiversity sequence database and have it figure out how
to more or less reliably tell you where each sequence came
from.?
In a similar way...
EH
On 6/30/22 20:01, Edward
Hammond wrote:
There's my best Hammond example of a nice machine
learning match.?
I would never have been able to link Sandy Mocilan to
myself on the basis of a tiny genetic match (10cm) with
anything less than her (him?) having a well-developed
genealogy.?
I haven't run down Sandy's line myself, but it looks
plausible.?
In effect a probable 7th generation link made possible
by AI.
Maybe not revolutionary yet, but I suspect we're at the
early stages.
EH
On 6/30/22 19:25, Edward
Hammond wrote:
On a slightly different note, have you noticed how AI
/ machine learning seems to be producing some pretty
interesting results at ancestry.com?? I'm not crazy
about yet another pay site, but I've been amazed by
its ability to (seemingly ... I haven't fully proofed
very many) accurately match rather distant autosomal
hits.? The sort of people that you scroll by in the
autosomal results at FTDNA and think "that one just
isn't worth pursuing".
EH
On 6/30/22 19:11, Edward
Hammond wrote:
Completely agree that there's not much new to
discuss.? My intent was to simply have a point of
contact should anything interesting arise.? Since
you were frequently the emcee, I thought you might
have the best list and judgment as to who to place
here.? If you simply pass along the list of names
and e-mail addresses you think are appropriate, I
can send an invitation to join to those people.? If
you think its not worth that effort, fair enough,
it's certainly true that we haven't had any news of
note for some time.
I've turned into a very low power - milliwatts -
high frequency radio nut in the absence of anything
genetic to do!? That and journeyman forester, trying
(often in vain) to contain the unbelievably
aggressive invasive species trying to consume the
little shred of forest I own.
Edward
On 6/30/22 18:29, Nigel B
via groups.io wrote:
?
Hi Edward - all good here. ?Apologies for not
sorting our S16264 distribution list. ?I have been
busy with other interests / activities. ?It is now
several years since I had any new Y-DNA matches
and I confess I have lost much of my motivation
for keeping the group going. ?Still I agree we
should not let links lapse as we might all learn
more from future matches. ?Will try harder! ?
Nigel
?Hi Nigel -
Hope your summer is going well.? We're still
all by our lonesome in this group.
Edward
|
