I'm sure you are not as obtuse as you pretend to be in your pleonastic posts. I write one thing, you seem to infer something else. Perhaps it's my poor writing skills, or your attempt at providing amusement.
In any case, I am reasonably familiar with basic programming, though my training and involvement took place long ago, in the punch card and main frame eras. I'm not sure why you might conclude that I "don't know about" calculating relationships between sequences. I did not write anything to suggest such a benighted perspective.
Perhaps someone who held such militantly ignorant opinions treated you cruelly, took your parking space, cut in line in front of you at the bakery, and in your grief you have transposed their opinions to me, despite my innocence in that connection.
I was really doing nothing more than pointing out that graphing relationships in as incredibly broad a context as dive profiles is of vanishingly limited utility when attempting to develop useful generalities related to human physiological reactions while scuba diving.
You might reread and rewrite your last sentence. You begin by setting up the sentence structure for a metaphor "...would be about as utilitarian...as" but fail to follow through after "angels", changing horses in mid-stream by omitting the expected comparison and inexplicably questioning the historical existence of what was intended as an absurdity that paralleled your irrelevant DNA type examples, and then citing a dim textbook classification of error.
Please excuse me from any further discussion. I have to adjust the thermostat.
In any case, I am reasonably familiar with basic programming, though my training and involvement took place long ago, in the punch card and main frame eras. I'm not sure why you might conclude that I "don't know about" calculating relationships between sequences. I did not write anything to suggest such a benighted perspective.
Perhaps someone who held such militantly ignorant opinions treated you cruelly, took your parking space, cut in line in front of you at the bakery, and in your grief you have transposed their opinions to me, despite my innocence in that connection.
I was really doing nothing more than pointing out that graphing relationships in as incredibly broad a context as dive profiles is of vanishingly limited utility when attempting to develop useful generalities related to human physiological reactions while scuba diving.
You might reread and rewrite your last sentence. You begin by setting up the sentence structure for a metaphor "...would be about as utilitarian...as" but fail to follow through after "angels", changing horses in mid-stream by omitting the expected comparison and inexplicably questioning the historical existence of what was intended as an absurdity that paralleled your irrelevant DNA type examples, and then citing a dim textbook classification of error.
Please excuse me from any further discussion. I have to adjust the thermostat.