this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023
544 points (96.9% liked)

Science Memes

10950 readers
1981 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 52 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Bonus points (BPs) for when you get entire sentences full of abbreviations (SFOA). Even more BPs when you get SFOA with abbreviations containing abbreviations within them (SWACAWT). I really hate SWACAWTs.

[–] Hupf@feddit.de 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] kureta@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago
[–] frustratedphagocytosis@kbin.social 44 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I call BS, there's not enough room for this sort of detail, you'd get 'as described previously in [1-4, 9, 84, 86, 150-160, unpublished observations]' half of which are unaccessible journals, out of print book chapters, and abstracts in German

[–] inconel@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I only encountered once, but when it happened I had to realize how old science field may have been different. The exact detail I was looking for should be in [20] ... but "[20] to be published" (presumably by the same author). I couldn't find any papers by author's name other than that but the author was so sure getting published.

My favorite is recursive bad citations in the method section. As in, citing a paper that cited a previous paper that itself cited a previous paper that cited an abstract with no detailed methodology whatsoever, leaving the true methods a mystery unless you get the senior author to reply to emails.

[–] sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 year ago

Goddamn it, why is academia so indecipherable and yet so relatable??

[–] cro_magnon_gilf@sopuli.xyz 39 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes... different field... surely

[–] amda@feddit.nl 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

More like subfield... Or subsubfeild... Paper you didn't write?

[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Implying you understand the papers you wrote.

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 5 points 1 year ago

Implying that you understand how to write.

[–] ZJBlank@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah yes, the two genders: erect and flaccid

[–] tdawg@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

I don't care how erect you think you are! You were born flaccid and we raised you flaccid!

[–] outer_spec@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 1 year ago

These gliberals with their new genders… back in my day greebles only had two genders, PLOK and GLIP!!!

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

First they take the dingle bop and they smooth it out with a bunch of shleem.

[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But why did they cut the fleeb?

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

My best guess is that when they cut the fleeb, it makes more fleebs, which they can then use to make more plumbuses (plumbi?)

[–] Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is this a real paper? Please tell me it is.

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 70 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I forgot to link. Thanks for the reminder. It's actually in several papers as a known methodology!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeble_%28psychology%29?wprov=sfla1

[–] redballooon@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

Science is awesome

[–] Zoidsberg@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why do they all have boners

[–] idiomaddict@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago

Your nose is a boner

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

what the fuck is kapwing and why do i see their watermark so often?

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 8 points 1 year ago

Your worst nightmare.

AI video and content creator? Not sure why it’s on a meme/still image. Not familiar with it.

[–] Granixo 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I see Baby Yoda in a few of these.

[–] Magnetar@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago

I thought all of them are Yodas, some with a boner.

[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

Plok Osmit packin a magnum chode

[–] oxideseven@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

Freaking glips with their silly uphorns!

Downhorn for life! Long live plok!

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Different field? More like a different child field of my root field

[–] lemmy_outta_here@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Different child field? This is like my first two read-throughs of a new paper in my own specialization!

[–] Pregnenolone@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago
[–] Metal_Zealot@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I see the word Plok,
I go listen to the Boss Theme.

Simple as

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho!

[–] Metal_Zealot@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

No one will be able to make the SNES sound chip their total bìtch like Tim Follin

[–] Mothra@mander.xyz 3 points 1 year ago

These greebles made some very interesting vases with lids I see