this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023
532 points (96.8% liked)

Science Memes

11842 readers
326 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
[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 43 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BS, there's not enough room for this sort of detail, you'd get 'as described previously in [1-4, 9, 84, 86, 150-160, unpublished observations]' half of which are unaccessible journals, out of print book chapters, and abstracts in German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 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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

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

[–] [email protected] 39 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes... different field... surely

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Implying you understand the papers you wrote.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Implying that you understand how to write.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah yes, the two genders: erect and flaccid

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

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

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago

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

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But why did they cut the fleeb?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year 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?)

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 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

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

Science is awesome

[–] Zoidsberg 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why do they all have boners

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Your nose is a boner

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Your worst nightmare.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I see Baby Yoda in a few of these.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

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

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Plok Osmit packin a magnum chode

[–] oxideseven 6 points 1 year ago

Freaking glips with their silly uphorns!

Downhorn for life! Long live plok!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

These greebles made some very interesting vases with lids I see

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

Simple as

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

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