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

Science Memes

10923 readers
1767 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 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months 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 11 months ago (2 children)
[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] Metans@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago
[–] kureta@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago
[–] frustratedphagocytosis@kbin.social 44 points 11 months 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BS, there's not enough room for this sort of detail, you'd get 'as described previously in [1-4, 9, 84, 86, 150-160, unpublished observations]' half of which are unaccessible journals, out of print book chapters, and abstracts in German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 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months 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.

[–] frustratedphagocytosis@kbin.social 9 points 11 months 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.

[–] sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz 11 points 11 months ago

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

[–] cro_magnon_gilf@sopuli.xyz 38 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yes... different field... surely

[–] amda@feddit.nl 22 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 18 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Implying you understand the papers you wrote.

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 5 points 11 months ago

Implying that you understand how to write.

[–] ZJBlank@lemmy.world 35 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Ah yes, the two genders: erect and flaccid

[–] tdawg@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months 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 11 months ago

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

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 24 points 11 months 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 11 months 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 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 70 points 11 months 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 11 months ago

Science is awesome

[–] Zoidsberg@lemmy.ca 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Why do they all have boners

[–] idiomaddict@feddit.de 6 points 11 months ago

Your nose is a boner

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 8 points 11 months ago

Your worst nightmare.

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

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

[–] Granixo@feddit.cl 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I see Baby Yoda in a few of these.

[–] Magnetar@feddit.de 5 points 11 months ago

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

[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 7 points 11 months ago

Plok Osmit packin a magnum chode

[–] oxideseven@lemmy.ca 5 points 11 months ago

Freaking glips with their silly uphorns!

Downhorn for life! Long live plok!

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] lemmy_outta_here@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months 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 11 months ago
[–] Mothra@mander.xyz 3 points 11 months ago

These greebles made some very interesting vases with lids I see

[–] Metal_Zealot@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

Simple as

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Metal_Zealot@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago

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