How much science can one person do?Could one person in theory build large telescopes all over the world and write all the software to run and analyze all the data from all the telescopes?
Most science done today is very collaborative in any one person can’t really take credit for an entire project
Back to /pol/Just because you will never do anything with your own life doesn't mean you should try to drag other people down with you.
>>10560366>implying he said anything bad about herback to plebbit
>>10560366in what way did OP "drag other people down"?
>>10560379If you think about it, he raped her
>>10560459Don't talk about it you shit lord you're traumatizing her
>>10560267Alright, but what specifically did she do?
>>10560488>Alright, but what specifically did she do?imaged the unimaginable, a black hole for the first time in human history
>>10560496This is what annoys me to hell....everybody is talking about this lady as she actually created a fricking black hole, and as OP said the observation of space objects is something more complex than a genius with a groundbreaking theory, so specifically, what did she do?Not an incel btw...Is /sci/ filled with SJWs? You must have care doing this kind of post on /tv/
>>10560514she worked on the software used to compile the image together from all the raw data from around the worldWhy does that "annoy you to hell"? Maybe you should take a look at yourself0.o
https://twitter.com/thisgreyspirit/status/1116518544961830918?s=20>So apparently some (I hope very few) people online are using the fact that I am the primary developer of the eht-imaging software library (https://github.com/achael/eht-imaging …) to launch awful and sexist attacks on my colleague and friend Katie Bouman. Stop. Our papers used three independent imaging software libraries (including one developed by my friend @sparse_k). While I wrote much of the code for one of these pipelines, Katie was a huge contributor to the software; it would have never worked without her contributions and the work of many others who wrote code, debugged, and figured out how to use the code on challenging EHT data. With a few others, Katie also developed the imaging framework that rigorously tested all three codes and shaped the entire paper ...; as a result, this is probably the most vetted image in the history of radio interferometry. I'm thrilled Katie is getting recognition for her work and that she's inspiring people as an example of women's leadership in STEM. I'm also thrilled she's pointing out that this was a team effort including contributions from many junior scientists, including many women junior scientists .... Together, we all make each other's work better; the number of commits doesn't tell the full story of who was indispensable. So while I appreciate the congratulations on a result that I worked hard on for years, if you are congratulating me because you have a sexist vendetta against Katie, please go away and reconsider your priorities in life. Otherwise, stick around -- I hope to start tweeting more about black holes and other subjects I am passionate about -- including space, being a gay astronomer, Ursula K. Le Guin, architecture, and musicals. Thanks for following me, and let me know if you have any questions about the EHT!
>>10560546honestly feminists should be annoyed that whenever there is anything done in science with huge thousand person teams they go through with a fine tooth comb until they can find one thin whiteish girl they can celebrate and spam all over the world and never talk about anyone else at all in all the news stories"PERSON WITH VAGINA HELPS DO THING, EVEN THOUGH SHE HAS A VAGINA SHE STILL PULLED THIS OFF" if women were equal you would not have to do this all the time, and you would not have to shun anyone who is not thin and whiteish and young. It's not just that they would have shunned her if she were a man, they would have shunned her if she were fat or 40. That should piss off feminists (who are mostly fat or ugly)
>>10560546fucking basednerds doing useless shit...all that fucking polemic for a red stain...Jebuzz!
>>10560558Yeah, Higgs should turn his Nobel in.
>another black hole girl thread
>>10560488>>10560514https://www.cv-foundation.org/openaccess/content_cvpr_2016/html/Bouman_Computational_Imaging_for_CVPR_2016_paper.htmlThis is what she did
>>10560597she probably got hired with affirmative action or got help
>>10560349Are you an envious roastie or something?
>>10560488She took some pictures of herself around shit that other people did
>>10560693>She took some pictures of herself around shit that other people didrude and sexist tbqh
>>10560546This just sounds like a dogwhistle to me, like he's admitting she didn't do shit but in writing in such a way he won't get blamed for sidestepping the "problem".>While I wrote much of the code for one of these pipelines,Admitting he did most of the work>Katie was a huge contributor to the software; it would have never worked without her contributionsThis is vague and insubstantial. You could also say modern concepts of personal computing would never happen without steve jobs.>and that she's inspiring people as an example of women's leadership in STEMThis is basically the biggest flag. He's outright admitting she's just a figurehead for the feminist agenda.>if you are congratulating me because you have a sexist vendetta against Katie, please go away and reconsider your priorities in life.Yeah, because anyone who wants to credit the guy who has admitted he did most of the actual coding could only have a sexist agenda...it's not like people don't shit on bill gates and steve jobs all the time for taking credit for other peoples contributions...
>>10560514>Is /sci/ filled with SJWs/sci/ is cucked beyond redemption
>>10560635This is a /cci/ thread please post citations for claims preferably in the form of a paper published in a reputable scientific journal.
>>10560267>Could one person in theory build large telescopes all over the worldNo. The software is theoretically doable though.
>>10560267Stop posting this shit. Anyone who isn't an NPC has stopped caring about what the media says about anything. And besides, anyone who knows anything about science knows that 1 person out of a global 200+ person collaboration isn't responsible for the whole thing
based jannies deleting the other thread. another to go.
>>10561098>based jannies deleting the other thread. another to go.not based
>>10561141based /pol/ obsessed retard
>>10560347she looks like a cute little beaver or something a cute little animile. not really like a human girl though
>>10561598>she looks like a cute little beaver or something a cute little animile. not really like a human girl thoughshe is a scientist, not an object for your appearance judgments
>>10560897Thank you for the line-by-line example of how you can force literally anything someone says to fit a narrative. This will be useful for my future posting endeavors.
>>10560514It annoys you because she's a girl. If the media had mistakenly attributed the feat to an old white man you wouldn't have left your containment board to post about it.Sure, she wasn't the main contributor and media got it wrong. Big surprise. Everyone knows mainstream journalists have zero rigor, especially when it comes to science. You're making such a big deal out of this because you're a misogynist brainlet.Go back to /pol/, we've had enough threads about this.
>>10561786Human logic is layered in its operant form. Anon was not wrong.
>>10561835case study: kip thorne
>>10561835Why act disingenuous and pretend she wasn't immediately shoehorned in front of everyone's face and showered with the attention deliberately because she was a girl? We didn't hear about "Katie Bouman" before this. She's a fucking literally who researcher who made a contribution along with the other 100 people on this project.This is SJW media retardation and nothing more. But boo hoo, go back to /pol/ right? How about you leave politics out of bare fucking science.
>>10561935Point is, no matter how much you whine in a taiwanese basket weaving board you're not going to get mainstream journalists to do their job rigorously. Why? Because journalists are clueless hacks who write for clicks and views, not for truth.This has always been an issue, but you're only protesting now because they tried to sell an empowered scientist girl story. You don't care about science, you'd be posting in /lit/ if the story was about a girl who wrote a book but she really only wrote one page. Again, you wouldn't be posting here if the story was about an old white man instead of a girl./pol/tard misogynists are just as bad as SJWs. You both spend your days engaged in pointless debates and irrational hate. Please do yourself a favor and get some fresh air, your stupid ideology is blocking your thinking processes.
>>10562007All I'm doing is responding, anon. Responding to a forced campaign, as is my right. I didn't create this bullshit. And you don't know what I respond to or how long I do. I've scrolled by 100 other debates surrounding this topic before deciding to respond to you. Consider not immaturely reducing everyone you come across on the internet into some kind of absurd, tiny strawman that does all the dumb and meager things you want him to because he's inconvenient for you. There has been an equal and opposite backlash to the attempt to make her the "face" of this stupid picture project and it's due since their justification was awful and obviously more "muh womn in STEM" shit.
>>10562012Could you please elaborate on why do you feel the urge to respond to a 'forced campaign' about 'muh women in STEM'?Is it a forced campaign? Probably. Do I fucking care? No, journalists do this kind of crap everyday, and in this particular case it does no harm (who cares if some plebs believe this girl took the picture all by herself after reading the news, plebs don't care about science or scientist). Why do you care? I don't know. The easiest assumption is that you get triggered by any SJW manifestation, which would make you a /pol/tard.
>>10562026Why do you feel the urge to respond to the responders? Why are you going to bat for something that you consider trivial and stupid? Could you actually be lying and just trying to get an easy out should the argument start looking poor on its face? "Well, this was all dumb anyway, and you're dumb for caring." This after pushing the narrative in the first place.And you call everyone a /pol/tard if they don't step in line with that thought. Very interesting, anon. You do know the root of scientific truth is skepticism and curiosity, right? And here you are preaching for shut mouths and complacency. It could be, after all, that you are the authoritarian, asshole ideologue.
>>10562048>Why do you feel the urge to respond to the responders?Because you're in this board and you can read me. If some stupid journalist was posting here saying that Katie did everything on her own I would tell him that he's stupid and what he's saying makes no sense. But he's not here, you are, and I enjoy telling people why they're wrong.I'm not preaching for shut mouths and complacency. The world has a thousand problems and you chose to care about the most trivial of them. That's why you're wrong. Social polarization is a way bigger problem than 'muh SJWs promoting women in STEM' because it leads to pointless debates and populism, and both SJWs and anti-SJWs (since you don't like the term /pol/tard) are contributing to that problem.Just go to another planet to fight each other over stupid shit, ffs.
>>10560347She looks cute until I open the picture up to full size>>10560267No. Fuck your hopes and dreams, OP.
>>10562012>>10562007You guys just need to fuck already
>>10561835mean while the media forget the other 40 womans
>>10560267>people on reddit are calling her white
>You will never marry your grad school sweetheart and do science experiments togetherit hurts guys
>>10562306fuck off back to >>>/pol/
Without saying anything derogatory about her sex or ethnic origin, I would like to point out that her head is literally smaller than mine was when I was 12 years old. Regardless of achievement or acquired skill, my intellectual prowess vastly surpasses hers and literally anyone with her cranial volume.
>>10560514She was the genius with the groundbreaking theory. The rest helped.
>>10560897>Admitting he did most of the workExplicitly not, actually: "(Also I did not write "850,000 lines of code" -- many of those "lines" tracked by github are in model files. There are about 68,000 lines in the current software, and I don't care how many of those I personally authored)">This is vague and insubstantial.She's the main author of the paper that laid the foundation for this project.>This is basically the biggest flag. He's outright admitting she's just a figurehead for the feminist agenda.No, not "just a figurehead", he's saying she's a great role model specifically because of her accomplishments.>Yeah, because anyone who wants to credit the guy who has admitted he did most of the actual coding could only have a sexist agenda...You clearly do, considering how tenaciously and irrationally you're trying to cling to this idea.
>>10562331>People with macrocephaly are smart!
>>10560267>>10560347>>10562107>>10561598how do I become her cuckold?
men value sex and claim to be good at sex (which they are not, especially with virgin girls) only because they know it is on sex and harmless fun that a woman bases her decision to let men continue to care for her. If a woman was able to acknowledge a man in a non sexual way, then men would care more about this way than sex. But that is not the case, women center their life on sex and they love to let compete for them, take only the men who show how well they can entertain women.The blow back for women is that repulsive, poor men continue to try to be noticed by women and men do not know when to stop.Another problem for women, is that once a man is chosen by a woman for the fucking and caring, the man thinks he no longer competes against other men, and that woman no longer has any orbiters. The man thinks his victory is perpetual. Then the woman gets less and less harmless fun that she craves, so she choose a few other disposable orbiters. Then the current provider no longer feels acknowledged and begins to seek the validation of another woman.Also, women do not have babies because ''muh genes'' muh evolution.Women have babies because-they love to spread their legs-their parents push them for grand children-they get bored and they see the family as a way to keep the relationship alive-they see other women having babies and being okay with it This stuff about ''tough healthy males'' comes from the male love to interpret anything through their fantasy of dominance and submission, but this is because they love to confuse dominance with being active and submission with being passive so that they delude themselves that they are not the weaker sex by being so active, whereas their activities turn out to be only making women comfy and make life harder for men.
>>10562654Women know this male clinging to power fantasies by heart and they have no problem using it to avoid being as destitute as a men can become, while still thinking that those women realize the female fantasy of intimacy, of going beyond passing for and knowing to be slutty goldiggers, by being devoted to the realization of the fantasy of grandiosity of a few men or more commonly by having children and creating a family.What women want the most is harmless fun and intimacy. THey get to realize their fantasy first when they are young with men, by trying to let their ''ego'' on the side and realize the sexual fantasies of the men who fuck them. WOmen quickly learn that the only healthy way to relate to men is to be capitalistic on the male market.Women know this male clinging to power fantasies by heart and they have no problem using it to avoid being as destitute as a men can become, while still thinking that those women realize the female fantasy of intimacy, of going beyond passing for and knowing to be slutty goldiggers, by being devoted to the realization of the fantasy of grandiosity of a few men or more commonly by having children and creating a family.What women want the most is harmless fun and intimacy. THey get to realize their fantasy first when they are young with men, by trying to let their ''ego'' on the side and realize the sexual fantasies of the men who fuck them. WOmen quickly learn that the only healthy way to relate to men is to be capitalistic on the male market.But The fantasy of being intimate is realized with having children. THis is what men do not understand. Women love ''to be selfless'' by caring about children and they delude themselves that their compassion and unconditional love for the children is a good thing. Childless women direct their retarded compassion towards animals and children they do not know.So women love children for the intimacy. Women rely on men for the sex and care they give.
>>10562658>>10562654Looks like r/braincels imported itself to /sci/
>>10560267>How much science can one person do?I hate how it's worded & also find it annoying when someone calls himself a scientist. All discoveries are collaborative & huge in scope effort.From farmers & laborers who provide nutrients & life necessities to people who develop & maintain machinery etc.Everything is world is interconnected, but go ahead, have a good wank and take credit for something and feel better that someone else. Also fuck this bait thread & fuck the black hole ruse.
>>10562741>don't credit the people who actually invented / discovered things because they'd die without farmers and be unable to do their work without manufacturers
>>10560272I think modern math still stands as an exception to that rule
>>10562745>they'd die without farmersNo, they'd had plow fields themselves & wouldn't have time to give two shits about "le science", fucking teen.
https://twitter.com/MIT_CSAIL/status/1116775487420997632Sorry guys but even the official MIT twitter admits they overstated her position and that they didn't even use her alogrithm.Face it, you got fooled by the media along with the normies and r*dditors.
>>10560267Is she Jewish or Aryan?