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

Science Memes

16103 readers
2614 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 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 51 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 2 years ago (2 children)
[–] kureta@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago
[–] frustratedphagocytosis@kbin.social 41 points 2 years 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BS, there's not enough room for this sort of detail, you'd get 'as described previously in [1-4, 9, 84, 86, 150-160, unpublished observations]' half of which are unaccessible journals, out of print book chapters, and abstracts in German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 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 2 years ago

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

[–] cro_magnon_gilf@sopuli.xyz 36 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yes... different field... surely

[–] amda@feddit.nl 19 points 2 years ago

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

[–] ZJBlank@lemmy.world 33 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Ah yes, the two genders: erect and flaccid

[–] tdawg@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

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

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 24 points 2 years ago

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

[–] outer_spec@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 points 2 years ago

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

[–] Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 66 points 2 years 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 9 points 2 years ago

Science is awesome

[–] Zoidsberg@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Why do they all have boners

[–] idiomaddict@feddit.de 6 points 2 years ago

Your nose is a boner

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

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

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 8 points 2 years ago

Your worst nightmare.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years 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 2 years ago (1 children)

I see Baby Yoda in a few of these.

[–] Magnetar@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago

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

[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago

Plok Osmit packin a magnum chode

[–] oxideseven@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago

Freaking glips with their silly uphorns!

Downhorn for life! Long live plok!

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] lemmy_outta_here@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years 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 2 years ago
[–] Metal_Zealot@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

Simple as

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

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

[–] Metal_Zealot@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

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

[–] Mothra@mander.xyz 3 points 2 years ago

These greebles made some very interesting vases with lids I see