๐งต Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 03:28:46 UTC No. 16177870
so has the replication crisis been proven real or were others unable to confirm?
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 05:27:09 UTC No. 16177920
Has anyone reproduced the study that originally claimed there was a replication crisis?
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 06:27:54 UTC No. 16177991
>>16177920
unable to confirm
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 21:42:03 UTC No. 16178962
the results were real to me
i was publishing truth to power
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 21:49:56 UTC No. 16178976
>>16177870
The problem with peer-review system is much worse than just that. It's neither peer nor review. That process should be transparent for whole the world to observe, and submitted stuff should be immediately available on their websites, even if they decide not to put it into the paper version of their magazines.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 07:00:54 UTC No. 16179476
>>16178976
trees grow back retard, get over your childish chuunibyo savior complex
Cult of Passion at Fri, 17 May 2024 09:51:29 UTC No. 16179606
>>16178976
>Crowther found that there are approximately 3.04 trillion trees exist on the planet todayโa mind-boggling number, especially compared with previous estimates that had not yet guessed the Earth had even a half-trillion trees.
https://blog.tentree.com/fact-check
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 10:29:39 UTC No. 16179635
>>16177870
Why would it be the scientist's fault? You're assuming malice.
In reality it was cost by there being too much information and papers to create without there being enough money to reproduce anything.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 10:40:25 UTC No. 16179640
>>16179606
Thank you CO2!
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 11:07:33 UTC No. 16179662
>>16179606
CO2 making the planet green without warming a thing like a good trace gas. Fatties overheating and calling global warming
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 11:58:03 UTC No. 16179707
>>16179606
>Today, annual tree harvest vs. production on a worldwide scale shows that humans cut down approximately 15 billion trees a year and re-plant about 5 billion. Thatโs a net loss of 10 billion trees every year, and a rate that would mean the loss of all trees within the next 300 years.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 12:05:02 UTC No. 16179716
>>16179476
>he doesn't understand the value of old growth forests
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 12:11:04 UTC No. 16179722
>>16177870
see >>16179599
>>16179635
No it's genuinely malice and fraud. 99% of papers are garbage made by professors who are so stupid they can't even teach you the basics of their subject properly.
What kind of of papers do you think they publish? Unless you are in one of the top 1% elitist programs in the world, there's no chance you are qualified to publish anything of value that adds something to human knowledge.
But everyone publishes anyway pretending the garbage they write is important and not calling out the fraudulent system.
Cult of Passion at Fri, 17 May 2024 13:09:14 UTC No. 16179790
>>16179707
>a mind-boggling number, especially compared with previous estimates
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 13:16:03 UTC No. 16179798
>>16179635
>>16179635
>assuming malice
why should I not assume (or in this case, detect) malice when I see the same "academic" publishing the same shitty ass study for the twentith time in the last 5 years in slightly different form when there is no theoretical basis and I tried to replicate their work for the 3rd time and it didn't work? Ivy leauge professor btw.
>>16179722
>top 1% elitist programs in the world
dumbass, top 1% elite programs in the world are also full of scam. they attract most of the narcissitic frauds.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 13:20:09 UTC No. 16179805
>>16179798
But they still get IMO winners and the smartest kids, if anyone have a chance of publishing something of value, it's them.
Most other schools around the world are filled with larpers.
Like if you a professor from Zurich Polytechnique or Ecole Normal Sueprieur published something it might be of actual value.
If even they are publishing nonsese, think how bad it must be everywhere else.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 13:20:26 UTC No. 16179806
it's not a replication crisis anymore. it should be called widespread fraud due to replication disdain. the easiest path to ruin your academic career is to attempt to replicate something from a senior academic and it didn't work and you bring it up. you'll be shunned and never find work ever again in the academic space.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 13:41:01 UTC No. 16179844
>>16179476
>>16179606
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cn
Cult of Passion at Fri, 17 May 2024 14:01:16 UTC No. 16179881
>>16179844
I was gunna make a snarky comment about Vox but its lind of interesting and I want to beat up someone right now so its nice to relax.
[releases nerve gas from a radio]
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 14:02:53 UTC No. 16179883
>>16179798
>>16179722
Still didn't prove malice. Post IQ, schizo.
Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 04:24:22 UTC No. 16180976
>>16179806
"replication crisis" was always a polite, politically correct euphemism for outright fraud. the people who came up with it were doubtlessly part of the people committing fraud, if they were honest scientists then they would've been outraged at those committing the frauds and would have used a more accusatory descriptive term.
instead fraudulent scientists get the dindu treatment and they try to act like the massive amount fraud is all just a big accident rather than wholesale dishonesty
Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 04:59:27 UTC No. 16181007
>>16180976
This is not a fair labeling to be cast on the individual papers. There are factors beside fraud for why replication may not be possible. The charge is credibly levied at the institution as a fraud, churning out people producing useless work. Useless because it is either so irrelevant that it isn't worth replicating - why do these experiments? - or the work itself is so confounded, complex and difficult that it can't be replicated - why do these experiments? - or the work is outright fabricated.
Publish or perish answers all of these questions and it is outright fleecing of research grants and funds. Link your topic to current thing and receive your payment.
Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 15:54:01 UTC No. 16181602
>>16179476
Do you want all animals in the future to look like a chink? Because that's where we are heading, all extant animals get replaced by human mutants. Fuck you.
Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 16:01:59 UTC No. 16181614
>>16181007
>Publish or perish answers all of these questions and it is outright fleecing of research grants and funds. Link your topic to current thing and receive your payment.
this is the fraudulent system engineered by the career focused mediocre bureaucrats who call themselves "scientists" to make their useless work look great and stealing opportunties from real scientists.
there is nothing called "blaming the system". no, you're just deflecting. those systems are created and perputuated by the people who control it as a scapegoat, as a tool to steal money and it is working as exactly as intended for the frauds.
Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 16:07:28 UTC No. 16181627
>>16177870
I'm in grad school and I can't replicate shit. It's nearly impossible unless the authors share their files. Even then they don't replicate because its likely from an old version of python with a bunch of packages that don't exist anymore.
Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 16:21:16 UTC No. 16181647
>>16181627
>CStard
well count yourself lucky. it's easy for CS to replicate, you just haven't tried hard enough. I'd say 50% of research in CS are replicatable, which is probably among the highest in the fields. I have worked in both CS and in a wetlab and the scientific standard in wetlab are bottom sewer gutter tier. I'm not surprised if at least 90% of their published craps are deliberate unreplicatable nonsenses.
Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 16:49:31 UTC No. 16181697
>>16179707
Top educated scientists forgot that trees propagate by themselves. Who'da thunk it?
Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 17:57:12 UTC No. 16181784
>>16177870
it's on the terminator's jaw, upside-down.
Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 18:03:51 UTC No. 16181793
>>16177870
Publicationmaxxing is the rational approach in modern academia.
Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 18:07:54 UTC No. 16181798
>>16178976
>>16179606
>>16179707
Wait, half the trees were destroyed in 46 years, how come it will now take 300 years to eradicate the rest? I thought we were winning?
Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 18:11:36 UTC No. 16181801
>>16181784
Amogus
Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 18:24:10 UTC No. 16181811
>>16181798
>I'll just use this carbon-fuel based machine to cut down and transport my trees
Humans will never learn. Trees were supreme long ago, and shall be again.
Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 18:43:27 UTC No. 16181827
>>16181811
Bark-covered limbs typed this post.
Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 19:33:15 UTC No. 16181862
>>16179798
The major physics journals alone publish ~200K papers every year and I guarantee you have not read enough of them to generalize the entire lot as "garbage"
Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 19:55:26 UTC No. 16181888
>>16181862
>~200K papers
I guarantee you that at least 99.99% of them never get published at the world would be the fucking same.
they're fucking mostly junk cv padding for and grant bow-tying trashes produced by degree mills.
Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 20:04:41 UTC No. 16181899
>>16178976
>I only use open source code and review the source myself before building it for testing in my sandbox environment.
What the fuck are you contributing in this fantasy?
Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 20:05:52 UTC No. 16181902
>>16181793
I wonder before being ousted how many honors and praises this guy received by the "scientific community".
Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 20:08:40 UTC No. 16181908
>>16179805
>Like if you a professor from Zurich Polytechnique or Ecole Normal Sueprieur published something it might be of actual value
Seeing people say shit like this makes me want to weep. I did my undergrad, PhD and postdoc in top 5 global ranked universities.
None of the groups I worked in knew what the hell they were doing. They only kept existing because, despite the general incompetence of the majority, there was once in a while someone competent enough to get a decent paper out. But the tables were heavily tilted towards them getting into the top journals in the first place and everyone creamed at the thought of collaborating with a top university. The biggest narcissist retard conman I've ever had the displeasure to personally work with is being fast-tracked to tenure at EPFL.
There's some very competent people in these institutions but it is absolutely stupid to assume that someone is competent simply because they are in such an institution. If anything, they get away with a lot more.
>>16181862
The world has 8 billion+ people and despite nobody measuring a significant fraction of them we can make some very generalizeable claims.
Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 20:09:43 UTC No. 16181910
>>16181888
>degree mills
Isn't every university a degree mill nowadays?
I actually learned a lot during my PhD but only published one article before going into industry.
Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 20:10:43 UTC No. 16181911
>>16181793
That facial hair by itself should have prompted a probe.
Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 20:24:54 UTC No. 16181925
>>16181910
many of them are degree mills but some of them are not.
when I were interviewing for my PhD, I was about to join a group lead by a chink professors at a top 10 universities in the US. his google scholar profile 50% of his publications are the almost exact same shit published over and over again into top R1 journals where he and his friends are editors and chairmans. the other 50% are the grant chasing stuffs like crypto, machine learning in X, Y, Z which are retarded. joining that group means I would had to work on whatever the most trending topic and easiest to get grants at the time even though I know they're mostly bullshit. they're pumping out a few papers every week and a few PhD per year. it's literally a paper and degree mill. meanwhile I also interviewed for more obscure universities where the professor is a pajeet but he actually has much more interesting and comprehensive coherent research program. it's all depend on the professors but my general impression is that the most narccisistic fame hungry pseudo people are plenty in the very top institutions.
Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 21:09:03 UTC No. 16181998
>>16181908
Researchers at ETH, ENS are well known for their very deep knowledges of their field (usually maths and physics); precisely because there are very few post grads or PhD slots in those unis. ETH isn't like Cambridge and their 400000 different departments.
Anonymous at Sun, 19 May 2024 05:25:25 UTC No. 16182376
>>16181925
I see what you mean, but did you learn while working on your PhD? Do you feel like you've contributed to science?
At least my professor had a very coherent research goal (and of course tried to get grants every now and then) but overall his work was coherent and curiosity driven.
Anonymous at Sun, 19 May 2024 05:33:02 UTC No. 16182378
>>16182376
I think we would benefit from a sharp definition of a degree mill and a high quality university.
Anonymous at Sun, 19 May 2024 17:35:43 UTC No. 16183000
>>16182378
I think part of the problem is that while some institutions are outright degree/paper mills, there's legitimate and even renowned universities with groups that put out bullshit.
Anonymous at Sun, 19 May 2024 17:42:58 UTC No. 16183012
>>16182378
>>16183000
The only difference is the size of the campus and the cost of tuition.
๐๏ธ Anonymous at Sun, 19 May 2024 19:53:00 UTC No. 16183223
>>16181925
Thats the price of allowing atheists and other non-Christians into the sciences. They chase the superficial appearance of being good instead of trying to actually do good
Anonymous at Sun, 19 May 2024 20:52:12 UTC No. 16183304
>>16181925
>a group lead by
๐๏ธ Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 08:27:39 UTC No. 16184137
>>16183304
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_
>Anal retentiveness is a personality trait that is characterised by excessive concern with trivial details.
๐๏ธ Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 22:09:20 UTC No. 16185161
>>16177870
Good pic, but unfortunately "AI" isn't really AI, its just dumb software.
Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 22:14:18 UTC No. 16185167
>>16179662
>Fatties overheating and calling global warming
/thread
Anonymous at Tue, 21 May 2024 09:21:33 UTC No. 16185902
>>16185167
>i'm so low iq i can't tell the difference between hollywood goyslop and irl life
Anonymous at Wed, 22 May 2024 00:36:34 UTC No. 16187073
>>16185902
You're talking about an extremely large group of people who "can't tell the difference between hollywood goyslop and irl life"
Thats the IQ range of about 75-105, its about 45% of everyone
Anonymous at Wed, 22 May 2024 02:21:27 UTC No. 16187212
>>16178976
Following the analogy
50% of the earth forests have been destroyed in minutes and seconds literally tens of thousands of times
Anonymous at Wed, 22 May 2024 02:34:43 UTC No. 16187230
>>16177870
>cannot replicate Israeli study
>oy vey this is antisemitism
The replication problem is very real
Anonymous at Wed, 22 May 2024 17:32:56 UTC No. 16188182
>>16177870
Doesn't the replication crisis mainly refer to the field of psychology, where replication is hard because there are a fuckton of unknowns when it comes to experiments with humans?
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 03:37:30 UTC No. 16188923
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 04:42:21 UTC No. 16188972
>>16179476
Not to mention this stupid scaling make it seem like its going so fast while it really doesn't.
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 05:56:10 UTC No. 16189013
>>16177870
daily reminder that the replication crisis affects mostly psychology and that schizos latch on to it because their life is empty
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 06:01:13 UTC No. 16189017
>>16189013
nice wishful thinking, but you are completely wrong
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 12:44:39 UTC No. 16189440
>>16189013
Its way worse in physics and chemistry. Chemistry is as much a culinary art as it as a science so two scientists following the exact same sythesis can get wildly different results. In physics, everyone has their own homemade shitty simulation software that is full of bugs. The one time my group wanted to recreate someone elses simulation to figure out why it was differing from our own results, we asked them for their code. They sent use a suite of Fortran 77 programs all tied together with linux shell scripts. When you tried to compile the Fortran code, you got a trillion warnings and errors. After we couldn't get it to compile even with their instructions, we got their actual executables, which just crashed everytime we tried to run them.
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 14:33:29 UTC No. 16189579
>>16189440
I don't understand, how could there not be agreed on simulation requirements? Is modeling heavily tied to computing capability or something?
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 15:59:45 UTC No. 16189673
>>16189579
Every group has their own special snowflake simulation techniques in physics. Like there are broad umbrella terms everyone uses like DFT, but everyone has their own little snowflake branch of it that is tweaked and fitted by them
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 23:37:41 UTC No. 16190352
>>16189579
computer modeling is a fallacy, the model's author(s) create software which conforms to how they presume physics works and the software then necessarily confirms the author(s) presumption that they know how everything works is correct. its basically just a big thought experiment for people who can't do math in the heads, just a farce. the only people who get involved with it are people who can't do analytical math and who are too out of touch with reality to do experimental work
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 23:43:58 UTC No. 16190358
>>16190352
Such modelling should be subject to pruning, where better models are more accurate, giving better results, more likely to be repeated or cited, etc. What type of parameters are they given the freedom to adjust? Anybody have a textbook on this topic or is it all CS hokie stuff?
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 07:58:29 UTC No. 16190781
>>16190358
I were doing in door climate modelling for a company for a while. There are gazillion parameters to adjust. Whenever the results dont match the data they just change the way the control is modelled, or adding some terms there in this part of this approximation functions, or removing some... It's a total inconsistent clusterfuck of throwing darts in the dark, hoping it will hit the bulleye.
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 12:43:24 UTC No. 16191008
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 14:06:11 UTC No. 16191072
>>16190781
>I were doing
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 15:33:49 UTC No. 16191190
>>16181862
Not involved in this debate but I'd say the magnitude of that number may even be evidence of a lack of quality.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 05:15:24 UTC No. 16192110
>>16181862
I have and they're garbage. Nobody is going to pay to publish something worth reading. People who publish things that are worth reading get paid to do so.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 06:10:11 UTC No. 16192176
>>16189579
It's VERY hard to get a group of scientists to agree to shit, particularly if it involves changing a convention or their own personal way of doing things.
Ex. There's been a push to standardize low temperature plasma sources for almost two decades. Agreeing to specifications for a 'standard' source would lead to such sources becoming significantly cheaper and would make comparison of plasma research results significantly more straightforward. But it's gotten almost nowhere, despite almost everyone in the community agreeing that it's something that should happen... because (a) everyone thinks their standard is best and (b) nobody wants to change how they do things.
Same thing goes for instruction. I left my last faculty job because our older faculty refused to allow changes to be made to the labs for our service and intro courses, despite the fact that the lab manual we were using was pushing 30 years old and most of the equipment it required us to keep using hadn't actually functioned in 10-15 years.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 06:36:12 UTC No. 16192190
>>16181793
Berto is a chad
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 23:29:09 UTC No. 16193322
>>16192190
they're only hassling him because he is white. retractionwatch never calls out black scientists
Anonymous at Sun, 26 May 2024 09:48:30 UTC No. 16193834
>>16193322
Maybe they just assume that everyone already know blacks are too dumb to produce any decent science, so they don't feel obligated to debunk them
Anonymous at Sun, 26 May 2024 22:17:41 UTC No. 16194852
Anonymous at Sun, 26 May 2024 23:04:59 UTC No. 16194914
>>16193322
have you ever seen any black soience man pumping a few papers out every week? nah, that doesn't happen.
this white baldie is also a fraud not anything better than the black plagarists btw. he just get a better position in the ponzi hierarchy than them. probably he is worse than the black DEI ones because he is the one who are exploit and potentially supporting the system. his scientific contribution to the work he had his name on is zero.
Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 09:49:40 UTC No. 16195535
>>16194914
He published a lot of garbage and was never called out for it. He plagiarized the Santa Barbra Instrument Group CCD manual and submitted it as a publication and nobody said a thing.
Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 21:45:22 UTC No. 16196579
>>16195535
>and nobody said a thing.
because nobody ever read any of his publications
Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 07:41:02 UTC No. 16197331
>>16196579
Heres a full collection of all his publications in case you want to read them
https://neildegrassetyson.com/cv/#p
Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 07:57:22 UTC No. 16197349
>>16197331
I'd rather not. Can you delete this link so I don't have to?
Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 23:20:46 UTC No. 16198371
>>16197331
The one where he announces that Uranus was struck by a planet sized asteroid is a hoot
Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 07:01:25 UTC No. 16198795
>>16198371
>On the Possibility of a Major Impact on Uranus in the Past Century
>Abstract:
>Science and sheeiiiiittt muffugguhz! We be smart like Luke Skywalker!!!
Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 20:16:35 UTC No. 16199562
>>16178976
nice bait nigger
also thing are starting to move in that direction already, look arxiv
Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 21:35:24 UTC No. 16199730
>>16199562
the n word is racist
Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 21:53:34 UTC No. 16199761
>>16181793
>UHHHHH I'M GONNA PUBLIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISH
Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 21:54:48 UTC No. 16199763
>>16193322
>he is white.
American moment
same anon at Wed, 29 May 2024 22:25:20 UTC No. 16199804
>>16181793
Six million papers in four years, with contributor in five million more? I'd probe that!
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 06:22:28 UTC No. 16200362
>>16199804
Thats would be very antisemitic
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 21:42:05 UTC No. 16201476
>>16181007
>There are factors beside fraud for why replication may not be possible
No there aren't
Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 05:16:21 UTC No. 16202051
>>16177870
"Proved" is a verb, "proven" is and adjective
Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 17:37:14 UTC No. 16202747
>>16188182
it was first found by bias researchers in psychology due to the need for high powered advanced statistical analysis, then was found to generalize to the biomedical field and others
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 02:25:12 UTC No. 16203436
>>16198795
wow, i can't believe that rot got published, its like something a high school kid might've come up with
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 02:55:47 UTC No. 16203478
>>16191072
>>16183304
unbelievably based
๐๏ธ Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 06:27:18 UTC No. 16203715
>>16178976
Welcome to the open source revolution nigger. You're 30 years late.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 22:24:21 UTC No. 16205251
>>16203436
The idea that Uranus' axial tilt is a recent phenomenon is an idiotic idea because the ring system shares the same axial tilt as the planet.
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 00:33:09 UTC No. 16205484
>>16199562
didn't read
cope
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 12:03:43 UTC No. 16206044
>>16177870
Replication crisis was created by design when corporations that funded journals need to push their scientific propaganda and couldn't control the process if everything could be openly reproduced.
Almost none of Meta's science can be recreated but they need to completely control AI science. They simply buy the peer review they need and publish whatever they want.
It's much worse than they present it and even the peer review for top journals is fraudulent.
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 12:55:28 UTC No. 16206079
>>16206044
uhm. Why would private corporations care? Medical and chemical industries have reasons to put their research out there in some circumstances, but an AI company has no reason to share anything.
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 15:36:05 UTC No. 16206307
>>16206079
>why would for-profit companies who can boost their credibility and potentially expand their customer base by paying for sham studies as a marketing tactic care about doing so?
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 23:52:03 UTC No. 16206983
>>16181798
It's pretty easy if you set your mind into it.
Brazil destroyed around 23% of the Amazon rainforest (and that's thick jungle) in the last 50 years. From 99,5% to 76%.
I bet it could get to 50% in around 10 years with new flamethrower technology and incendiary bombs.
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 23:56:54 UTC No. 16206991
>>16189440
>They sent use a suite of Fortran 77 programs all tied together with linux shell scripts. When you tried to compile the Fortran code, you got a trillion warnings and errors.
Kek
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 01:01:11 UTC No. 16207061
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 17:45:04 UTC No. 16208067
>>16189440
that old f77 code is has become like some sort of mystical ancient relic, nobody knows how it works or what it does, but everyone relies on it nonetheless. the people who originated it are all long gone and the people who are using it are too ignorant of math, physics and computers to produce a superseding modern version
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 01:53:30 UTC No. 16208909
>>16208067
Sounds like a cargo cult.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 07:47:11 UTC No. 16209378
>>16208909
Sounds like a technocult which is based
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 21:18:37 UTC No. 16210468
>>16209378
if there was anything technological about it they wouldn't be using code for a 50 year old compiler. they haven't been able to develop anything more modern of their own because they lack the capability to do so, instead they're larping as scientists by using materials they don't understand.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 21:37:47 UTC No. 16210514
>>16177920
>>16177991
top marks
>>16208067
>that old f77 code is has become like some sort of mystical ancient relic
>is has become like some sort of
it really do be though it is so be it
Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 03:04:17 UTC No. 16210962
>>16210468
>they're larping as scientists by using materials they don't understand.
That's the Mechanicus for you
Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 18:51:23 UTC No. 16212177
>>16210468
>>16210468
My dad wrote f77 stuff when he was in college in the 1980s
Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 20:21:21 UTC No. 16212306
>>16202051
proven is the participle dumbass
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 08:42:55 UTC No. 16213318
>>16212306
its an adjective
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 01:38:09 UTC No. 16218608
>>16212177
The people today aren't writing it, they're just rerunning accent code they don't understand.
Its like if NASA tried to build a Saturn V today, they can't do it because the previous generation of competent white male scientists have all been replaced with female and shitskin political hires
๐๏ธ Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 19:43:02 UTC No. 16220405
>>16218608
running code you didn't write and couldn't write and trusting that the output is legit is outside the realm of science. the code is just a magic black box
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 05:32:04 UTC No. 16221356
>>16207061
extremely revealing
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 21:13:00 UTC No. 16222839
>>16207061
Theres probably a lot of people on /sci/ who are unaware that "Fortran 77 programs" means they were developed for the 1977 version of Fortran which was superseded in 1990.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 09:11:22 UTC No. 16224055
>>16177870
Its been replicated many times, unfortunately
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 23:12:40 UTC No. 16225732
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 23:17:48 UTC No. 16225749
>>16225732
tell me about the black earth layer in rome?
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 06:02:03 UTC No. 16226263
>>16177870
>can't reproduce Israeli studies
>would rather destroy science than appear antisemitic in publishing counter studies to Israeli scientists
simple, block Israel from science, would you trust data coming from a third world country?
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 02:41:00 UTC No. 16227841
>>16179716
you can't explain it
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 05:54:33 UTC No. 16228014
>>16203715
corportaions buy up the servers these days...
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:04:05 UTC No. 16229220
>>16203715
the n word is racist
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 17:13:20 UTC No. 16230626
>>16205251
black soiyence man btfo
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 22:26:03 UTC No. 16231098
>>16178976
>4.6 billion years
Trees only exist for 360 million years
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 10:26:17 UTC No. 16232228
>>16177870
It was real.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 03:20:10 UTC No. 16233804
>>16177870
Ironically enough the replication crisis seems to be the one aspect of modern science that is replicable and repeatable.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 19:19:46 UTC No. 16234964
>>16231098
>Trees only exist for 360 million years
according to the replication crisis crowd, but they lie about everything. only gullible lackwits are dumb enough to trust them.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 19:35:51 UTC No. 16234989
>>16179606
Wow they changed the method in which they calculate, that must mean the trends are all false!
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 21:53:56 UTC No. 16235250
>>16234964
So we're back to square one?
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Jun 2024 10:39:28 UTC No. 16236072
>>16205251
maybe an asteroid hit the rings too
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 00:40:36 UTC No. 16237087
>>16179606
Trees are not forests. A plantation of timber trees is not a forest.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 03:26:40 UTC No. 16237298
>>16202051
Cummed.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 20:05:46 UTC No. 16238221
>>16237087
>noooo you can't just plant trees!!!
>thats not a real tree!!!
why do people who call themselves environmentalists seem to hate trees so much?
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 20:11:22 UTC No. 16238234
>>16238221
Can you sustainably log on the ones you plant? Trees take time to grow, anon
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 20:15:02 UTC No. 16238245
>>16238221
You can plant trees, and they are real trees. Nobody suggested otherwise. Do you think acting retarded is a compelling argument? A forest is an ecosystem. A plantation of spruce trees is a tree farm, not a forest.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 06:30:11 UTC No. 16239068
>>16238234
>muh sustainably
people have been cutting down trees since forever and theres still trees
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 08:24:58 UTC No. 16239160
>>16239068
They haven't had populations in the billions "since forever" you absolute mong. Why not answer these questions in your own head before making an utterance?
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 08:54:45 UTC No. 16239178
>>16179798
>dumbass, top 1% elite programs in the world are also full of scam. they attract most of the narcissitic frauds.
This, in my area there are lots of papers from small programs in Europe / Japan / Canada that actually made an impact, while MIT & the like often publish near or full-fraud-level of useless busywork. People point out it's wrong and they publish anyway
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 10:28:38 UTC No. 16239232
>>16239178
One thing I cannot understand is why is nature full of these fuckwits who used xyz million dollar machine to produce something that only that team can produce. Fuck them they are the most useless scientists and gatekeepers to fraud.
Simple experiments which are reproducible are gold vs fag cunts producing unachievable results isn't that the point of Science to be reproducible?