this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023
521 points (97.1% liked)

Science Memes

10539 readers
2308 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.

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
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
521
Greebles! (mander.xyz)
submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
38 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
all 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 48 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago (2 children)

SWACs for short

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

SWACFS

[–] Metans 1 points 10 months ago

S

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

FFCKs sake

[–] [email protected] 42 points 10 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BS, there's not enough room for this sort of detail, you'd get 'as described previously in [1-4, 9, 84, 86, 150-160, unpublished observations]' half of which are unaccessible journals, out of print book chapters, and abstracts in German

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 37 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yes... different field... surely

[–] [email protected] 22 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 16 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Implying you understand the papers you wrote.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

Implying that you understand how to write.

[–] ZJBlank 35 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Ah yes, the two genders: erect and flaccid

[–] tdawg 9 points 10 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 24 points 10 months ago

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

[–] samus12345 24 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

But why did they cut the fleeb?

[–] samus12345 1 points 10 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?)

[–] [email protected] 21 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 69 points 10 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

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago

Science is awesome

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Why do they all have boners

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

Your nose is a boner

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

Your worst nightmare.

[–] RememberTheApollo_ 1 points 10 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I see Baby Yoda in a few of these.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

Plok Osmit packin a magnum chode

[–] iAvicenna 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] lemmy_outta_here 7 points 10 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

Freaking glips with their silly uphorns!

Downhorn for life! Long live plok!

[–] Pregnenolone 4 points 10 months ago

form

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

These greebles made some very interesting vases with lids I see

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

Simple as

[–] samus12345 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

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