this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2024
225 points (98.3% liked)

Science Memes

19863 readers
1912 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] K0W4LSK1@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Are you guys serious the cat obviously wrote the paper and just needed the Professor human for credibility. This is just like that movie with the rat in the chef hat , but it's a cat and a physicist

[–] Shard@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

I think you mean Raccacoonie, the raccoon?

[–] Rolando@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

Cattenheimer.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 5 points 2 years ago

Do you think it was a cat in the hat

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 15 points 2 years ago

He does exude an air of competence and arrogance in equal measure. Clearly tenured.

[–] lowleveldata@programming.dev 14 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I would too, like to speak to the co-author

[–] humbletightband@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 2 years ago (3 children)

That's a long lasting tradition to use "we" even in solo authored papers. I believe even Newton did this

[–] summerof69@lemm.ee 14 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That’s a long lasting tradition to use “we” even in solo authored papers. We believe even Newton did this

[–] bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago

If our knowledge is based on our forebears, it would always be we.

[–] Mo5560@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The 2nd referee will nonetheless tell you to get rid of all of them

[–] humbletightband@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The second referee once told us that our paper should not be published at all.

Eventually, it made it to the Editor's choice section of the journal

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

Did he say YOU shouldn't publish it or it shouldn't be published?

I suspect they were a rival of my co-author, that's why they didn't want it to be published. Or they didn't want me to be published in this journal.

The communication is happening through journal's editors, so they could not explicitly write that they don't want ME to be publish papers.

[–] Shareni@programming.dev 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yup, that was a requirement for most papers at my uni. We also use the plural you to show respect, even when talking to a single person.

Reject modernity, embrace tradition 😆

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

This is totally valid. Rubber duck debugging is a thing. Heck, I've literally been a "Rubber Duck" for more than one person. I'm sure that Chester heard enough of the theory of the paper to claim the title of "~~Rubber Duck~~ Live Cat Debugger."

[–] Rolando@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Sure, it's a cute story, but what about prof's grad students sitting in the background with weepy eyes?

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

They should know better than to be where the public can see them

[–] fristislurper@feddit.nl 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Anyone have an recent example of FDC Willard being thanked in a paper? I couldn't find any, sadly

[–] Cheradenine@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 years ago

There are some listed on the Wikipedia page, which also contains this gem in the 'quick facts' section.

Known for. First cat to co-author a physics paper

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._D._C._Willard

[–] Rolando@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

But I guess we can have "FDC Willard numbers" in the same way we can have Erdős numbers, right?

[–] woodytrombone@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] hswolf@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

damn, I thought there would be a pawprint

[–] Dicska@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

The pawprint we were all looking for.

[–] riodoro1@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

how is it that cats make everything better?

[–] melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago

By being perfect wonderful creatures. Duh.

[–] ParabolicMotion@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

It would have been a really hot topic of discussion if his last name had been Schrödinger.

[–] CyberTailor@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Reminds me of Yuri Knorozov and his cat Asya

[–] Grass@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago

This makes me happy

[–] scarilog@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Find and replace "I" with "we"? Nah, we adding the kitty

[–] noodlejetski@lemm.ee 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Find and replace

a feature typewriters used in 1975 were famous for

[–] scarilog@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Didn't catch the year ahaha

[–] lars@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

and even today

. . . as ~~we~~ I are describing below . . .

[–] beebarfbadger@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

. . . as we are descrwebweng below . . .

[–] nicknonya@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)
[–] fckreddit@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I was confused at first. Then, I realized that when they replaced ‘mage’ with ‘wizard’, ‘damage’ became ‘dawizard’. It is actually hilarious.

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

it's a Scunthorpe problem but even nerdier

[–] pancakesyrupyum@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

On my device that’s one of those websites that don’t allow using the Back button.

Neat.

[–] Mo5560@feddit.de 1 points 2 years ago

Isn't "I" considered poor form? I was taught to always write in passive but "we" is kind of the accepted exception.