/sci/ - Science & Math

i dont pay much attention to them

i just hate harriet coming in threads because its like arguing with an autistic brick wall

There is not a single good tripfag in this board

They are all better than someone making a thread about them.

I like to think I am a pretty ok guy.

I wish Josef would start posting more again, he was always a good contributor IMO

>>4385604
Harriet is the worst. Mostly because (I think) he isn't trolling.

>>4385600
All the tripfags is a Scottish fat neckbeard with MPD.

>>4385609
resident /sci economist

>that feel when you will never see EK

as far as I remember only the former josef and the current pony fag actually do any sort of science.

EK, blackman and harriet are all cancer

>>4385620
I'm involved in biophysics. I just don't talk about it too much because I've mentioned my school once or twice and had people reply that they go there too and don't want people knowing who I am personally.

To all those who wish back Josef: Why the fuck do you admire an arrogant douchebag? Sure he knew some graduate level physics, but his attitude was simply disgusting.

>>4385620
>>4385620
Mad Scientist does science

I have yet to see a trip on /sci/ that isn't a troll. Although, to be fair, I've only been browsing for a few days.

>>4385630
I'd say he knew more than "some," but I'll agree he could come off a tad condescending.

>>4385632
>putting rats underwater only to satisfy nerd fantasies
>science

>>4385632
MadScientist is an underage sci fi fan and transhumanist. He does not know any actual science.

>>4385637
His knowledge wasn't impressing at all. To someone who knows the stuff it was obvious that he had a very shallow understanding and mainly spammed copypasted latex.

>>4385614
I like you fizixfag, you did a good job explaining some group theory to me a few days ago.

I respect Josef and that Emma guy because they know their math and physics, the rest are just wikipedia warriors

>>4385649
The Emma Watson fag is okay. Other than Josef he actually knows physics. And he is not a tripfag.

Best tripfags:

OP!UofeyHYdiM
mathgenius
Carl Sagan
Blackman

>>4385645
Glad I could help. I'm always willing to explain conceptual/theoretical questions. It's just when people ask computational or hw like questions I go silent. Honestly largely because I'm too lazy to type out the LaTeX for most computations.

Well I didn't think I was a troll.

>>4385650

its not WATSON goddamnit

Blackman (is he Mathgenius?) is obnoxious, but sometimes kind of funny. I think he's making a valid point; too many people on /sci/ think they're Vulcan or something.

>>4385660
No, he's just a shitposter.

>>4385630
Because he knows his shit, in contrast with 75% of sci.

Man, fuck the attitude. If I'm wasting my time there might at least learn something useful from time to time as a bonus.

TBH, Harriet doesn't really bother me as much as she used to. True, it's usually shitposting from a lack of knowledge, but at least she's trying, and in some cases there is a slight chance that she writes something passable.
EK was quite another story. Jesus fuck, she should die in a fire.

I sincerely liked Inurdaes, even if he was underageb&. Little fucker's posts were quite decent, despite what little he knew. At least he didn't attract shit-tier trolls and usually posted somewhat constructively.

CNS knows a lot of shit about humans n stuff. I like his post.


And I'm just gay for MadScientist


Honestly, I don't know why is there so much hate at all tripfags. Sure, most of them just don't need a trip, but why bother if one has?

>>4385665
Due to his attitude it was impossible to learn from Josef. He posted what ever he considered highest physics for the sole purpose of showing off and refused to explain anything, ridiculing those who actually wanted to learn with stupid comments.

MadScientist is annoying as fuck. Nearly all of his threads are off-topic underage garbage and I don't get why he gets so many replies.

Harriet tries to be helpful, but when Anon starts attacking her, the threads turn into shit.

>>4385665
I miss Inurdaes (I think he'll return sometime this year), and I think I like him and Mad Scientist for the same reason: they both have amazing zeal and excitement and LOVE science and are optimistic about what it can accomplish. It feels good, man.

Pascal can be helpful and contributive.

>>4385671
>Nearly all of his threads are off-topic underage garbage and I don't get why he gets so many replies.

Most of /sci/ is underage science fiction garbage lovers who just pretend to hate popsci and science fiction.

>>4385671
>2012
>not understanding why off-topic underage garbage would get max replies on /sci/

>>4385675
I don't think pascal is a single person. I mean everyone knows his tripcode.

I like ColonelMug.

Fuck them haters.

>>4385687
He is underage and neither knows math nor science. He cannot contribute to anything other than fantasy bullshit.

How nice, a thread about me.

I like "I never get back to threads". If you're going to shitpost at least do it in style, you know what I'm saying.
Also, who deleted mathgenius's post and why, for once he was on topic.

Posting with a tripcode on /sci/ is really hard. Any tripfag is instantly attacked by haters, even when being helpful. That's why I don't use my tripcode very often anymore.

Best tripfag?

http://archive.installgentoo.net/sci?task=search2&search_tripcode=!SteveAnJ7c&search_usernam
e=

>>4385734
What purpose does having an identity serve in math and science?

I havent been on /sci/ in a while, but I liked ColonelCoffeeMug, Josef, resident/sci/economist, and Inurdaes (wasn't he banned?)

>>4385754
It allows you to be recognized within a discussion. You cannot be impersonated by trolls and nobody confuses you with another poster. Both of these happened to me very often when posting anonymously.

>>4385762
So you like shitposters? GTFO.

I haven't been a tripfag for very long, but I think I'm a pretty cool guy. I actually only post under my trip when there's a physics thread. Otherwise I stay anonymous.

>>4385776
Now you are disqualified. This is not a physics thread and you entered the ranges of shitposters.

>that feel when even revealing your tripcode doesn't stop you from wanting to post on /sci/

HELLO FRIENDS, I MISSED YOU
I've been thinking of getting a new trip since I revealed my old one, should I?

>>4385786
Fuck off, cloan.

>>4385600

Most of them are the average boring green square 4chan user. They should stay on /b/ where they belong.

>>4385787
lol u mad because turtles are flying with nospiens
u mad brah
yeah u mad

God I miss my tripcode

>>4385792
Nice reflection of your personality.

>>4385792
Liberty you're an awful tripfriend, go away
/sci/ likes me more

So the other day I bought another turtle, what should I call it

>>4385806

Call it MadFagitist.

>>4385811
No it has to be a clever name
I thought of calling it Queen Rose, y/n?

>>4385815

Call is soup.

I wish EK would come back. At least she was amusing. All of the new tripfags suck.

>>4385818
No you homofag, Mr. Science doesn't like that name

>>4385822

You mean soup?

>>4385765
You didn't answer my question.

>>4385820
>Implying I'm not EK

>>4385824
What you call me

>>4385825
The logical consequence of what I posted is to acquire a temporary tripcode for the thread you are posting in, right?
Now consider you are posting in many threads. Why should you think of a new name and new tripcode everytime instead of using the same?

>mfw tripfags

>>4385831
reported

>>4385830
You still aren't answering my question.

>What purpose does having an identity serve in math and science?

>>4385834
The identity doesn't need purpose. It follows from having a tripcode. As a tripfag I never revealed any personal details and refrained from actively forming an identity. I kept my posts as objective and neutral as possible, focusing only on science and math. Still I was attacked by Anon.

>>4385834

Agreed, those scientists and methematicians need to stop identifying their work. Fucking tripfags.

>>4385829
I've been wanting to ask you, are you the whore on the right or the slut on the left?

>>4385834
>implying you know what identity means
>implying identity is defined by a name or a tripcode
>implying you don't have identity

>>4385839
>>4385845

>>4385840
Right, left is Harriet. I remember that photo, I was just getting ready to post on /sci/

>methematicians

not even once

>>4385838
>>4385839
You lack reading comprehension. WHY do you require recognition?

>>4385600

I'd give you my opinion, but I'm busy hiding this thread.

>>4385849
As I explained, my primary goal was not recognition, but efficiency when discussing in a thread. It wastes time having to explain that you are not the poster someone thinks you are, just as it ruins the discussion when a troll starts impersonating you.

>>4385852
>requiring a form of identification to discuss facts
Your argument is terrible.

>>4385853
You are aware that /sci/ is full of trolls who deny facts or at least pretend to do so, right?
If I came here to ask for a question I would like the question answered rather by a tripfag than by Anonymous. This way I had someone to refer to and to trust.

>>4385853
>discussing facts
>on /sci/

10/10

epic troll, bro

>>4385855
>What is 1+1?
>2
>3
>ur a faget

Credibility is just a google-search away.

>>4385847
When I look at that pic two things come to mind:
1)An old gf of mine, you look a lot like her.

2)That you're a natural at deepthroat, you have that look on your face, not to mention that small mouth of yours, I'm sure it does wonders.

>>4385859
It's sad to hear that the questions you usually ask are on the level of "1+1=?". There are threads that require more qualified knowledge.

>>4385859
>1+1=2
>WTF, bro?
>mind=blown
>Can you show steps?

>>4385861
Why would you be asking a question in a field when you have absolutely no knowledge in that field?

Tripfag thread? Did you guys miss me? :3

>>4385867
By this logic you cannot learn anything. It is important to ask questions on things you don't know. There would be no point in only asking questions whose answers you already have.

>people saying they like me
>2012

D'awww... love you /sci/!

I miss the day before /pol/ when we would get legitimate econ threads.

Madscientist is the obvious superbro.

>>4385876
MadScientist is a shit kid.

>>4385870
Fuck it, you aren't directly answering any of my questions. I might as well be arguing with a politician.

>nobody misses me :(

>>4385880
I answered all of your questions. If you intended to ask something you didn't post, feel free to rephrase.

Everyone is new but me.

>>4385876
Are you going to leave once moot makes the /econ/ board?

>>4385886
>noko on /sci/
>retarded underage gamer trip
>reddit comic

Okay you got me. Now back to >>>/b/

>>4385890
This is not going to happen.

>>4385895
>implying moot didn't personally tell me it was

>>4385898
>implying moot speaks to you

>>4385894
I never was at /b/.
I hate /b/.
/sci/ is where it's at.

>>4385890

I dont know.

The problem I think, is that if you have /pol/, /pol/ will naturally attract the econ threads, and there will never be a legitimate econ thread. If you dont have /pol/, /sci/ naturally attracts the econ threads, which will be of higher, more objective quality.

If you had an /econ/ board, I suspect it might end up like /pol/. A large majority of the users would be attracted based off opinion and ideology.

Ideology makes for bad econ.

>>4385901
Your name tells me you belong to /b/.

>>4385905
No.
That is wrong, you fucktard.

>>4385912
>fucktard

>>>/b/

>>4385920
Whooaaa
We have a reallll bad ass in here.

The world is now your oyster.

>>4385924
reported

>>4385924
This level of faggotry even surpasses /b/... there's only one possible explanation...

go back to >>>/reddit/

Also, reported.

>>4385902

Fuck off, /sci/ never used to get econ threads when /new/ was around. It's not meant to be an econ board you moron.

>>4385931

I am just saying the econ threads on /sci/ are the best. Better here than there.

And they are relevant on the basis that they are math, and technically science.

I do science.

>>4385944
Do you actually do anything regarding to finance, like stocks and other investments? Because that would likely be the primary point of the /econ/ board...

>>4385950

I have taken a handful of finance and accounting classes, and I own stock.

I think econ on /sci/ would still be preferable, just because there is the whole scientific/academic side of econ, as opposed to the financial side of econ. I just know I would get bored fast if every thread was about making money off stock.

>>4385963
Well then it's a good thing you don't run 4chan.

>>4385968

I am just saying to maximize the quality of econ threads, we should have them on /sci/.

Right, I guess it might not be worth all rage from everyone else on /sci/, by I never understood the mentality of all those butthurt haters anyway.

>>4385978
Yes, but economics and finance have a much wider application than your interests, and there should be a board devoted to people with those various interests outside of yours.

By saying /econ/ shouldn't exist because it would spoil your fun in talking about theoretical economics is just blatantly selfish.

>>4385996

First of all, economics and finance are not outside of my interests. I am not trying to rule out aspects of economics to promote some obscure interests of mine. Economics and finance are interesting. It is not my intention to disallow anyone, from any kind of thread.

From a policy stand point however, we cant everything.

If we have /pol/ and /econ/ all we have is jewbanker threads, and "I am 15 years old and I want to get into day trading" threads. I suspect that their existences precludes the existence of econ threads on /sci/, as anyone who is interested in econ will post on /pol/ or /econ/ and will get drowned out by the garbage posts. Of course, this is all just speculation, and the full effects of different boards couldnt be anticipated. It is true however than since the creation of /pol/ we have had less econ threads on /sci/ and far more crazy stupid uninformed flame wars about people's opinions regarding economics on /pol/.

So I guess yes, that is selfish in that I am imposing my values onto others. But thats just the nature having values. If you disagree with me you are asserting a different set of values upon everyone.

With that said I wouldnt agree that this is "selfish." Because the value for scientific discussion I think is exterior to myself. As in I would prefer the structure of the boards to be this way, even if I couldnt actually participate myself. People, as a whole, are better when they talk and think scientifically.