[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 3.30 MB, 2500x1827, katie.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10544730 No.10544730[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Nobel when?

>> No.10544764
File: 254 KB, 1769x1071, 1554948059798.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10544764

>>10544730
>Nobel when?
After the other main contributors.
The media coverage makes it seem like she did most of the work/innovation.
Where are the news stories about Mr. Chael?

>> No.10544768

>>10544764
have sex

>> No.10544780

>>10544768
*have the right sex

>> No.10544788

>>10544780
This.

>> No.10544807

I'm tired guyz.
What the fuck is going on with this shit world?

>> No.10544813

>>10544807
Discovery.

>> No.10544820

>>10544813
What did we discover, exactly?
That women can steal all the credit for no reason?
Good, now you might as well give up on science if you're a male.

>> No.10544822

>>10544820
>That women can steal all the credit for no reason?
Exactly what belief system do you come from that that concept would be novel to you?

>> No.10544824

>>10544730
>transformed our view of black holes
>it looks exactly as predicted
wut

>> No.10544827

If I were on the team I'd be pretty pissed with how the media is running away with the SJW Jew QT story here

>> No.10544830

>>10544730
its her, newton and einstein

>> No.10544834

>>10544827
My first thought as well.
Not "Why am I not the one getting the credit", but just "Way to shit on everyone else involved in this project".

>> No.10544838

>>10544813

this isn't a discovery you mongoloid. what they did is render an image of a black hole according to a set of rules that are in theory true

this will never get a nobel , because it's not novel or anything new (the laws and equations were not discovered by them)

>> No.10544844

>>10544764
Apparently she created the algorithm. That's what's important.
Line of codes don't tell anything

>> No.10544847

>>10544768
Put cream on your herpes

>> No.10544934

>>10544844
>she created the algorithm
She wasn't the only author.
I can't tell who created what or how much everyone contributed to the paper.
I can see who did most of the coding.
Given the media's obsession with putting the spotlight on any woman in STEM, regardless of achievement, I have to assume that she contributed less than is being portrayed (I'm not saying she did nothing).
I understand the urge to give women a bigger spotlight than they might deserve to show "women can science too", but I have seen almost no mention of any of the other contributors which seems very unfair.

>> No.10544956

>>10544764
>seething incel detected
cope harder sweaty. lines of code don't matter. /OurGirl/ Katie made the algoritihm. That's all that matters. What's that? Can't handle a girl invading your safe space? Well tough luck, cookie, girls are here to stay, and there's nothing you can do about it. We won't "quiet down" until women make up at least 55% of STEM professors, and students, and then some.

>> No.10544957

>>10544934
>did most of the coding
So what? Lines of code tells nothing.

>> No.10544965
File: 138 KB, 1024x637, 1554967090750m.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10544965

>>10544934

>> No.10544975

Someone give me a quick rundown.

Was she primary author?
Was it her idea?
Want this a massive collaboration?
Isn't she just a grad student?

>> No.10544980

>>10544975
She worked on it as a grad student and post doc.

>> No.10544999

>>10544975
>>10544980
http://news.mit.edu/2019/mit-haystack-first-image-black-hole-0410

MIT's own news office just put her as a footnote.

Didn't even give her one sentence

>> No.10545013

>>10544999

They'll correct that mistake by the end of the week.

>> No.10545020

Besides being a woman, she's priviliged as fuck. Why the massive push?

Her daddy is some famous professor

>> No.10545021

>>10545013
Jennifer Chu | MIT News Office
April 10, 2019

A female MIT person wrote the article as well so no one can blame a male writer for this.

>> No.10545030

World is a fuck, kill em all 1989/ I am trash man.
There are roughly 4 billion human females.
All of them pale in comparison to the radiant intellect that is man. 50 million years of evolution won't be rewritten in a year, or a hundred years, or a thousand years. Women have their place, and men have theirs. Fuck pseudoscientists to death and then fuck them again.

>> No.10545038

>>10544999
where did her meme begin then? i'd like to trace the exact lineage of this meme for future reference, especially while it's still fresh, but unfortunately too busy with work to stay up later atm

>> No.10545050

>>10544730
Where can I find those photos of her black holes?

>> No.10545124

>>10545038
they put her in the press conference and ted talk
CNN and media journalists wrote articles giving her entirety of credit for narrative reasons
aka "thanks to Katie we have the first black hole image"

It's basically journalists doing a "good thing" by intentionally misrepresenting the effort as entirely because of her because she is jewish/girl scientists and #women in stem

It's the normal shit

>> No.10545132

>>10545038
I think I found what her essential contribution was.
http://news.mit.edu/2016/method-image-black-holes-0606
Last paragraph.
>The authors of this paper use a highly advanced approach to learn prior knowledge,” he continues. “The application of this prior-model approach to event-horizon images is not trivial. The authors took on major effort and risk. They mathematically merge into a single optimization formulation a very different, complex sensing process and a learning-based image-prior model.

The "very different" complex sensing model was devised in the 50's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very-long-baseline_interferometry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closure_phase
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Clifton_Jennison

The only new thing they seem to have done is feeding their simulations of black holes into their AI in order to train it to do a "better" reconstruction.
The problem is that is the most dubious part of the whole fiasco.
The construction of a better prior relies on assuming current physics is correct and that the simulations are accurate/representative.

>Assume you know what you should see
>See what you assumed you should see

I don't think any reliable scientific data will come from their image.
It makes for a nice artsy news story but no credible scientist will look at the artificially created image as a source of new/reliable information.

>> No.10545133

>>10544730
>1 woman out of a team of 200 does a small part of a big project
>muh algorithm
>WEEE GET HER THE NOBEL

>> No.10545135

>>10544730
hehe xd

>> No.10545140

>>10545133
though, this is what the public wants, they want singular entities that fit a narrative to get it lots more funding

200 people over a long project with 4 different teams making images isn't that exciting

for reasons of clickbait

"X person creates image of blackhole" where X fits a narrative is obviously what they are going to write

If you criticize it, just sexism

>> No.10545144

>>10544730
>not a photo
>not depicting the actual black hole
>not even the first
Come on guys, words have meaning.

>> No.10545146

lets say for example

you give the credit to a big group of people. No one in the public will care.

Putting a face to it is more important. People will have more emotional response to 1 dead person they see the face of, to hearing 200 people died. This is just fact.

If we are dealing with the public it makes sense for any scientific venture to use a "face" to sell the research and field to the public.

I see nothing wrong with it. It's not like the public could give appropriate credit to 200 people. No one would even recognize a single one, but she can be a vessel for pushing funding/science so I See why the media pushes it.

Just don't mistake media / public for actual important credit.

>> No.10545148

>>10545140
>>10545146
the public doesn't chose what gets funded or not.
and thank god for, or we would still be cavemen smashing rocks together.

>> No.10545153

>>10545148
>choose
>for that,

>> No.10545159

>>10544957
So what does tell?

>> No.10545247

>transformed out view of black holes
>Image looks identical to simulated image made 10 years ago