• Guilherme@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    I browse Windy but don’t rely on any of those 4 weather forecasting models: I take the median of predicted temperatures and rainfalls instead. Also, I predict rain only if the median exceeds 1mm, and if it’s below that threshold but at least 3 models predict (some) rainfall I predict drizzle. Which is the same approach I had at my previous job, using data of doubtful quality to adjust Holt-Winters and Box-Jenkins models in order to forecast drug sales for Big Pharma.

    Kaggle by the way began to demand users engaged on modelling competitions to make PDFs explaining their methodologies after learning some cheaters would just combine results from other competitors.

    P.S. - Don’t average results from different models unless you are really, really sure of what you’re doing. Many times the models take turns on which one will output garbage, and you don’t want garbage contaminating your average. By switching to median you avoid the crap they sometimes spit altogether - not to mention it’s so simple you don’t even need to write numbers on paper or use a pocket calculator.

  • ItsLucky@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    In vulcano seismology there is this fun little thing called a tremor and its really annoying but also really mysterious as no one knows where it is coming from or what cases it. I’ve had multiple people try to explain it or I was listenin to talks about it and I have yet to hear solidly overlapping theories. Also not only does the signal look different at every single opportunity (aka every vulcano) that you to look at it, it also hides within a frequency range that is mostly overlapped with random background signal. So to look at it you need to do analzye your seismometers for a directional eigenvalue (not sure if its the correct word or even the only what its just what I’m doing. I’m normally German speaking but what we do is look at the seismometers and whether or nor all or most of the signals are comming from the same direction) so that you can even detect it, meanin just to look at it you already need some statistics.

    Not really sure where I’m going with this I just find this concept really really and I’m just once again baffled that we simply do not know about things in science.

  • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    Fun fact about Christmas. In next 5 years tops, the north pole will completely melt in summer thereby drowning every last motherfucker that works and lives there!

  • yamanii@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    There’s one thing they aren’t screaming about: how free will is a myth. It’s a topic that gets shot down a lot.

    • Gerbylynn@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      That’s barely an info dump on the subject. Observe -

      Free will is a complicated subject. If there is a divine creation (or simulation or whatever) then then what started the universe was a seed - or rather a set series of circumstances that started everything. Then everything built on that leading to me writing and you reading this.

      Free will is a choice - a decision to choose where your decisions come from. Are you truly in control or do you just choose the best possible outcome based on past relevant experiences? Obviously you will live with the consequences, no one’s saying you wouldn’t 👀

      Regardless, we’re all built on consequences of our past self which’ll in turn become your new past self. And from there it’ll continue till death. Obviously death itself is complicated and you’ll eventually face it. And what happens afterwards is another conversation. But until then you’ll make the most of everything you have. Every damn day.

      Edit: formating

  • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    Actual genuine scientists tend to be the nerd type excited about whatever it is they’re studying. They can’t wait to tell you about the frequency oscillations of some quasar or the courtship rituals of hagfish or whatever.

    The journals they have to publish in are shady as a cave though.

  • Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    It’s a secret rouse so you won’t suspect the stuff that they don’t tell you and get together every few months to co-ordinate keeping under wraps.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        thankfully i’m not a scientist, but if the people much smarter than me, and collective consensus say one thing, i’m likely to agree broadly with that sentiment. If not, same goes but in reverse.

        Now if i were doing science on the other hand…

    • justme@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      Research is based on the so-called scientific method (therefore science) and that is something you can’t proof, just belief in. But it’s the best we have with extraordinary amount of evidence to back it up.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        using the scientific method to demonstrate that the scientific method is the most effective method of science is definitely one of the moments of all time, for science.

      • infinite_ass@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 days ago

        There was this guy who spent his whole life in rural Arizona. All evidence indicated that the world is made of sand.

        Never discount errors of perspective.

        If you consider something that all scientists do then you might see a vast shared error.

        • justme@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 days ago

          It was evident that the world was bigger than what the guy saw, he was just not checking (lazy or insatiable or whatever) what’s further. There is the difference.

      • angrystego@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 days ago

        My own experience leaves me a bit more optimistic, although I do see some cursed bits.

        The presence of money in research depends greatly on the field and the ability of the scientists to make their research sound sexy. You can mask a lot of wierd niche basic research topics with sexy applied research talk.

        Also, there’s still a lot of science research without much money, being sustained by sheer enthusiasm.

        • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 days ago

          I agree. A great example of why can be found in this excellent article about an extensive “dossier” of fraud allegations against a top Alzheimer’s researcher: (https://www.science.org/content/article/research-misconduct-finding-neuroscientist-eliezer-masliah-papers-under-suspicion)

          Specifically, this snippet:

          “Microbiologist and research integrity expert Elisabeth Bik, who also worked on the Zlokovic dossier, contributed other Masliah examples and reviewed and concurred with almost all of the findings.”

          Elisabeth Bik is someone who has an incredible eye for fraudulently edited Western Blots images and someone I greatly admire. Calling her a “research integrity expert” is accurate, but what I find neat is that (to my knowledge) she doesn’t have any particular training or funding towards this work. A lot of work she does in this area starts on, or is made public on PubPeer, an online forum. This is all to say that Elisabeth Bik’s expertise and reputation in this area effectively stems from her just being a nerd on the internet.

          I find it quite beautiful in a way, because she’s far from the only example of this. I especially find it neat when non-scientists are able to help root out scientific fraud specifically through non-scientist expertise. As a scientist who often finds herself propelled by sheer enthusiasm, sometimes feels overwhelmed by the “Publish or Perish” atmosphere in research, and who worries about the integrity of science when there’s so much trash being published, it’s heartening to see that enthusiasm and commitment to Truth still matters.

  • _____@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    maybe this wording works on a certain kind of voter because of the “fuck you I got mine” attitude, they probably think that if they were the scientist they would reap the benefits for themselves

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    Unfortunately, real scientists have become lumped in with “industry shills paid to science the way industry wants them to science”.

  • meep_launcher@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    At first I read “have you ever met a single scientist?” As in “don’t you know they’re all fuckin?”

    • Naich@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      We’re all fucking all right. We are all fucking with the laws of nature. You like it when we stop your atoms moving and shine a laser at you, don’t you, you dirty filthy condensate?

  • zephorah@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    This is so true, and I can’t even type that without a severe eyeroll of agreement.

    I think that’s why some people wax poetic on Reddit or Lemmy with very little provocation. Finally…a captive audience that might read this info, even if they’re just passing time on the shitter…

    • chaogomu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      Yeah. No one cares if you’re rambling in a comment. Just be interesting enough that someone can pause their doom scrolling to read it.

      I personally have about 5 subjects where I can chime in with fun (to me) little facts.

      Or essays on the subject…

        • angrystego@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 days ago

          I know you’re not talking to me, but let me seize this unique opportunity to tell you that the amazing Dracula orchids with flowers, which look A LOT like monkey faces to us humans, are actually trying to imitate certain type of mushrooms, which attract their pollinators (flies that lay eggs on the mushrooms)!!! The mushroom part of the flower is what seems to be the monkey’s mouth to us.

          Please, feel free to search for Dracula orchid pictures to see many more monkey faces.

  • cr0n1c@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    Wtf, I’ve never heard of this bug in my entire life, and just last week I took a picture of one. Google Lens comes up with Brown Marmorated Stink Bug, and I didn’t think it would ever run into this tidbit of info ever again.

  • Zink@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    Gotta love when the conspiracy is so stupid that it’s the people who dedicated their lives to building and spreading human knowledge are the ones keeping the knowledge away from Joe public.

    You know how Trump has been called the poor person’s idea of a rich person? I’m trying to think of the caricature they use for “scientist” in their minds. Maybe a woke Joe Rogan?