The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!)
-
@benjamin-hall said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
The kind of people who go "oh, a physics degree. Physics is hard."
That's me, alright.
-
@karla said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
I looked up reason 1. They gave a quote from their opponent:
"The swine flu is simply another flu. It is not unusually deadly." And responded: "Oh good, then we can expect only ~36,000 people to die from it this year! " The link they gave as a source for their number:
-
Did not contain any number which would round to 36,000.
-
Is related to total flu hospitalizations per year, not deaths per specific flu, which is what would be necessary for their point to be valid.
With reasoning abilities like Albietz's, I would be suspicious of the articles in SBM.
-
-
@tharpa Here's a better link:
Influenza viruses and RSV, respectively, were associated with annual means (SD) of 8097 (3084) and 2707 (196) underlying pneumonia and influenza deaths, 36 155 (11 055) and 11 321 (668) underlying respiratory and circulatory deaths, and 51 203 (15 081) and 17 358 (1086) all-cause deaths.
The CDC puts the estimate at between 12,000-56,000 deaths annually, and are very cagey about giving a long-term average because they insist that the range better represents the variability of the number. But there's a table here (Table 4) that gives estimated deaths over five years (only four years for respiratory and circulatory deaths). If we take the average ratio of the two (which is pretty consistent) and apply that to estimate the number of respiratory and circulatory deaths in the fifth year, we get an average of about 38,500 respiratory and circulatory deaths per year attributable to influenza in the USA.
In short, the 36,000 figure sounds about right, but you are correct in that it is a total across all variations of influenza.
Also, the remainder of the response to point 1 addresses directly how 2009 H1N1 flu had significantly worse impacts than a normal flu, which was the main point.
-
@scarlet_manuka said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
@tharpa Here's a better link:
Influenza viruses and RSV, respectively, were associated with annual means (SD) of 8097 (3084) and 2707 (196) underlying pneumonia and influenza deaths, 36 155 (11 055) and 11 321 (668) underlying respiratory and circulatory deaths, and 51 203 (15 081) and 17 358 (1086) all-cause deaths.
The CDC puts the estimate at between 12,000-56,000 deaths annually, and are very cagey about giving a long-term average because they insist that the range better represents the variability of the number. But there's a table here (Table 4) that gives estimated deaths over five years (only four years for respiratory and circulatory deaths). If we take the average ratio of the two (which is pretty consistent) and apply that to estimate the number of respiratory and circulatory deaths in the fifth year, we get an average of about 38,500 respiratory and circulatory deaths per year attributable to influenza in the USA.
In short, the 36,000 figure sounds about right, but you are correct in that it is a total across all variations of influenza.
Also, the remainder of the response to point 1 addresses directly how 2009 H1N1 flu had significantly worse impacts than a normal flu, which was the main point.
I'm not surprised that the loose gist of what they said was correct. You had to go to an outside link, not the one given in the article to make your point. (I figured he had gotten the number from somewhere, I assumed he didn't just make it up.) It took me almost no effort to find obvious flaws in Albietz's first point, which, I would guess, is probably not the weakest one. And this from a website whose title claims to be science-based and who gives a superficial appearance of being science-based. It makes it seem like they don't review their articles at all before posting, beyond a checking of credentials.
-
@tharpa No, you didn't find a flaw in his point, you found a flaw in the reference used to support one number - a number which you are apparently acknowledging is indeed correct.
No lengthy piece of writing is going to be perfect. You need to estimate the nature and size of the flaws, not just say "oh look I found one issue therefore I shall ignore everything this person says." The flaws in this article are, in my estimation, orders of magnitude smaller than the flaws in the statements he is rebutting. So I'm happy to take this article as essentially correct.
-
@scarlet_manuka said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
@tharpa No, you didn't find a flaw in his point, you found a flaw in the reference used to support one number - a number which you are apparently acknowledging is indeed correct.
No lengthy piece of writing is going to be perfect. You need to estimate the nature and size of the flaws, not just say "oh look I found one issue therefore I shall ignore everything this person says." The flaws in this article are, in my estimation, orders of magnitude smaller than the flaws in the statements he is rebutting. So I'm happy to take this article as essentially correct.
Apparently you didn't realize that I found two flaws, not just one. One was the reference. (The link did not support his point.) The other was that the number was not correct for the point he was making. This was not a trivial error. It was a flaw in his point.
It was not a lengthy piece of writing that was "not perfect". It was the first point. Any careful reader and thinker would undoubtedly be able to find many errors in the whole article. It is as if there were several typos in the first sentence of a published work - would you continue reading the rest - or would you ignore the rest of what they said because the initial evidence pointed to them (or their editor) not being a careful speller or typist? (In this case it is his thinking that is careless, not his typing.)
You are entitled to think that the people Albietz is criticising are even dumber than he is. I see no reason to believe this.
-
-
-
@tharpa I am not getting this bit you guys were doing here. Is this some kind of who's on first variant?
-
@scarlet_manuka said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
There's also a bunch of jokes sprinkled throughout. The list below is not exhaustive.
I liked the references to filaments (VFF, etc.) which are things from valves that chips don't have (because chips don't move electrons in a vacuum in the first place).
-
@scarlet_manuka You might laugh but those things are built to last, as long as you satisfy the cooling requirements.
-
@gribnit said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
built to last
Everything has its breaking point. You just gotta know when to stop.
-
-
@boner said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
I do likes me some Rugrats reference.
And with something like that in mind, here's one I came up with when the Juno probe made it to Jupiter:
-
I know a joke about Zeno's Paradox, but it gets less funny every time I tell it.
-
Not sure if a joke, but...
Yes, actually, a single char most certainly can be converted into an int.... Maybe not the int you think about, but it can be done!
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
Not sure if a joke, but...
Yes, actually, a single char most certainly can be converted into an int.... Maybe not the int you think about, but it can be done!
A single char, yes. But that's an array (of 1).
-
@dcon said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
@Tsaukpaetra said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
Not sure if a joke, but...
Yes, actually, a single char most certainly can be converted into an int.... Maybe not the int you think about, but it can be done!
A single char, yes. But that's an array (of 1).
Can still be converted to a number! Not the number you think about, but it can be done!
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
� for that actually being the punchline.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
Yes, actually, a single char most certainly can be converted into an int.... Maybe not the int you think about, but it can be done!
I think this is not a case of "can't cast char to int" but of "can't cast array to int".
-
@PleegWat Yet another � for @Tsaukpaetra
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
@dcon said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
@Tsaukpaetra said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
Not sure if a joke, but...
Yes, actually, a single char most certainly can be converted into an int.... Maybe not the int you think about, but it can be done!
A single char, yes. But that's an array (of 1).
Can still be converted to a number! Not the number you think about, but it can be done!
32 bit code?
-
@Gribnit Another question?
-
@dcon Nope, more like a tally marker. That joke is really fucking nerdy.
-
@dcon said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
@Gribnit Another question?
@Tsaukpaetra forgot to null-terminate the array.
-
@Karla said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
@tharpa said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
@karla said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
Nice joke, but the Oxford Comma is in practice unnecessary. In order to make the joke, they had to take the phrase out of the enclosing sentence.
You can take my Oxford Comma out of my cold dead hands.
I also thought the whole anti science "celebs" added a layer to the joke.
That particular instance isn't a very good way to show the use of the Oxford comma. I prefer this one:
-
-
It's technically an IRC quote, but I'm proud of this one so it's going here:
[16:28:35] <Nyota> https://i.imgur.com/Is9v6Yg.jpg beautiful blue river [16:28:48] <Nyota> warning: will probably hurt eyes [16:29:19] <Onyx47> 0000ff, nasty
Embedded image so you lazy fucks don't need to copy the URL:
-
Details
-
@Boner When you start getting BSoDs in Wine, you know something's amiss.
-
@Onyx said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
@Boner When you start getting BSoDs in Wine, you know
something's amissWine is emulating Windows more faithfully than ever.
-
@ben_lubar said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
TDEMSYR. That's just velocity because the raptors cancel each other out.
-
@boomzilla said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
@ben_lubar said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
TDEMSYR. That's just velocity because the raptors cancel each other out.
It's actually just speed because distance doesn't have a direction.
-
Caption: Explaining to your waifu what a cosplayer is.
-
-
-
@masonwheeler These are all terrible analogies for superposition, I approve.
-
@Gribnit So was the cat. Schrödinger wanted to illustrate how phenomenally stupid he thought quantum mechanics were, so he created this absurd example. Now it's treated as brilliant insight.
-
@pie_flavor Burp.
-
-
@pie_flavor See
Okay
.But there's a slight connotational difference -
signum
of implied relevance changes.
-
-
@Tsaukpaetra Even better, both are of an avatar i had for a long time.
-
@Magus said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
@Tsaukpaetra Even better, both are of an avatar i had for a long time.
-
@Magus And now you don't.
-
@pie_flavor Nice of you to notice that I changed my avatar from Bear Holding a Shark to Saitama. I was actually going to change it back to the one I mentioned, but couldn't find it.
-
-
@boomzilla said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
It's at the level of nerdy joke where it's funny, but it doesn't actually work.
-
@tharpa C:\dos\run, in other words
-