Incels losers attack womyn who took pix of blackhole by saying fag did it,no he says

Katherine Bouman, a 29-year-old postdoctoral researcher who developed an algorithm that was key to capturing the stunning visual of the blackhole.

On the ugliest corners of the Internet, however, this sudden fame for a young woman in a male-dominated field couldn’t stand. A corrective was quickly found in Andrew Chael, another member of the Event Horizon Telescope team, who, not coincidentally, is white and male.

On Reddit and Twitter, memes quickly went viral contrasting Bouman with Chael, who — per the viral images — was actually responsible for “850,000 of the 900,000 lines of code that were written in the historic black-hole image algorithm!”

The implication was clear: Bouman, pushed by an agenda-driven media, was getting all the attention. But Chael had done all the real work.

That’s completely wrong, Chael said in a viral Thursday night Twitter thread of his own. Not only are the claims in the meme flat-out incorrect, but Chael — as an openly gay man — is also part of an underrepresented demographic in his field.


It’s not clear exactly when or where the backlash against Bouman started, but Chael first caught wind of it from friends who alerted him to a Reddit post. One post on the r/pics subreddit attracted hundreds of comments and thousands of “upvotes” before it was taken down, with many criticizing Bouman at his expense, said Chael, a 28-year-old graduate student in Harvard’s physics department. As one typical commenter complained: “Katie has been plastered everywhere as being responsible for the code but if this dude did pretty much all the work, seems kind of crappy he doesn’t get recognized.”

“It was clearly started by people who were upset that a woman had become the face of this story and decided, ‘I’m going to find someone who reflects my narrative instead,’” Chael said in an interview with The Washington Post.

Identical memes quickly spread across Twitter, where one typical response was, “Andrew Chael did 90% of the work. Where’s his credit?”

But those claims are flat-out wrong, Chael said. He certainly didn’t write “850,000 lines of code,” a false number likely pulled from GitHub, a Web-based coding service. And while he was the primary author of one piece of software that worked on imaging the black hole, the team used multiple different approaches to avoid bias. His work was important, but Bouman’s was also vital as she helped stitch together all the teams, Chael said.

“Katie was a huge part of our collaboration at every step,” Chael said.


Many who shared an equally viral image of Bouman clutching her hands in joy at the sight of the black hole came away wrongly believing she was the sole person responsible for the discovery, an idea the postdoctoral researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has tried to correct.

“No one algorithm or person made this image,” Bouman wrote on Facebook, “it required the amazing talent of a team of scientists from around the globe and years of hard work to develop the instrument, data processing, imaging methods, and analysis techniques that were necessary to pull off this seemingly impossible feat.”

But those who sought to diminish Bouman’s work — especially while boosting Chael in her place — were making an absurd argument, the astrophysicist said. The New Mexico native is on the Outlist of LGBTQ scientists in the astronomy and astrophysics fields, and advises gay undergraduates at Harvard.

“Yes, that was ironic that they chose me,” he said.

washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/04/12/trolls-hijacked-scientists-image-attack-katie-bouman-they-picked-wrong-astrophysicist/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fcba7381c42f

Other urls found in this thread:

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal
stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/sum2016/entries/induction-problem/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

It was a team effort, but she was the face because she's female

It's a small victory in that they are forced to acknowledge the woman wasn't some genius who did it alone with muh girl power. White men win again

My favorite part of this story is when they refer to r*ddit and tw*tter as the worst parts of the internet.

its funny that Zig Forums tried to hero a guy that turned out to be gay

Who cares if he’s a faggot and didn’t do as much work as Zig Forums thinks, still doesn’t make her the super genius shill media paints her as.

thought she only joined a few months ago to grab the credit

still would bang

...

I'm reminded of the time the guy wearing a shirt with hot babes all over it, made by a woman, was the sole focus of a major space-science achievement.

None of this matters. The scientist or engineer doesn't matter, they are all revealed to be as shitty as the rest of us. Neil stole ideas, Nye is all political and isn't even a scientist, Einstein married his cousin. Doesn't matter, what matters is what we learn.

...

It doesn't matter if the dude is gay or not. Even trannies can write solid code. Most women can't. But the MSM will still try to present her as the project key person, like she's responsible for the success of the whole thing. Would have been even better if she was black (more diversity points). That's all they care about really.

womyns branes is different from mens

and yor branes is different from smart peoples

it's becase she has a huge nose

29 ?…..

she looks14……

and let's just be honest, okay?…
an overwhelming majority of you imageboard guys are homosexuals, whether it's overt or latent

there's absolutely NOTHING 'involuntary' about making a series of life decisions that make you unattractive to females.

women aren't attracted to videogame-playing dorks… women aren't interested in sedentary computer nerds….

and everybody knows it. it's not a secret….

back in grade school, everybody knew that girls ridiculed the 'dungeons and dragons' geeks

the girls would laugh at the science-fiction losers

So it's not involuntary… it's quite intentional

and 'celibacy' is when you actively CHOOSE not to have sex… So, while you imageboard anime videogame sci-fi fantasy losers VOLUNTARILY made the decision the make yourselves unattractive to women, it's not like you WANTED to be celibate…

In fact, you all think women should be obligated to find you attractive, and the reason you're so angry with women is because women AREN'T obligated…

So every opportunity that arises, you lash out at any female… it doesn't matter which female, because you'll bend over backwards to fabricate something to lash out at them over, something to insult them for, something to complain about.

it's not celibacy when women would never fuck you in a million years

and it's not involuntary…..

it's really quite simple….. you're homosexuals

who cares, you thirsty simp?
this is still a man's world and women are just another product to be bought and sold.
no need to put them on a pedastal, m8, it's really embarrassing to read how unquenchably thirsty you are.

Big talk coming from you, zach. Hows the beard doing?

Literally noone is the super genius that the media tries to create. The lone genius scientist meme has always been false. Einstein sucked at math, but he was great at talking to the media and now we have his face plastered everywhere.

spotted yet another lonely douchebag who overcompensates for his inability to get pussy with predictable rationalization that he thinks he can disguise as 'logic'.

Surprise !!!

happy to see that i've hit my target so skillfully.
cope harder, thirstyboi

You misspelled Dr. Noone's name, but that's okay

Pretty much NO ONE spells it correctly

Attached: PicsArt_04-14-11.02.27.jpg (480x300, 36.75K)

more amateur distraction techniques?

how about this ?……
Tell us your wife's name, Mr. VideogameBoy

what?… no wife?

well, then tell us your girlfriend's name, Animedude

wtf ?….. no gf either?

then simply tell us the names of the past 10 women you've fucked, Mr. Sci-fi Fan…..

waiting

not even bothering to read your drivel anymore. just laughing at you while you twist in the wind in a desperate bid to save face.

Nope…. You read it, fatboy

Attached: PicsArt_04-14-11.12.07.jpg (2048x1536, 771.36K)

You read every single word, homosexual guy

Attached: 5a3ab62ce38920351991730a38a8acd9.jpg (736x981, 98.19K)

happy to watch you predictably jumping through my hoops like a trained poodle

whatever you say, lonely man that would jump at the opportunity to have gay sex, because at least somebody would finally be having sex with him.

Whatever you say….

Attached: PicsArt_04-14-11.15.46.jpg (328x425, 37.05K)

Speaking of no woman finding you attractive…..

How's that latest video game working out for you?

Attached: PicsArt_04-14-11.20.04.jpg (499x322, 30.01K)

Attached: PicsArt_04-14-11.24.53.jpg (625x467, 79.02K)

A: a woman

Q: what image never gets
reflected in your glasses?

Attached: PicsArt_04-14-11.27.33.jpg (502x480, 60.94K)

REASONS NO WOMAN WILL FUCK YOU:

REASON NUMBER ONE

Attached: classic-DD-party.png (1440x900, 2.19M)

REASONS NO WOMAN WILL FUCK YOU:

REASON NUMBER TWO

Attached: magic.jpg (1920x1080, 359.11K)

REASONS NO WOMAN WILL FUCK YOU:

REASON NUMBER THREE

Attached: starwarsposter.jpg (800x368, 92.36K)

REASONS NO WOMAN WILL FUCK YOU:

REASON NUMBER FOUR

Attached: The-Lord-Of-The-Rings-Banner-1-1.jpg (1920x1080, 271.76K)

REASONS NO WOMAN WILL FUCK YOU:

REASON NUMBER FIVE

Attached: 54cfd423c3fde_-_laptop-joysticks-01-1012-lgn.jpg (480x240, 13.22K)

REASONS NO WOMAN WILL FUCK YOU:

REASON NUMBER SIX

no woman is interested in dating an overgrown child, trapped in an adult male's body…..

If a woman wants a child, she'll find a REAL MAN to impregnate her, and give her one of her own.

Attached: baby-on-computer.jpg (960x640, 77.75K)

What troglodyte scumbag wrote this grammatically incorrect headline?

That baby is asking for it. Instafame.

Attached: PicsArt_04-14-11.44.41.jpg (2172x1275, 263.52K)

A: the same guy who did THIS

Attached: PicsArt_04-14-11.46.43.jpg (1080x1540, 126.96K)

still using the same old gimmicks.
come on, guy, try a new tack, if only to invigorate your aging brain.

At least in this one photograph, she could easily pass for 15…..

I'd cram so much gravity into her black hole, that absolutely nothing could escape

Attached: PicsArt_04-14-11.53.35.jpg (907x1401, 101.77K)

so thirsty…

Trust me, computer boy

there's nothing 'new' about your type


lol @ you thinking you can convince anybody that you are 'breaking new ground'

"I'm a cutting-edge 'original' who parrots a handful of predictable imageboard catchprases like 'thirsty' to demonstrate my originality"

so easy to yank your chain

lol @ you reacting again

kek

what a peculiar choice of words

Attached: PicsArt_04-14-12.06.25.jpg (602x602, 76.38K)

that's called being /ourfaggot/ you stupid jew gas yourself

Attached: a wyatt mann jews quality shlomos 1468173532-1.jpg (831x1080, 109.54K)

Attached: PicsArt_04-14-12.12.45.jpg (416x512, 69K)

You actually tolerate gays? Zig Forums is a laughing joke.

Absolutely disgusting.

Uh, no. That’s not a thing.

Where is her coming of age surgery?

ACCELERATE ACTIVISM AGAINST Zig Forums

8 CHAN SERVER LOCATION

N.T. Technology, Inc.
200 Paul Ave
San Francisco, CA 94124

8 CHAN BUSINESS LOCATION

N.T. Technology, Inc.
9120 Double Diamond Parkway
Suite 5901
Reno, NV 89521

8 CHAN OWNER JIM WATKINS LOCATION

Race Queen (RQI), Inc.
2303 Cityland 10 Tower 1, 156 H.V.
Dela Costa St. Makati City, Philippines

8 CHAN REGISTAR LOCATION

tucows
96 Mowat Avenue, Toronto, Ontario,
M6K 3M1, Canada

ACCELERATE

they mean HELPED develop, right?

Race Queen

Like RuPaul or something?

Huh?

lol @ "accelerate"

(hint: nobody on Zig Forums has ever taken any action or made any changes to their lives as a result of reading any of your posts or threads, or the threads and posts of anybody else)

it's time you realize this fact

...

In 1975, researchers at Stanford invited a group of undergraduates to take part in a study about suicide. They were presented with pairs of suicide notes. In each pair, one note had been composed by a random individual, the other by a person who had subsequently taken his own life. The students were then asked to distinguish between the genuine notes and the fake ones.

Some students discovered that they had a genius for the task. Out of twenty-five pairs of notes, they correctly identified the real one twenty-four times. Others discovered that they were hopeless. They identified the real note in only ten instances.

As is often the case with psychological studies, the whole setup was a put-on. Though half the notes were indeed genuine—they’d been obtained from the Los Angeles County coroner’s office—the scores were fictitious. The students who’d been told they were almost always right were, on average, no more discerning than those who had been told they were mostly wrong.

In the second phase of the study, the deception was revealed. The students were told that the real point of the experiment was to gauge their responses to thinking they were right or wrong. (This, it turned out, was also a deception.) Finally, the students were asked to estimate how many suicide notes they had actually categorized correctly, and how many they thought an average student would get right. At this point, something curious happened. The students in the high-score group said that they thought they had, in fact, done quite well—significantly better than the average student—even though, as they’d just been told, they had zero grounds for believing this. Conversely, those who’d been assigned to the low-score group said that they thought they had done significantly worse than the average student—a conclusion that was equally unfounded.

“Once formed,” the researchers observed dryly, “impressions are remarkably perseverant.”

Attached: Screenshot_2019-04-14-13-03-48.png (1080x2160, 1.73M)

A few years later, a new set of Stanford students was recruited for a related study. The students were handed packets of information about a pair of firefighters, Frank K. and George H. Frank’s bio noted that, among other things, he had a baby daughter and he liked to scuba dive. George had a small son and played golf. The packets also included the men’s responses on what the researchers called the Risky-Conservative Choice Test. According to one version of the packet, Frank was a successful firefighter who, on the test, almost always went with the safest option. In the other version, Frank also chose the safest option, but he was a lousy firefighter who’d been put “on report” by his supervisors several times. Once again, midway through the study, the students were informed that they’d been misled, and that the information they’d received was entirely fictitious. The students were then asked to describe their own beliefs. What sort of attitude toward risk did they think a successful firefighter would have? The students who’d received the first packet thought that he would avoid it. The students in the second group thought he’d embrace it.

Even after the evidence “for their beliefs has been totally refuted, people fail to make appropriate revisions in those beliefs,” the researchers noted. In this case, the failure was “particularly impressive,” since two data points would never have been enough information to generalize from.

The Stanford studies became famous. Coming from a group of academics in the nineteen-seventies, the contention that people can’t think straight was shocking. It isn’t any longer. Thousands of subsequent experiments have confirmed (and elaborated on) this finding. As everyone who’s followed the research—or even occasionally picked up a copy of Psychology Today—knows, any graduate student with a clipboard can demonstrate that reasonable-seeming people are often totally irrational. Rarely has this insight seemed more relevant than it does right now. Still, an essential puzzle remains: How did we come to be this way?

In a new book, “The Enigma of Reason” (Harvard), the cognitive scientists Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber take a stab at answering this question. Mercier, who works at a French research institute in Lyon, and Sperber, now based at the Central European University, in Budapest, point out that reason is an evolved trait, like bipedalism or three-color vision. It emerged on the savannas of Africa, and has to be understood in that context.

Stripped of a lot of what might be called cognitive-science-ese, Mercier and Sperber’s argument runs, more or less, as follows: Humans’ biggest advantage over other species is our ability to coöperate. Coöperation is difficult to establish and almost as difficult to sustain. For any individual, freeloading is always the best course of action. Reason developed not to enable us to solve abstract, logical problems or even to help us draw conclusions from unfamiliar data; rather, it developed to resolve the problems posed by living in collaborative groups.

“Reason is an adaptation to the hypersocial niche humans have evolved for themselves,” Mercier and Sperber write. Habits of mind that seem weird or goofy or just plain dumb from an “intellectualist” point of view prove shrewd when seen from a social “interactionist” perspective.

Consider what’s become known as “confirmation bias,” the tendency people have to embrace information that supports their beliefs and reject information that contradicts them. Of the many forms of faulty thinking that have been identified, confirmation bias is among the best catalogued; it’s the subject of entire textbooks’ worth of experiments. One of the most famous of these was conducted, again, at Stanford. For this experiment, researchers rounded up a group of students who had opposing opinions about capital punishment. Half the students were in favor of it and thought that it deterred crime; the other half were against it and thought that it had no effect on crime.

The students were asked to respond to two studies. One provided data in support of the deterrence argument, and the other provided data that called it into question. Both studies—you guessed it—were made up, and had been designed to present what were, objectively speaking, equally compelling statistics. The students who had originally supported capital punishment rated the pro-deterrence data highly credible and the anti-deterrence data unconvincing; the students who’d originally opposed capital punishment did the reverse. At the end of the experiment, the students were asked once again about their views. Those who’d started out pro-capital punishment were now even more in favor of it; those who’d opposed it were even more hostile.

If reason is designed to generate sound judgments, then it’s hard to conceive of a more serious design flaw than confirmation bias. Imagine, Mercier and Sperber suggest, a mouse that thinks the way we do. Such a mouse, “bent on confirming its belief that there are no cats around,” would soon be dinner. To the extent that confirmation bias leads people to dismiss evidence of new or underappreciated threats—the human equivalent of the cat around the corner—it’s a trait that should have been selected against. The fact that both we and it survive, Mercier and Sperber argue, proves that it must have some adaptive function, and that function, they maintain, is related to our “hypersociability.”

in other words

what I'm saying is:

nobody reads a thread or a post
and changes their life, especially
when they already know all of the
information you are posting

The funniest part about Dr. Jewnose? In the movie she'll be played by a black tranny.

There's a world of difference between "tolerance" and "acceptance," you ambulatory chunk of corn-embedded shit.

> >>>/fit/ doesn't exist
You're glowing moshie

This changed how I feel about you.

nice work at inserting your inner rage at being inferior to Jews, your resentment towards women for always being rejected by them, AND your Freudian sexual proclivity towards transvestites and blacks ALL IN ONE POST

hint : /fit/ is all homosexual

I can live with that

Somehow you managed to include everyone of your psychological weaknesses into one sentence.

Absolutely remarkable

But I cannot, you see.

"Hostile" is the key word. My younger brother works for a university and has not only become more liberal, I cannot actually have a conversation anymore with him because if I put forth a belief he doesn't like (ie. trannies need professional help, not hormone shots) he goes from calm to shrieking chimpanzee in one second flat. Anything I try to say after that is literally screamed down, and I have no doubt if I showed my true power level, it would actually come to blows. He sneers about any facts that I get off "the internet" even though all his so-called facts are from uni propaganda. It's fucking depressing.

I went to university and became radicalized. There must have been something in your brother that made him that way quite apart from the scapegoated environment. His is queer, and probably so are you.

(((INCELS))) make asses of themselves, but the original trolls that created the memes live on in internets awesomeness.

TROLL PRIDE WORLDWIDE

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (651x493, 227.09K)

You guys really cant deal with the fact women can be smart and useful can you?

Attached: 90ddff9e4bd0c918c5920aa9394a9be5840c3cf9b38587384c5ca537bd795a0e.png (1093x570, 961.26K)

What good is it for women to be economically useful when declining birthrates are used to justify colonization?

Egg

Zack

Lee™

Since you're never going to be able to convince a woman to climb into bed with you (or even be seen standing next to you in public, for that matter) you're never going to reproduce, meaning you serve no purpose on this planet whatsoever.

all of your 'Bumbling Einstein' talk about economic usefulness, declining birth rates, and colonization haven't managed to distract from the fact that you're never going to reproduce, and the only thing you'll ever achieve is using up precious resources.

History has no need for you, very much the same way women have no desire for you.

You should save your economic usefulness of speech for when you're being forced into a giant meat grinder at a dog food factory.

There’s quite a bit wrong with what you said here, but the most important correction is that I’ve been married for 22 years.

Women shouldn’t be required to enter the workforce.

So do you keep those images saved for this shit? Because I hate to break it to you, but that's straight up not normal behavior. I'd argue that's actually gayer than taking it in the ass. At least cock crazed power bottoms are honest enough to admit it.

You're sitting on high (possibly on a towering dragon dildo made of denial) casting judgments on others for being closeted gays on an image board hiding behind anonymity. Meanwhile you're literally pulling that shit as you do this. Do you have a sense of self-awareness at all?

Thank you for proving my point that no women desire you

I don’t desire another.

so, there was ONE woman who desired you, at least for the first 27 months….

After which point she began desiring other men, and you began desiring other women (although I'm not saying either of you acted on those desires)

?

sure you do

Science!

This is projection.

If your wife ate the exact same meal of chicken pot pie for breakfast, lunch and dinner every single day for the past 22 years….

if somebody asked her "if you could eat ANYTHING you wanted right now, what would you eat?"

trust me…………

She's not going to say chicken pot pie

Nope…..

Just firsthand knowledge based on real life experience and an innate understanding of how humans operate…..

Keep trying. You have it wrong. She isn’t motivated by sex or food.

if I said dogs bark, I guess it would be 'projecting', right ?

if I said peanut butter hardens when refrigerated, I suppose it would be 'projection' on my part?

And while there's a minuscule possibility (an absolute mathematical improbability) that YOU might not desire another woman after 22 years, you can be rest assured that your wife doesn't feel the same way.

I don't remember anybody ever saying your wife is fat…….

I must have missed that post……

All I said is your wife lost her sexual desire for you a long long long long time ago.

OMG………

It just hit me:
You read my analogy about chicken pot pie
And you thought I was saying that
your wife is fat & 'motivated by food'

Hahahahahahaha !!!!

pay attention…. It's called a METAPHOR

and you're the chicken pot pie

See how easy that was?

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal
stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/sum2016/entries/induction-problem/

See