You must log in or register to comment.
He really said “why don’t you ask kitchen?” and she responded with “I am kitchen.”
Why’s she flexing about a paper that a white male couldn’t understand?
Also science is full of arrogant people, both males and females.
Why’s she flexing about a paper that a white male couldn’t understand?
???
She wrote a book. Then the arrogant white male read it. And referenced it while arguing with her, quoting the book. How he would argue with her if he did understand the book correctly
No, like, I get that he evidently didn’t understand it, but I find your question strange as it presupposes that she is “flexing” about a paper rather than complaining about how presumptuous some of her fellows can be.
Also science is full of arrogant people, both males and females.
Not really.
Okay, in my experience, as a recent PhD working in a science-related field, the scientific community is a comfortable place for people with superiority complex and for blatant fascists of all kinds.
in my experience,
yeah, that’s the issue. anecdotal evidence.
Kinda 🤷🏼♂️. It’s some kind of social platform (i.e. shit talk) where people talk and not a peer review q1 journal.
Still a good basis for null hypothesis
Titles will do that. Even the self imposed, like ‘musician’. The music scene is filled to the brim with undeserved self importance.
It makes sense that the science community is the same way.
What does skin color and gender have to do with this?
hegemony
Image failing to load here :/
The @lemmy.liberals in the comments here being flabbergasted that straight white men in positions of power are privileged and embarrassing is very funny
Keep it up dorks
And then everyone applauded..
But seriously if I witnessed this, I might actually applaud because that is a pretty badass bit of trivia to get to whip out.
I think I would rather this happen to me than just about anything professionally, the withdrawal from that high might actually kill me
I always roll my eyes whenever I see a “you can’t do that because you’re a woman” character in a show, and then I’m always reminded that these people actually exist
these people actually exist
The way it’s been explained to me is that so much of the negative interactions in life come from a tiny, tiny number of offenders who manage to be shitty to dozens and dozens of people. So anyone who has to interact with many different people will inevitably encounter that shitty interaction, while most of us normies would never actually behave in that way.
Of the literally thousands of times I’ve interacted with a server or cashier, I’ve never yelled at one. But talk to any server or cashier, and they’ll all have stories of the customer who yelled at them. In other words, it can be simultaneously true that:
- Almost all servers and cashiers get yelled at by customers.
- Very, very, few customers actually yell at servers or cashiers.
In other words, our lived experiences are very different, depending on which side of that interaction we might possibly be on.
When I talk to women in male dominated fields, basically every single one of them has shitty stories about sexist mistreatment. It’s basically inevitable, because they are a woman who interacts with literally hundreds or thousands in their field. And even if I interact with hundreds or thousands of women in that same field, just because I don’t mistreat any of them doesn’t mean that my experienced sample is representative.
I wouldn’t say very few. I’d say a solid 10% of people are routinely rude, impatient or entitled in a retail or restaurant setting. Even higher in some places.
Maybe in some places. But when I go out to a restaurant, I’m often surrounded by a few dozen other diners, and no one is acting up or shouting at waiting staff. I have seen customers be obviously rude to staff but it’s very rare compared to the number of “normal” interactions. Sure not everyone is friendly and totally polite, but entitled, shouting or just being an ass is an absolute exception, like less than 0.1%. I also worked as a waiter in a couple of different restaurants over a two year period, and don’t remember any incidents either to me or my colleagues.
When I read comments like this it makes me wonder if I’ve been lucky enough to live and work in decent places, and the USA is just an nightmare hellscape, or if the reality there is much more normal and we just hear an unrepresentative sample of it.
the USA is just an nightmare hellscape
If you are visiting a restaurant you really only get a sense of what’s happening at your table. Same when you reach a cashier - you might overhear what happens straight ahead, but not much more than that. People can be very rude without being very loud - if you work in customer service you have to deal with these people all the time, and you can’t escalate things either. It’s not something other customers are aware of.
Totally agree that eating at a restaurant doesn’t mean you see all the subtle ways people are douches. But the comment above was about people shouting, so I assumed that the “10% of people are rude” was meaning obviously and noticeably rude. If it’s just 10% of people are impatient / distracted / not very friendly / kinda annoying. Then sure, but I don’t think anyone would be surprised with such a mild claim.
And as I said, I was a waiter in a busy restaurant for over two years. And the staff spent a lot of time complaining about the job to each other (as you do) and while many customers were annoying, kept changing their orders, or were a bit drunk and laughing loudly the whole time, blah blah, I don’t remember anyone ever complaining about a customer being as rude as I regularly read / see on the Internet. I never encounter a “Karen”.
I’ve always assumed it is just that Internet focusses on the tiny number of extreme behaviours and makes it sound more normal. But then I hear people say things like 10% of people are awful to staff and it makes me think that maybe there’s a real cultural difference.
Sorry, somehow totally skipped over the part of your comment where you said you worked as a waiter! I didn’t intend to explain your own job to you at all haha. There are definitely demographic differences I’ve noticed, and specific workplaces… I’ve worked a relatively small number of customer service jobs. Cafe was broadly as the previous commenter described, maybe 5-10% of people were… not great. Although, no shouting or anything when I worked there. Just rude, entitled people. Pubs are not so bad, in my limited experience, drunk people are annoying but in a different way. The worst was a job where I had to take customer calls (not quite a call centre)… There I had to deal with the closest thing to a “Karen”.
Oh god, yes. I worked in a call centre for six months and it was dreadful. The combination of dealing with sometimes frustrating situations + the anonymity of a voice only call… People were regularly dreadful. Definitely at least 10% very rude people.
I also took it to be a sign of the ‘banality of evil’, that people having a nice time with their friends, eating some nice food, are generally pleasant. But put them in the privacy of their own home, speaking to a faceless stranger, and suddenly they can be awful. But I tried not to judge them to harshly. The design of call centres, with long hold times and staff with no real power to do anything helpful, is pretty much guaranteed to frustrate the most saintly of people.
I think you’re right. People want to believe that humans are good but in reality a huge number sure deeply broken.
It really is a matter of perspective.
You’re saying that 10% of the population being awful means that a “huge number” are deeply broken.
So then 90% are being good! Mind, it doesn’t take too many assholes to wreck things for everyone, but it is nice that the majority of folks really are trying to do their best. A sizeable majority, even!
10% of 8 billion is still many hundreds of millions. That’s a huge number. More: it’s a number we have to stop pretending is not a big deal and get to work to fix ourselves as a species.
Oh, no denying that at all. It is a problem, especially in aggregate.
When looking at the big picture, those rotten apples really do spoil the bunch and it can be depressing.
But also people can take that big picture awareness of problems and hate on people a little universally. Saying things like humanity is awful and a plague on the earth and maybe shouldn’t exist. There’s absolutely reason to see things that way.
But we are also a species that dolphins can approach for help when they’re injured. Or that will fight tooth and nail to help a wild creature. Or who will sacrifice their own well-being, not just for friends and family, but for strangers. Who will take other creatures, like dogs, into our homes and hearts and love them with all we have.
We can suck as a species, absolutely. We need to fix it. But it’s important to remember the joys of humanity, and not just the failures. Both are extreme, for we are a rather extreme species!
I think you’re right that only a tiny minority are directly responsible for the negative interactions, but as someone within academic science, there’s also a much larger chunk of people who don’t challenge the assholes or the systemic fuckery when they see it.
Minorities who face oppression are much more likely to be ignored if they report inappropriate or offensive behaviour; I directly know people who have been made to feel like they are the problem for highlighting a problem. This is especially common if it’s an established and respected academic who makes the iffy comments, because there’s a tendency to them like a senile grandparent at Christmas. If they’re a professor emeritus, there’s a sense of them not really being relevant anymore, even if they’re still respected, but it can feel tremendously isolating to see no-one step in to challenge the comments, either at an individual or institutional level.
It’s understandable to not want to rock the boat, but abstaining is easier for some than others.
I seen first hand examples of something happening like women being interrupted by men and they go on about how everything is sexist and they were mistreated. But in that exact same meeting multiple guys talked over multiple other guys. It just happens, not everything is sexist but a lot of people claim sexism when it isn’t.
We poke fun at your infatuation for these infantile cartoons. You reply, “misogyny”!!
The only reason your cries are taken seriously here is that so many of these people are on the same dumb wavelength.
Not only that they exist but also that they’re disturbingly common and disproportionately in positions of power.
Sometimes it’s true, like a penismodel
Women can have penises.
They can have one, if they have penises that’s scary
someone missed your joke about one person having multiple penises. or maybe they’re really progressive and are looking out for their multipenile friends.
Yeah, I guess I’m not progressive enough
Look, if one of you knows a guy (or a gal) rocking hemis and you’ve been holding out, I’m gonna lump you up with a Louisville Slugger on my Johnny Dangerous shit.
“There are women with penises, men with vaginas, and phobics without teeth.”
Some would even argue that all of the best penises are on women.
Lol the dudebros getting mad about only having a boring male penis instead of a cute female one and downvoting you.
Oh, I don’t think it’s that. I think it’s two parts actually comradely queers considering him a chaser, and two parts he’s an absolute self-aggrandizing waste of time who thinks he’s the “better class of socialist” compared to us when “degenerate” is an active part of his vocabulary and he just can’t stop parroting the State Department.
The only “socialists” that align with NATO are the same ones making excuses for the kinds of things on Vaush’s computer is the last I’mma say on that.
Thx :3
What does “human drivers of fire” mean?
Well I’m here so I guess I’ll answer.
There are many human drivers of fire, the first and foremost being, well you know, lighting a fire. And boy, do humans light a lot of fires.
Take for example, here is a map of active fires around the globe, right now:
First order human drivers of fire are things we actively or accidentally do to light a fire. Ignition is a fundamental for fire to happen, and humans cause WAY more ignition events than nature does. Things like a cook fire, burning brush or downed debris for management purposes, infrastructure like power lines or fueling stations, car accidents, lit cigarettes being thrown out etc… etc… The timing and frequency of these events directly influence the frequency of fires.
Second order drivers are things like vegetation management, home placing and construction, and other biophysical drivers. For example, introduction of invasive species like bromus tectorum, which burns very readily, represents more fine fuels in the environment. Yadayadayada more fires. Other things around vegetation management would fall into this category, such as the suppression of fire, or the psychical thinning of fuels in forests, or prescribed burns.
Well I’m here so I guess I’ll answer.
Are… are you McCarty et al., TropicalDingdong?
No no no, I’m an et al, just no any of those particular et al. I focus on wildfire risk and have read much on the topic. I’ve read McCarty and many more when it comes to understanding wildfire and wildfire risk. Some of my research focuses on wildfire risk, and spatial features as they relate to wildfire risk, so drivers becomes pretty important when it comes to wildfire risk modeling. I have taken several courses through NASA on the matter even though I don’t focus on drivers directly.
This is the kind of thing I’m working on:
The nodes are features, the edges are weights. In this case I’m just looking at structure:structure risk.
No no no, I’m an et al, just no any of those particular et al.
I’m going to
stealcite this. I guess it’ll be ‘et al et al.’Cool! I have no idea what any of that means, but cool! I get the feeling that you really enjoy what you do, and if that’s the case I’m glad for you :3
I’m sorry, but you obviously don’t understand wildfires. You should really try reading Tropical Dingdongs, Esq.
When you refer to that diagram, is it a way of gauging fire spread risk? Like this grill could start a medium sized fire, and it’s close to a shed which could become big fire, and that could spread to house, etc, etc?
So to be clear, I’m not trying to model spread. I’m taking a pretty different approach which is to look at metrics I can derive from an entire network, like centrality and modularity, and use those to predict the overall probability of survival. I’m not trying to say where or how a fire might progress through a network, but rather looking at the overall structure of a network at, for example the parcel resolution, to estimate the likely hood that a given structure might survive a wildfire.
So in the above figure, (it was literally a screen cap of what I had on at that moment, so no effort into graphic design etc.), the diameter of the circle corresponds to the exposure, which is weighted by the total facing. The units on the edges are kilojoules per m^2 per 300 seconds. The circles are on the ‘receiving’ side of the network (this is a directed kpartite network, and we’re only looking at structure:structure edges).
So you can imagine that if you stand with your face to a campfire, you receive more radiation than if you stand edgeways. Likewise if you take a step back. Same principal. I’m not adjusting the edge weights for structural composition or construction (although I’d like to. in the metaphore, all the campfires are the same size and intensity). This is just assuming that each structure will put out about the same amount of energy when burning. However, because of the physical arrangement of things in space, they do not necessarily all experience the same exposure. We can use those differences to create a set of weights, and then by looking at how ‘modular’ the system is at a given exposure rating (IE, how fully connected is the graph at a given kJ/m2), we might find that the network breaks into some interesting or predictive components.
So, very long answer, but trying to make it shorter: I’m not trying to model spread or predict how fire would move through this system. I’m trying to come up with an overall probabilistic assessment or risk based on how ‘connected’ features are in space.
Well that’s pretty cool, thanks for sharing! :D To repeat to check my understanding, you’re looking at where structures are relative to other structures, their shape and orientation, and how that goes together in a big system to influence general structure survival in a wildfire situation.
Do you foresee the outcome being something where you could “tune” a neighborhood to be more survivable, or would it end up with too many combinations to be viable?
yeah so there was a nature publication last year basically demonstrating this, however, they were working on 30 meter pixels.
I kinda got scooped, but I was always working in much higher resolution data.
But basically yeah. We can look at the network and identify where it can be hardened in or broken apart to be make more resistant.
…such as the suppression of fire, or the psychical thinning of fuels in forests, or prescribed burns.
I’m definitely picturing Jedi clearing debris from the forest floors using the Force, now.
Thanks!
Take for example, here is a map of active fires around the globe, right now:
By “fires” do they mean fores fires? Controlled fires to burn crops, or burn land to clear it for crops? House fires? Bonfires? Campfires? Fires in fireplaces?
Ignition is a fundamental for fire to happen, and humans cause WAY more ignition events than nature does.
A car causes hundreds of ignition effects per minute. But, I’m guessing you mean a certain kind of ignition?
The timing and frequency of these events directly influence the frequency of fires.
The timing and frequency of things like lighting a fire directly influence the frequency of fires? Do you mean the frequency of out-of-control fires? Because otherwise that seems like a pretty obvious conclusion.
It means she’s a trouble starter, punkin’ instigator, fear addicted, a danger illustrated.
So, you’re saying she’s a firestarter? Twisted firestarter?
She’s the bitch you hated, filth infatuated.
Oh, right! She’s the pain you tasted, fell intoxicated!
Something about climate change maybe?
Those who are deemed “Lit” in academic language.
I use geospatial science and data to document, analyze, and predict complexities of wildland and human-caused fire, from individual to global scales. I have a particular interest in fire emissions and modeling, regional food security, land-cover/land-use change, and the Arctic. As a mom, I am concerned with helping children and future generations have better lives.
Found an article referencing McCarty as a “fire scientist” which is a really cool title. Seems like human drivers of fire is exactly what it sounds like, motivations and causes for why humans set fires.
human drivers of fire is exactly what it sounds like
Dudes who drive flaming cars in stunt shows?
It’s my new band name, that’s for sure.
Probably just the totality of human influences on wildfires. This can include a wide range of activities and factors including climate change, forest preservation or cutting, changes in wild or domestic mammal herbivory, accidental ignition events, controlled burns, irrigation or diversion of streams, damming rivers, invasive species introductions, etc.
This is my best guess without googling it or her.
The only acceptable use of generative AI is to get the shit posts out faster
I think it’s a great use, but not only.
Resume building, cover letters, aggregating open text responses, summarizing complex texts, and so on.
While the AI can’t be left alone to do these things and if you do it’ll be clear it’s AI but it can reduce the time to do them significantly.
I firmly believe this is like the age of the computer before it. Those who fail to become AI natives in knowledge work will become under employed or unemployed in 10-15 years.
So I encourage you to make an excuse to learn it and get good at it.
God damn crackers
et. al
I wouldn’t mess with her, she contains multitudes!
That guy publishes a LOT.
Fucking hive minds
Is tenforward leaking again?
We are Borg et al. Resistance is futile.
I am 7 of etc etc
Shouldn’t it be “We are McCarty et al” and wouldn’t that make her have DID? Also /c/thathappened
someone urgently needs to shove you down a toilet
And why, if I may ask?
Cause your tiresome debate lord shtick does nothing to hide you’re exactly the type of guy this anecdote is about
You mean this made up story by a feminist, to make white men look bad? Doesn’t help that I’m queer either, I guess? Well, I’m not expecting much from you tankies over at hexbear anyway.
at the table, after his question was asked, and her eyes squinted in delight, it was at that moment he knew he had fucked up, he just didn’t know how yet
DEAR GOD! The patriarchy! A successful woman…who’s probably rich and living in a nice house and owns a nice car who may have not put her face out there that much wasn’t recognized for who she was immediately.
Also who was that guy? what are his qualifications? Has he achieved anything?
I suspect this story didn’t happen. How could you be so bad and speaking about your own work that someone questions it like that?
That et al is the best scientist, they’re in all the papers.
I would like to nominate Dra@lemmy.zip for the worst poster of the year award please
