He simped but the complaints weren't really white knighting for him but rather more anger at the increasing cultural tendency to celebrate female accomplishments even if they were only minimally involved in a project mostly done by males with little recognition.
Just look at the FIU bridge collapse. Before the collapse the bridge was celebrated as an achievement for women in engineering, especially brown women. Once it collapsed, all of that was quickly memoryholed and a male found to be blamed.
>Did he ever complain over stolen credit or ask for help?
such a thing is not necessary for people to scratch their head at the weird double standards. >woman submitted pointless cosmetic pull requests >international recognition
look at the commits yourself, there are only 94 with a total of around 4k lines of changes, and they are all the same cosmetic garbage. now compare that with the achael, who had 1mill+ lines and obviously did most of the coding work.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Well, what's the proof that she wrote the algorithm and that he simply implemented it? The whole question of ethics falls on that fact alone.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>https://www.npr.org/2019/04/10/711723383/watch-earth-gets-its-first-look-at-a-black-hole >Some of that work took place in Massachusetts, at MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab, where computer scientist Katie Bouman "led the creation of a new algorithm to produce the first-ever image of a black hole," the lab said Wednesday.
She was literally the leader of the CS lab who published the algorithm when she was a postdoc
2 years ago
Anonymous
>led the creation of a new algorithm
what does this even mean? so she was given the title of lead and an algorithm was made by a man in the team she was leading?
Being a "leader" in a lab isn't like being a middle manager at a fast food restaurant you wagies. >https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.01413
She was first author, indicating she did most of the theoretical work in the publication.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Bruh that Andrew Chael guy isn't even listed in that pdf you linked. Did she write a research paper using somebody else's work?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Bruh that Andrew Chael guy isn't even listed in that pdf you linked.
Yeah, obviously. He was a code monkey, read my lips: CODE MONKEY. He didn't do any of the research involved in producing the image, hence he just gets an acknowledgement at the bottom. >Acknowledgments We would like to thank Andrew Chael, Kather-
ine Rosenfeld, Lindy Blackburn, and Fabien Baron for all of their help-
ful discussions and feedback.
Even moreso the grant was under Bouman's name, meaning that it was the reasearch was under her postgrad work.
>you wagies
stop deflecting, the fact that her name is on a paper doesn't really tell us anything about the supposed algorithm she made or how much of any of this work was directly attributed to her. >indicating she did most of the theoretical work in the publication
you are just speculating at this point.
2 years ago
Anonymous
"... for all of their helpful discussions and feedback"
Dude, she straight up stole his work. LOL
2 years ago
Anonymous
how? seems to me he did much of the implementation, and perhaps she did the theoretical work? my doubts are on what this theoretical work that she did was. this other guy claims she made an algorithm... but I wouldn't go as far as to say she stole anyone's work. idk why you are saying that...
2 years ago
Anonymous
>does 99% of the work >receives credit only for "helpful discussions and feedback"
This looks a lot like plagiarism.
schizo, Chael himself even admits that his work was just an implementation of HER paper. Would you say a slave plagiarizes their master's work when they build a monument their master planned?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Got a source? All I'm seeing is this Andrew Chael guy did all of the work that there is evidence for. You know - stuff we can actually see instead of rumors. We can also see this guy is not credited at all for programing whatever this was. That alone is verifiable plagiarism.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The article is about the techniques, the code is only an implementation of it, hence why he isn't credited, because he developed nothing.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I mean he had nothing to do with the development of the techniques*.
You seem to be confusing writing the program with actually developing the techniques. He gets credit for writing the software, and that's it.
Same as why people who build the equipment used for some discovery don't get credit for the discovery itself unless they actually had a part in it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>He gets credit for writing the software, and that's it.
Where tf did he get credit for writing the software in that research paper. I would love to see this situation go down in front of the school board.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The paper isn't about the software tard. I literally said it before.
Can code monkeys even understand the difference between theoretical computer science and actually writing programs anymore?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The paper isn't about the software tard
Actually there is data and snapshots of the software this Andrew Chael guy coded in the research paper. He was not cited nor given credit for programing the software at all. This is plagiarism by definition. There is no defense here.
2 years ago
Anonymous
(Responding to my own post) I am gathering a case here for future reference. You are in trouble, little missy. I may or may not be a dean at your university.
2 years ago
Anonymous
To supplement your case, use the fact that both their academic websites and CVs are identically formatted. One is copying off the other. Who is the better programmer of the two, hmm? Therefore who is copying off whom?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Absolute fricking moron.
There is a difference between building something used in an article and actually contributing you absolute idiot >We would like to give credits to the engineers at Fluke that designed and made the multimeters used in this experiment which we show the photos of >We would like to give credits to the programmers who wrote mathematica for the image processing used in this article >We would like to give credits to the child who made these test tubes for their invaluable contribution to this experiment
That's all he did, he built the tool. Nothing more. And hence, he gets no credits.
2 years ago
Anonymous
There are clearly images of the software in the paper. And yes, coding a tool requires citation of the coder. Have fun being outside of academia.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>things I just made up >There are clearly images of the software in the paper.
Like I literally just pointed out above, you can absolutely use images of something built without giving it credit, like the millions of photos and plots used in articles as well the fact every other single equipment used in any article doesn't get credits. It's that simple, he built the tool, he gets credit for building the tool.
You can use the tool without giving him credit on the paper, because the tool has nothing to do with the research, just like all of the other tools.
Once more this isn't a paper about the program, this is a paper that at most uses the program as any other tool, which does not require any credit.
>1 million lines of code >he developed nothing
Just admit she plagiarized this guy's work. xD
2 years ago
Anonymous
if he wanted to kill his career he would have told the truth
2 years ago
Anonymous
Hes a simp. Also, imagine beliving a literal 20 year old hole had an original idea in astrophysics. I bet she went "what if we took a black hole photograph!"
MY IDEA!
2 years ago
Anonymous
He did nothing, he's just a code monkey who implemented the algorithm/techniques/math she developed.
It's like how the graduate students are the slaves in the lab who do all the manual labor for the head researcher who actually develops the theory and experiment.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>he's just a code monkey
and the israeliteess ur simping for was just a hole with breasts that was given the limelight for a project she can't really even take credit for. an algorithm is not the same as an entire million line project.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The absolute amount of seethe in your post is hilarious btw.
2 years ago
Anonymous
im just using the same namecalling ur doing sweaty. ur just mad ur little israeliteess did nuffin while le chad male did all the work.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You're defending a israelite too
2 years ago
Anonymous
no im just saying she didnt do all the work. ur defending a israeliteess kek
2 years ago
Anonymous
Chael is a israelite and a homosexual unironically
2 years ago
Anonymous
oyyyyveeyyyyyyyyy
2 years ago
Anonymous
Well that's some projection as you're calling this Andrew guy a slave in your posts multiple times. lol How did you even get your PhD, btw?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Show me a monkey that can write a million lines of code
2 years ago
Anonymous
(You)
2 years ago
Anonymous
>This looks a lot like plagiarism
I suppose the correct term in English would be "ghost writing".
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the fact that her name is on a paper doesn't really tell us anything about the supposed algorithm she made or how much of any of this work was directly attributed to her.
Actually, it does. You just don't want to admit that she did the work, admit it. Most of the other authors are just astronomers with applied stuff, she's the only one attached to the paper who seems to have a significant background in image processing.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Most of the other authors are just astronomers with applied stuff
bruh. this is unfounded garbage. neither you or I know what they did or their skills. stop pulling shit out of your ass.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>neither you or I know what they did or their skills.
You do realize you can click on their name and see all the other papers they published on arxiv? You can see literally all of the academic work they've ever done using that link.
2 years ago
Anonymous
and how can you objectively look at their work and devalue it as compared to the israeliteess? its all subjective garbage. you just want the girl to take credit for all the other work people did.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Being a "leader" in a lab isn't like being a middle manager at a fast food restaurant you wagies
It literally is. Leader=Manager.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Not linking the proper paper >https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.06156
What the frick is your problem?
2 years ago
Anonymous
all the simps ignore this
2 years ago
Anonymous
Anon didn't ask for proof that she was a middle manager, he asked for proof that she wrote the algorithm for others to implement. Go ahead and try deflecting again so you can be called out again.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>leader of the CS lab
so she was busy in meetings over funding allocation and pointless bureaucratic bullshit while the researchers were writing code, got it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the leader
lol
2 years ago
Anonymous
leader in this case probably means she managed the scheduling
2 years ago
Anonymous
It was her fricking doctoral thesis. Jesus christ /misc/-tards just cant admit they're wrong.
Also you. Shut the frick up about their CVs, doesnt prove anything even if they stole it from each other. Absolutely weak evidence, you're just baiting at this point.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Now read the other guys thesis and then tell me what you think
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Now read the other guys thesis and then tell me what you think
show us what you mean.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/42029694
What about it?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Shut the frick up about their CVs, doesnt prove anything even if they stole it from each other. Absolutely weak evidence, you're just baiting at this point.
An estrogen addled brain wrote that post. I don't care whether you're a femboy, a troony, or a woman---it's clear that you have too much estrogen.
She stole his CV formatting as well. Look up her CV and look up his CV. Oh, she also stole his website formatting too.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Sounds like she stole his penis and one of his kidneys too.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Holy shit it's real. >Katie Bouman >http://users.cms.caltech.edu/~klbouman/ >http://users.cms.caltech.edu/~klbouman/pw/cv/cv.pdf >Andrew Chael >https://achael.github.io/ >https://achael.github.io/assets/pdfs/achael_cv.pdf
The CVs being identical is really a big deal.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Seriously? I've seen that CV format or some small variation on it literally a dozen times. Doesnt prove anything besides the fact that they both went to a career counseling center.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>She stole his CV formatting as well. Look up her CV and look up his CV. Oh, she also stole his website formatting too.
Or maybe consider this, T HEIR WEBSITES LOOK SIMILAR BECAUSE THEY WORKED TOGETHER AND COLLABORATED.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You're missing the point. Who took the formatting from whom?
2 years ago
Anonymous
it doesn't matter, they probably used the same template, or one probably said to the other >hey i like your cv format, can I borrow it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It does matter. Have you ever collaborated with people? Did you ask them for their fricking CV template and for their website template? I sure as frick didn't. You know why? Because I'm independent. The degree to which you're simping for this b***h indicates you're either a beta-cuck incel or a woman. Either way, you're obviously arguing from an estrogen-addled brain.
2 years ago
Anonymous
That was my first post in the thread. How is borrowing a template so important?
Show me literally one other instance of this CV being used. They're obviously using the SAME EXACT thing, not a variation. >they both went to a career counseling center.
I bid. Find me literally one other person from their research group using this template.
Given how much more of the code he wrote in github, he's clearly more competent than she is at coding. Therefore it stands to reason that he's likely the originator of these codes.
Can you prove that she took the template from him?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes. See my above posts. >1. They have the same template (indisputable)
Corollary: One of them took it from the other (assuming they didn't find it simultaneously and independently, which is a zero probability event) >2. He's a better programmer than she is (indisputable)
Check the github for the Event Horizon images >3. His webpage is more developed, whereas hers is more barebones (indisputable)
Therefore, it stands to reason that the more skilled programmer came up with these templates which the less skilled one stole.
QED.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Corollary: One of them took it from the other (assuming they didn't find it simultaneously and independently, which is a zero probability event)
Flawed premise. Them finding a free template online is not a zero probability event, even if it is low.
If they both used a free template and one recommended it to another, it's not accurate to say they took it from the other.
>Check the github for the Event Horizon images >>3. His webpage is more developed, whereas hers is more barebones (indisputable) >Therefore, it stands to reason that the more skilled programmer came up with these templates which the less skilled one stole.
Creating a template doesn't require any coding skill, and superior coding skill doesn't necessarily imply that someone created a quite simple template.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Given how much more of the code he wrote in github, he's clearly more competent than she is at coding. Therefore it stands to reason that he's likely the originator of these codes.
Coding a website is much simpler than that.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>So she gave it back to him?
'borrowing' in the digital world doesn't mean temporarily using and then returning a distinct item, it means using the same format without the format being used by a 2nd person affecting the 1st person in any way
100% guaranteed she literally had him help her put together his CV, there is literally nothing wrong with this and anyone getting butthurt has never put together an academic CV and is just triggered by women
2 years ago
Anonymous
>So she gave it back to him?
Have you graduated high school yet? Do you know what borrowing means in this context or are you iliterate?
Let me make it even easier for you to understand. Why did she choose to copy Andrew's CV and website, specifically, and not someone else's whom she's collaborated with?
2 years ago
Anonymous
how do you know it wasn't him who copied the cv and website?
2 years ago
Anonymous
how do you know it wasn't a prefab template?
2 years ago
Anonymous
you're welcome to prove me wrong and find where such alleged premade template originated
The fields do since they're run by humans and humans care about ethics. Fundamentally they don't ofc. You could be the biggest Ghenghisnazikhanladen in the universe and you could still count.
I think it's the difference between academics and engineers. Academics live in an imaginary world where implementation doesn't matter. This was a real world project. There had to be changes to the algorithm for it to perform correctly. Instead of qualifying coding as mindless work, think of it as a tool to realize a result. If the paper was purely theoretical I could be convinced Andrew doesn't deserve credit, but it's not.
hmm interesting. so she was the lead author in the paper on CHIRP. ok i'll give her the benefit of the doubt, maybe she can take most of the credit for this algorithm. but do we really know how influential this algorithm was on the entire project? 1 million lines of code, how vital was her (and others) algorithm in accomplishing this task?
I was at a presentation she gave about the work. Interesting work and I don't doubt she is clever and understands the work, likely even developed most of it.
But she is super annoying. Her voice empties my bowels.
Mathematics has nothing to do with ethics, only if the equations work.
Physics has one ethic: have you been honest about your experiment. And then someone tries to reproduce this experiment, to prove it.
To get to the level of humanist ethics you have to get to the level of biology. And yes, that is a thing. We just had a "phase three" trial of a Covid vaccine over millions of people. Who consented... sort of. And most of us who took the vax didn't die... yet.
I can accept that she's good at theory and not coding. I can't accept that she didn't credit guy for writing 1 million lines of her code. If she's leading the project, she's also responsible for that omission.
They should both just be credited equally. If it's true that most of the code he wrote was tedious UI work then fair enough, because any dev would know just how repetitive writing code for UI is, as it often involves a lot of copy-and-pasting. If she was the one who wrote the algorithm to turn the telescopic data into an image, then fair play to her, and technically the Reddit post about her isn't wrong. Not sure why people are white knighting for the guy, I'm sure he would have kicked up a fuss himself if he felt as though he wasn't being credited enough
The sad part is she's obviously very competent, but chose to double down on her success for some reason. I don't see how this isn't blatant plagarim. The best argument from this thread is "writing code doesn't deserve credit", which is wrong.
Chael did get credit, but he doesn't deserve more credit than the hundreds of supporting people who did something similar, such as processing astronomical data or something. Katy was one of the most important researchers on the other hand.
>hundreds of supporting people
there's 26 >processing astronomical data or something
if you look on the dev branch, he commits code for the core functionality of the project. The output of his code is referenced throughout the paper. >Katy was one of the most important researchers on the other hand
I'm convinced she's important, and could have done the majority of theory work, but she didn't acknowledge Andrew for his work in the paper. Claiming he merely contributed "discussions and feedback" is dishonest.
You ever used expensive equipment? The stuff that gets written in the methodology part of a paper?
The techs running those don’t even get credit for “discussions and feedback”.
Fairly obvious why btw, she asked for some functionality from the tool he was building, he gave her feedback on the feasibility, etcetera etcetera.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yeah I've been involved in a few papers before, and there was back and forth between theory and implementation. There's no perfect world where she makes a model, and it works the first time. If they exposed their overleaf account or whatever we could get a better idea of how much people contributed to the paper, but given the series of changes in the git repo during 2019 it's obvious he was involved in developing the algorithm. Here, discussions and feedback is more liek "Andrew, why is this image skewed" "Oh Katie, I think you need to adjust your model for X, that's why, let me write 1 million more lines of code" "can I suck your dick for it agian?" "sure Katie! don't worry about my name on the paper!"
>The sad part is she's obviously very competent, but chose to double down on her success for some reason.
This. But it might not been her idea. Maybe her team wanted her to take most of the credit and she just accepted.
Then she doesn't belong in science. Such dishonesty isn't ok just because the team agreed to it. The whole thing is a crime against the public. All involved should be sent to work camps until they've produced enough gravel out of boulders to pay back the money their scam cost.
Let's be honest, guys. The algorithm takes into account light based around earth. It's probably an image of light pollution - you cannot take an image of a black hole. lol
This whole situation is ridiculous. Just take away the PhD already.
women are simply not suitable for STEM.
cry all you want they create more problems than they solve.
women's brains are just wired for empathy and not autistic systematizing. simple. of course outliers exist. LMAO probability :D???
Im pretty tired of these 0.00000000001 signal to noise experiments where you need 9000 exobytes of data to find a statistically significant finding but only after you filter all the data for noise like trucks, earthquakes, atmospheric turbulence and radio reflections from mars.
It isnt hard, its just a fiction. These experiments all assume they can understand and filter noise 10 trillion trillion times stronger than the signal. Assumption wrong? Too bad you will never know
[...]
Kek, it continues. Will the simps ever recover?
She denotes a submission made by Andrew with a >C:
and a submission made by her as a >Bo:
Despite her own bias in her thesis, these return nearly equal number of hits.
More fun... look at how much more erroneous her own data is than Andrew's. This is going to be a fun time... more owning to come
Her own collaborators independently chose Andrew's imaging as the correct image of the black hole OVER KATIE'S ATTEMPT
2 years ago
Anonymous
Bouman bros.. I don't feel so good
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why do you hate women so much?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Andrew's able to reconstruct images as opposed to Bouman who fails. This is a recurring theme in the thesis: a majority of the accurate reconstructions are from Andrew's code. This isn't just Andrew being a codemonkey to implement what Katie told him to: KATIE'S OWN ATTEMPTS FAIL
2 years ago
Anonymous
Not just a one-off. As I said, this is a recurring theme.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Again. Can you simps finally submit?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Andrew's able to reconstruct images as opposed to Bouman who fails. This is a recurring theme in the thesis: a majority of the accurate reconstructions are from Andrew's code. This isn't just Andrew being a codemonkey to implement what Katie told him to: KATIE'S OWN ATTEMPTS FAIL
Her own collaborators independently chose Andrew's imaging as the correct image of the black hole OVER KATIE'S ATTEMPT
[...]
[...]
She denotes a submission made by Andrew with a >C:
and a submission made by her as a >Bo:
Despite her own bias in her thesis, these return nearly equal number of hits.
More fun... look at how much more erroneous her own data is than Andrew's. This is going to be a fun time... more owning to come
[...]
Kek, it continues. Will the simps ever recover?
How come memhorizon doesn't show up on the github page?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Hey, she made the algorithm, nobody said she needed to code anything. She created, Chael implemented.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>her subordinate could implement her own algorithm better than she could
what kind of cope is this
2 years ago
Anonymous
It's her algorithm, why would she need to be able to know how to implement it hyper efficiently? The gay code monkey can do it, she was probably there to mentor him and show him how it works, though.
horseshit. the algorithm she wrote, and in her own words in her own thesis is STARWARP >Our proposed approach, StarWarps, reconstructs a video rather than a static image. >StarWarps uses a multivariate Gaussian imaging regularizer for interferometric imaging
This is what her CHIRP was designed to do. Just to be absolutely clear: THIS IS NOT THE ALGORITHM THAT ANDREW WAS USING.
2 years ago
Anonymous
what algo did he use in github? show us.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I've put more than enough work into this thread to prove a point. Here's the github, have fun. >https://github.com/achael/eht-imaging
2 years ago
Anonymous
Prove he's using his algorithim in the github.
2 years ago
Anonymous
NTA, but if you're unsatisfied with the amount of evidence he's already provided, nothing will change convince you.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It isn't good quality evidence.
He clearly didn't read the entire 250 page phd dissertation in 30 minutes. So he's not going to have a complete understanding of the topic, and he isn't going to be fully aware of the context of the details.
The details he gives are out of context crops. He also doesn't adress the principle question: he doesn't prove that the guy wrote the algorithim used in github.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>He clearly didn't read the entire 250 page phd dissertation in 30 minutes.
How much of the thesis did you read, sir?
never said I read all of it. They keypoint is that he's failing to show that andrew wrote the algorithim used in github.
2 years ago
Anonymous
he never claimed that, dip. also, when you say anon missed context, you're pretending to know what context it is he missed (which means you're implicitly claiming to have read the thesis). and don't even try to back track, or else i will drop the receipts
2 years ago
Anonymous
So, what was his claim then?
2 years ago
Anonymous
bruh. don't pretend you read the thesis (as a matter of fact, it's clear basedanon read more of it than you did, which is zero). given you've read none of the thesis, how can you claim to know what context anon missed? frick you and your dishonest shilling, b***h.
2 years ago
Anonymous
moron you do realize theres a difference between the abstract mathematical representation of an algorithm and its implementation, right? She created the algo, all that math at the beginning of her thesis. Both chael and her translated it into code, but he did a better job at that.
2 years ago
Anonymous
That's worse for her. She lead this artistic interpretation of questionable data while sucking up millions of public dollars. The implementer at least has the excuse they thought this was something real. She knows this is a huge scam that produced nothing of value. A three year old with a box of crayons would produce something as scientifically valid as what this scam artist did.
2 years ago
Anonymous
prove its questionable.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>horseshit. the algorithm she wrote, and in her own words in her own thesis is STARWARP >>Our proposed approach, StarWarps, reconstructs a video rather than a static image. >>StarWarps uses a multivariate Gaussian imaging regularizer for interferometric imaging >This is what her CHIRP was designed to do. Just to be absolutely clear: THIS IS NOT THE ALGORITHM THAT ANDREW WAS USING.
So she wrote starwarp, but How come starwarp shows up in github:
https://github.com/achael/eht-imaging/search?q=starwarp&type=commits
andrew chael was using "MEMHor" in those images, but that doesn't show up in github:
https://github.com/achael/eht-imaging/search?q=memhor&type=commits
2 years ago
Anonymous
why try MEMHor and not AMP? are you even trying?
2 years ago
Anonymous
amp wasn't the name of the method, it was one of the types of data inputs of memhorizon
2 years ago
Anonymous
guess katie lied about using memhorizon then.
just what kind of point are you trying to make? that something katie claimed existed doesn't exist in her own thesis? as a defense of katie? how fricking stupid are you?
2 years ago
Anonymous
I said there weren't any results for memhor on github
What are you saying?
2 years ago
Anonymous
he's saying zippidee do da day, olay olay! hahaha cheers anon!
2 years ago
Anonymous
>guess katie lied about using memhorizon then
Where?
2 years ago
Anonymous
hey man, you're the one who says MEMhorizon doesn't exist in the code. so what does Katie mean when she cites memhorizon in her thesis? i'm just taking the logical conclusion here...
2 years ago
Anonymous
Isn't the dissertation separate from the code?
2 years ago
Anonymous
She's comparing the algorithm they are going to use with memhor.
That's a variant of an older algorithm called MEM (maximal entropy method, I think made by some Indian guys in 1980)
2 years ago
Anonymous
>going through code repositories of a project with hundreds of collaborators with zero context on how those are organized to undermine some woman’s contribution to the project
2 years ago
Anonymous
Femoid detected.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>incel buzzwords
Bouman and Chael were collaborators in MIT for image processing algorithms and in turn part of the much larger EHT project. I don’t understand why her contributions get your panties in a twist because she got a modicum of press alongside the large team
2 years ago
Anonymous
>modicum of press alongside the large tea
that "modicum" is like the literal celebration of vegana award, just because she's a woman and does science too, jazzed into "she did that whole thing on her own!" in popular media.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>going through GitHubs you have no idea how are organized in the project team’s activities because you can’t fathom the idea that Bowman made a significant contribution to the project
2 years ago
Anonymous
The point is that the GitHub mentions the algorithm that Bowman did contribute to.
Her own collaborators independently chose Andrew's imaging as the correct image of the black hole OVER KATIE'S ATTEMPT
Pretty sure this is just the image reconstruction method. Nobody's claiming she made the reconstruction method, just that she created the algorithm to parse the data to be fed into the image reconstruction algo.
So she wrote starwarp, but How come starwarp shows up in github:
https://github.com/achael/eht-imaging/search?q=starwarp&type=commits
andrew chael was using "MEMHor" in those images, but that doesn't show up in github:
https://github.com/achael/eht-imaging/search?q=memhor&type=commits
just what kind of point are you trying to make? that something katie claimed existed doesn't exist in her own thesis? as a defense of katie? how fricking stupid are you?
AHAHSAHA SHE CREDITS CHAEL IN HER THESIS
Holy shit, you simps just got BTFO'd so hard. >I want to particularly thank four people from this list: Michael Johnson, Andrew Chael, Lindy Blackburn, and Adrian Dalca
If you do a ctrl+f search for " chael" (the space before chael will make your life easier), you'll see a majority of the images in HER OWN FRICKING THESIS she credits to Chael.
I think he's established beyond all reasonable doubt that she committed the unforgivable crime of having her research project leader help her on her thesis which basically means she should be stripped of her credentials and sent to work at mcdonalds
So you've elevated her to the level of a "chudcel" and still haven't justified her fame or the attention given to the group's art project. Unless she's the only person in history to earn an EE PhD from MIT, that's not a news worthy accomplishment. Neither her, nor the rest of the artist collective, deserve anything other than an extended prison sentence for fraud and misuse of public funds.
if she was a man he would not have written a single of those words in that tweet. Now go simp for women outside of here, you aren't fricking anyways.
2 years ago
Anonymous
How are they simping?
2 years ago
Anonymous
She is smart enough to know that she is being patronizingly and condescendingly used to promote a cause that makes a big deal about nothing.
Its like that black team that is off to climb Everest. Spread all over the news like it was revolutionary. It might have been- in 1952. But now all it is, is patronizing bullshit. Makes me puke.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Who is doing this?
2 years ago
Anonymous
She’s not taking the attention though. She made a talk on the algorithm she made years before the EHT images came out and then she got some press from the MIT social accounts and some news media. All of the data published by the EHT project is cited and credited. You’re just assblasted because she happens to be a woman
LOC is not a valid metric. Quality > Quantity (Or in this case, the purpose of the code itself). This website proves itself stupid every time I look at it.
Getting a picture of a black hole isn't an achievement. It's completely useless and does nothing to help the human race. The "people" who worked on it have made no worthwhile contributions to society. That we accept this type of behaviour is a sign of mental illness in our society.
If. as an assistant i do all the work carrying out an experiment, i dont expect the plaudits for implement the work and plans of the doctor that designed the experiment. but i do want credit.
Is it really so hard to understand that people don't want to look at some unattractive weak chinned beta male explaining science to them, they would much rather look at a moderately pleasing to look at yet attainable, 6/10 'girl next door' type, and that this leads to more interest in science, more funding for research and, ultimately, more progress?
Science isn't a beauty pageant moron, pop sci already is one
If you think it sucks that pop sci gives large amounts of public attention to 6/10 grad research assistants and black science man presenting lukewarm opinions to midwits instead of showing the autistic face of actual scientific research to the general public, you should not be in STEM, go be a business major or something
Scientists are modern day priests that exist to lie for the King. Maybe science was a good idea when Tesla and Einstein walked the earth, but today, it is a mixture of evil and incompetence. From gene therapy to mustard gas, science has become a satanic religion that ruthlessly propagandizes 'solutions' to problems that it solely created. It flip-flops constantly, hurting billions in the process. Then it demands trust and total subservience, which it receives, thanks to the short memories of its followers. Today's scientists cannot reproduce each other’s experiments, mostly due to incompetence, but cultural corruption too; every day in thousands of labs across the world the methods are quickly set aside for the moral high ground and social status. While the cultish followers think that the truth is paramount, it always plays third fiddle to flawed modern perceptions of morality and money. Money is the grease that allows the shit covered wheels of science to churn out garbage studies. Money creates clickbait, undeserved promotions, the foundations for corporate narratives, and above all, the means for subpar scientists to continue to breed subpar science. From the health benefits of thalidomide to cigarettes, from making and testing viruses to gene therapy, from cloning to testing chemicals on living mammals, from lead in fuel to sugar being healthier than fat, from WMDs in Iraq to feathered dinosaurs, the list goes on and on. The bottom line is, there isn't a lie you've been told, by government or corporation, that hasn't been built on corrupted science. Asbestos, clamping, circumcising, vaccinating, drug induced narcolepsy, birth defects, early onset cancer, you name it, science has done it to people just like you. And they will do it again, God knows which one of the manmade horrors gleefully shilled by science, is hurting us right this second.
It shouldn't. The scientists should. But not must. But they should be watched by whole the world. Everybody should be watched by whole the world of people and ai. Everybody's karmas should be collected into dossiers for everybody to check and comment and rate and even edit in such a way that old records are preserved like wikipedia's history, but kept on several independent servers so it would be more difficult to fake it.
Reminder to people who don't actually work on team based projects professionally or academically that credit isn't given to those who do the "most" amount of work. Credit is given to those who lead the team effectely and interface with the customer/public.
The guy Andrew Chael isn't the leader of the project thus he does not get the credit. However because he did most of code for the project he can put that in his resume and get himself a good six figure job or use this feats to personally lead his own team in the future.
You might not like how the situation played out but this is normal.
Why are redditors white knighting for the guy? Did he ever complain over stolen credit or ask for help?
He simped but the complaints weren't really white knighting for him but rather more anger at the increasing cultural tendency to celebrate female accomplishments even if they were only minimally involved in a project mostly done by males with little recognition.
Just look at the FIU bridge collapse. Before the collapse the bridge was celebrated as an achievement for women in engineering, especially brown women. Once it collapsed, all of that was quickly memoryholed and a male found to be blamed.
>Did he ever complain over stolen credit or ask for help?
such a thing is not necessary for people to scratch their head at the weird double standards.
>woman submitted pointless cosmetic pull requests
>international recognition
you're literally looking at like 10 commits out of thousands, are you dense?
and as
stated it was her own algorithm and he simply implemented it
https://github.com/achael/eht-imaging/commits?author=klbouman
look at the commits yourself, there are only 94 with a total of around 4k lines of changes, and they are all the same cosmetic garbage. now compare that with the achael, who had 1mill+ lines and obviously did most of the coding work.
Well, what's the proof that she wrote the algorithm and that he simply implemented it? The whole question of ethics falls on that fact alone.
>https://www.npr.org/2019/04/10/711723383/watch-earth-gets-its-first-look-at-a-black-hole
>Some of that work took place in Massachusetts, at MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab, where computer scientist Katie Bouman "led the creation of a new algorithm to produce the first-ever image of a black hole," the lab said Wednesday.
She was literally the leader of the CS lab who published the algorithm when she was a postdoc
>led the creation of a new algorithm
what does this even mean? so she was given the title of lead and an algorithm was made by a man in the team she was leading?
Being a "leader" in a lab isn't like being a middle manager at a fast food restaurant you wagies.
>https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.01413
She was first author, indicating she did most of the theoretical work in the publication.
Bruh that Andrew Chael guy isn't even listed in that pdf you linked. Did she write a research paper using somebody else's work?
>Bruh that Andrew Chael guy isn't even listed in that pdf you linked.
Yeah, obviously. He was a code monkey, read my lips: CODE MONKEY. He didn't do any of the research involved in producing the image, hence he just gets an acknowledgement at the bottom.
>Acknowledgments We would like to thank Andrew Chael, Kather-
ine Rosenfeld, Lindy Blackburn, and Fabien Baron for all of their help-
ful discussions and feedback.
Even moreso the grant was under Bouman's name, meaning that it was the reasearch was under her postgrad work.
he is...
>you wagies
stop deflecting, the fact that her name is on a paper doesn't really tell us anything about the supposed algorithm she made or how much of any of this work was directly attributed to her.
>indicating she did most of the theoretical work in the publication
you are just speculating at this point.
"... for all of their helpful discussions and feedback"
Dude, she straight up stole his work. LOL
how? seems to me he did much of the implementation, and perhaps she did the theoretical work? my doubts are on what this theoretical work that she did was. this other guy claims she made an algorithm... but I wouldn't go as far as to say she stole anyone's work. idk why you are saying that...
>does 99% of the work
>receives credit only for "helpful discussions and feedback"
This looks a lot like plagiarism.
https://writing.caltech.edu/resources/plagiarism
schizo, Chael himself even admits that his work was just an implementation of HER paper. Would you say a slave plagiarizes their master's work when they build a monument their master planned?
Got a source? All I'm seeing is this Andrew Chael guy did all of the work that there is evidence for. You know - stuff we can actually see instead of rumors. We can also see this guy is not credited at all for programing whatever this was. That alone is verifiable plagiarism.
The article is about the techniques, the code is only an implementation of it, hence why he isn't credited, because he developed nothing.
I mean he had nothing to do with the development of the techniques*.
see
You seem to be confusing writing the program with actually developing the techniques. He gets credit for writing the software, and that's it.
Same as why people who build the equipment used for some discovery don't get credit for the discovery itself unless they actually had a part in it.
>He gets credit for writing the software, and that's it.
Where tf did he get credit for writing the software in that research paper. I would love to see this situation go down in front of the school board.
The paper isn't about the software tard. I literally said it before.
Can code monkeys even understand the difference between theoretical computer science and actually writing programs anymore?
>The paper isn't about the software tard
Actually there is data and snapshots of the software this Andrew Chael guy coded in the research paper. He was not cited nor given credit for programing the software at all. This is plagiarism by definition. There is no defense here.
(Responding to my own post) I am gathering a case here for future reference. You are in trouble, little missy. I may or may not be a dean at your university.
To supplement your case, use the fact that both their academic websites and CVs are identically formatted. One is copying off the other. Who is the better programmer of the two, hmm? Therefore who is copying off whom?
Absolute fricking moron.
There is a difference between building something used in an article and actually contributing you absolute idiot
>We would like to give credits to the engineers at Fluke that designed and made the multimeters used in this experiment which we show the photos of
>We would like to give credits to the programmers who wrote mathematica for the image processing used in this article
>We would like to give credits to the child who made these test tubes for their invaluable contribution to this experiment
That's all he did, he built the tool. Nothing more. And hence, he gets no credits.
There are clearly images of the software in the paper. And yes, coding a tool requires citation of the coder. Have fun being outside of academia.
>things I just made up
>There are clearly images of the software in the paper.
Like I literally just pointed out above, you can absolutely use images of something built without giving it credit, like the millions of photos and plots used in articles as well the fact every other single equipment used in any article doesn't get credits. It's that simple, he built the tool, he gets credit for building the tool.
You can use the tool without giving him credit on the paper, because the tool has nothing to do with the research, just like all of the other tools.
Once more this isn't a paper about the program, this is a paper that at most uses the program as any other tool, which does not require any credit.
You are ridiculous.
That's what I'd say to you.
Someone posted it here
whoops, inverted the order of the quotes.
>1 million lines of code
>he developed nothing
Just admit she plagiarized this guy's work. xD
if he wanted to kill his career he would have told the truth
Hes a simp. Also, imagine beliving a literal 20 year old hole had an original idea in astrophysics. I bet she went "what if we took a black hole photograph!"
MY IDEA!
He did nothing, he's just a code monkey who implemented the algorithm/techniques/math she developed.
It's like how the graduate students are the slaves in the lab who do all the manual labor for the head researcher who actually develops the theory and experiment.
>he's just a code monkey
and the israeliteess ur simping for was just a hole with breasts that was given the limelight for a project she can't really even take credit for. an algorithm is not the same as an entire million line project.
The absolute amount of seethe in your post is hilarious btw.
im just using the same namecalling ur doing sweaty. ur just mad ur little israeliteess did nuffin while le chad male did all the work.
You're defending a israelite too
no im just saying she didnt do all the work. ur defending a israeliteess kek
Chael is a israelite and a homosexual unironically
oyyyyveeyyyyyyyyy
Well that's some projection as you're calling this Andrew guy a slave in your posts multiple times. lol How did you even get your PhD, btw?
Show me a monkey that can write a million lines of code
(You)
>This looks a lot like plagiarism
I suppose the correct term in English would be "ghost writing".
>the fact that her name is on a paper doesn't really tell us anything about the supposed algorithm she made or how much of any of this work was directly attributed to her.
Actually, it does. You just don't want to admit that she did the work, admit it. Most of the other authors are just astronomers with applied stuff, she's the only one attached to the paper who seems to have a significant background in image processing.
>Most of the other authors are just astronomers with applied stuff
bruh. this is unfounded garbage. neither you or I know what they did or their skills. stop pulling shit out of your ass.
>neither you or I know what they did or their skills.
You do realize you can click on their name and see all the other papers they published on arxiv? You can see literally all of the academic work they've ever done using that link.
and how can you objectively look at their work and devalue it as compared to the israeliteess? its all subjective garbage. you just want the girl to take credit for all the other work people did.
>Being a "leader" in a lab isn't like being a middle manager at a fast food restaurant you wagies
It literally is. Leader=Manager.
>Not linking the proper paper
>https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.06156
What the frick is your problem?
all the simps ignore this
Anon didn't ask for proof that she was a middle manager, he asked for proof that she wrote the algorithm for others to implement. Go ahead and try deflecting again so you can be called out again.
>leader of the CS lab
so she was busy in meetings over funding allocation and pointless bureaucratic bullshit while the researchers were writing code, got it.
>the leader
lol
leader in this case probably means she managed the scheduling
It was her fricking doctoral thesis. Jesus christ /misc/-tards just cant admit they're wrong.
Also you. Shut the frick up about their CVs, doesnt prove anything even if they stole it from each other. Absolutely weak evidence, you're just baiting at this point.
Now read the other guys thesis and then tell me what you think
>Now read the other guys thesis and then tell me what you think
show us what you mean.
>https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/42029694
What about it?
>Shut the frick up about their CVs, doesnt prove anything even if they stole it from each other. Absolutely weak evidence, you're just baiting at this point.
An estrogen addled brain wrote that post. I don't care whether you're a femboy, a troony, or a woman---it's clear that you have too much estrogen.
[CITATION NEEDED]
>npr.org
>much source
>very unbiased
>totally not celebrating vegana awards
>wow
Post anotherr source then
you want me to provide a source to prove your claim?
go back to school.
I didn't post the npr link but if you disagree back it up
I was not the one making the claim that she developed the algorithm.
If you claim npr isbad prove it
>yo Andrew could you pls commit on git what I wrote I'm too smart for it
This but unironically
Why spend time doing what any codemonkey can do
She stole his CV formatting as well. Look up her CV and look up his CV. Oh, she also stole his website formatting too.
Sounds like she stole his penis and one of his kidneys too.
Holy shit it's real.
>Katie Bouman
>http://users.cms.caltech.edu/~klbouman/
>http://users.cms.caltech.edu/~klbouman/pw/cv/cv.pdf
>Andrew Chael
>https://achael.github.io/
>https://achael.github.io/assets/pdfs/achael_cv.pdf
The CVs being identical is really a big deal.
Seriously? I've seen that CV format or some small variation on it literally a dozen times. Doesnt prove anything besides the fact that they both went to a career counseling center.
>She stole his CV formatting as well. Look up her CV and look up his CV. Oh, she also stole his website formatting too.
Or maybe consider this, T HEIR WEBSITES LOOK SIMILAR BECAUSE THEY WORKED TOGETHER AND COLLABORATED.
You're missing the point. Who took the formatting from whom?
it doesn't matter, they probably used the same template, or one probably said to the other
>hey i like your cv format, can I borrow it.
It does matter. Have you ever collaborated with people? Did you ask them for their fricking CV template and for their website template? I sure as frick didn't. You know why? Because I'm independent. The degree to which you're simping for this b***h indicates you're either a beta-cuck incel or a woman. Either way, you're obviously arguing from an estrogen-addled brain.
That was my first post in the thread. How is borrowing a template so important?
>borrowing a template
So she gave it back to him?
Show me literally one other instance of this CV being used. They're obviously using the SAME EXACT thing, not a variation.
>they both went to a career counseling center.
I bid. Find me literally one other person from their research group using this template.
Given how much more of the code he wrote in github, he's clearly more competent than she is at coding. Therefore it stands to reason that he's likely the originator of these codes.
Can you prove that she took the template from him?
Yes. See my above posts.
>1. They have the same template (indisputable)
Corollary: One of them took it from the other (assuming they didn't find it simultaneously and independently, which is a zero probability event)
>2. He's a better programmer than she is (indisputable)
Check the github for the Event Horizon images
>3. His webpage is more developed, whereas hers is more barebones (indisputable)
Therefore, it stands to reason that the more skilled programmer came up with these templates which the less skilled one stole.
QED.
>Corollary: One of them took it from the other (assuming they didn't find it simultaneously and independently, which is a zero probability event)
Flawed premise. Them finding a free template online is not a zero probability event, even if it is low.
If they both used a free template and one recommended it to another, it's not accurate to say they took it from the other.
>Check the github for the Event Horizon images
>>3. His webpage is more developed, whereas hers is more barebones (indisputable)
>Therefore, it stands to reason that the more skilled programmer came up with these templates which the less skilled one stole.
Creating a template doesn't require any coding skill, and superior coding skill doesn't necessarily imply that someone created a quite simple template.
>Given how much more of the code he wrote in github, he's clearly more competent than she is at coding. Therefore it stands to reason that he's likely the originator of these codes.
Coding a website is much simpler than that.
>So she gave it back to him?
'borrowing' in the digital world doesn't mean temporarily using and then returning a distinct item, it means using the same format without the format being used by a 2nd person affecting the 1st person in any way
100% guaranteed she literally had him help her put together his CV, there is literally nothing wrong with this and anyone getting butthurt has never put together an academic CV and is just triggered by women
>So she gave it back to him?
Have you graduated high school yet? Do you know what borrowing means in this context or are you iliterate?
Let me make it even easier for you to understand. Why did she choose to copy Andrew's CV and website, specifically, and not someone else's whom she's collaborated with?
how do you know it wasn't him who copied the cv and website?
how do you know it wasn't a prefab template?
you're welcome to prove me wrong and find where such alleged premade template originated
>Did he ever complain over stolen credit or ask for help?
If he did he'd probably get fired
>Did he ever complain over stolen credit or ask for help?
how could he?
What was stolen? And where?
The fields do since they're run by humans and humans care about ethics. Fundamentally they don't ofc. You could be the biggest Ghenghisnazikhanladen in the universe and you could still count.
>No. Ethics are for homosexuals. Black person cattle deserve nothing.
Nice ethic bro
Develop algorithm to photograph black holes
Some fricking code monkey tries to claim your work.
this
IQfy is being invaded by codemonkeys who think that writing code is the hardest thing in the world and are oblivious to the outside world
I think it's the difference between academics and engineers. Academics live in an imaginary world where implementation doesn't matter. This was a real world project. There had to be changes to the algorithm for it to perform correctly. Instead of qualifying coding as mindless work, think of it as a tool to realize a result. If the paper was purely theoretical I could be convinced Andrew doesn't deserve credit, but it's not.
>No. Ethics are for homosexuals. Black person cattle deserve nothing
I'm gonna eat u and frick ur wife
Muh Ethics are fake, gay and Unscientific.
They don't, but scientists should.
We have the opposite situation.
hmm interesting. so she was the lead author in the paper on CHIRP. ok i'll give her the benefit of the doubt, maybe she can take most of the credit for this algorithm. but do we really know how influential this algorithm was on the entire project? 1 million lines of code, how vital was her (and others) algorithm in accomplishing this task?
getting Elizabeth Holmes vibe from this girl
I was at a presentation she gave about the work. Interesting work and I don't doubt she is clever and understands the work, likely even developed most of it.
But she is super annoying. Her voice empties my bowels.
Mathematics has nothing to do with ethics, only if the equations work.
Physics has one ethic: have you been honest about your experiment. And then someone tries to reproduce this experiment, to prove it.
To get to the level of humanist ethics you have to get to the level of biology. And yes, that is a thing. We just had a "phase three" trial of a Covid vaccine over millions of people. Who consented... sort of. And most of us who took the vax didn't die... yet.
I can accept that she's good at theory and not coding. I can't accept that she didn't credit guy for writing 1 million lines of her code. If she's leading the project, she's also responsible for that omission.
What you just described is plagiarism - which is what people get their PhD's taken away for by the host university. XD
the university won't do that. WIth this much publicity they'd tarnish their reputation with the leftist agenda in academia.
At no point did Katie Bowman take credit for the EHT images and always credited the team
They should both just be credited equally. If it's true that most of the code he wrote was tedious UI work then fair enough, because any dev would know just how repetitive writing code for UI is, as it often involves a lot of copy-and-pasting. If she was the one who wrote the algorithm to turn the telescopic data into an image, then fair play to her, and technically the Reddit post about her isn't wrong. Not sure why people are white knighting for the guy, I'm sure he would have kicked up a fuss himself if he felt as though he wasn't being credited enough
The sad part is she's obviously very competent, but chose to double down on her success for some reason. I don't see how this isn't blatant plagarim. The best argument from this thread is "writing code doesn't deserve credit", which is wrong.
It doesn’t deserve academic credit.
>look, I have a paper in being a codemonkey
Chael did get credit, but he doesn't deserve more credit than the hundreds of supporting people who did something similar, such as processing astronomical data or something. Katy was one of the most important researchers on the other hand.
>hundreds of supporting people
there's 26
>processing astronomical data or something
if you look on the dev branch, he commits code for the core functionality of the project. The output of his code is referenced throughout the paper.
>Katy was one of the most important researchers on the other hand
I'm convinced she's important, and could have done the majority of theory work, but she didn't acknowledge Andrew for his work in the paper. Claiming he merely contributed "discussions and feedback" is dishonest.
You ever used expensive equipment? The stuff that gets written in the methodology part of a paper?
The techs running those don’t even get credit for “discussions and feedback”.
Fairly obvious why btw, she asked for some functionality from the tool he was building, he gave her feedback on the feasibility, etcetera etcetera.
Yeah I've been involved in a few papers before, and there was back and forth between theory and implementation. There's no perfect world where she makes a model, and it works the first time. If they exposed their overleaf account or whatever we could get a better idea of how much people contributed to the paper, but given the series of changes in the git repo during 2019 it's obvious he was involved in developing the algorithm. Here, discussions and feedback is more liek "Andrew, why is this image skewed" "Oh Katie, I think you need to adjust your model for X, that's why, let me write 1 million more lines of code" "can I suck your dick for it agian?" "sure Katie! don't worry about my name on the paper!"
There were a lot more people who worked on astronomical observations, previous projects, and so forth
Are you high? You sound like you're narrating a carl sagan short film
Yeah, well:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/class_action/case=78345926
You are confusing the algorithm paper which she was the lead on and the research group’s multiple publications
>The sad part is she's obviously very competent, but chose to double down on her success for some reason.
This. But it might not been her idea. Maybe her team wanted her to take most of the credit and she just accepted.
Then she doesn't belong in science. Such dishonesty isn't ok just because the team agreed to it. The whole thing is a crime against the public. All involved should be sent to work camps until they've produced enough gravel out of boulders to pay back the money their scam cost.
>all of this baseless speculation
Truly pathetic
Anyone know where to find the paper in question, or have a link to it?
https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.01413
Let's be honest, guys. The algorithm takes into account light based around earth. It's probably an image of light pollution - you cannot take an image of a black hole. lol
This whole situation is ridiculous. Just take away the PhD already.
my post got deleted, since when is IQfy being censored?
Imagine if the roles were reversed. She wrote a million lines of code and he did the theoretical work. How would the media respond?
If your code for one picture contains 880 000 lines you are doing something wrong and/or are making things up.
2000 lines>800 000 bloat
and: does the 800 000 include the data? If yes, this doesn't mean anything
Only 2 megabytes?
>writes a billion line of bloat
>b-but it's only 2mb
the absolute state of code monkeys
Don't you have to go and code a webbrowser as a notepad?
What are you talking about?
>he doesn't know that code monkeys nowadays are just straight up shoving an entire web browser for even simple programs creating massive bloat
Not with 2 megabytes
Yes.
A real programmer can do that in 2kB.
https://github.com/radare/tiv/blob/master/stiv.c
She could have just as well written zero lines of code and the sentence "she developed the algorithm" would still be equally true, what's your point?
Most of that was likely gui and other frontend stuff. This shit is always extremely convoluted in most of scientific software for some reason
All the bitter anons itt. as if they were personally snubbed
lmao
Sneed
women are simply not suitable for STEM.
cry all you want they create more problems than they solve.
women's brains are just wired for empathy and not autistic systematizing. simple. of course outliers exist. LMAO probability :D???
>women's brains are just wired for empathy
Lmao
https://aiaslives.wordpress.com/2019/04/14/katie-bouman-and-the-black-hole/
nop
>I don't know how science works
moron. Do you really think all thee professors praised for their achievements did the work on their own?
The base algorithm was her PhD thesis you fricking plebs. Literally two seconds on Google.
Im pretty tired of these 0.00000000001 signal to noise experiments where you need 9000 exobytes of data to find a statistically significant finding but only after you filter all the data for noise like trucks, earthquakes, atmospheric turbulence and radio reflections from mars.
>why can't science be easy I don't understand
It isnt hard, its just a fiction. These experiments all assume they can understand and filter noise 10 trillion trillion times stronger than the signal. Assumption wrong? Too bad you will never know
Garbage In, Garbage Out.
>The base algorithm was her PhD thesis you fricking plebs. Literally two seconds on Google.
Here it is:
https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/113998
Kek, it continues. Will the simps ever recover?
So what's your point? what does this prove?
She denotes a submission made by Andrew with a
>C:
and a submission made by her as a
>Bo:
Despite her own bias in her thesis, these return nearly equal number of hits.
More fun... look at how much more erroneous her own data is than Andrew's. This is going to be a fun time... more owning to come
Her own collaborators independently chose Andrew's imaging as the correct image of the black hole OVER KATIE'S ATTEMPT
Bouman bros.. I don't feel so good
Why do you hate women so much?
Andrew's able to reconstruct images as opposed to Bouman who fails. This is a recurring theme in the thesis: a majority of the accurate reconstructions are from Andrew's code. This isn't just Andrew being a codemonkey to implement what Katie told him to: KATIE'S OWN ATTEMPTS FAIL
Not just a one-off. As I said, this is a recurring theme.
Again. Can you simps finally submit?
How come memhorizon doesn't show up on the github page?
Hey, she made the algorithm, nobody said she needed to code anything. She created, Chael implemented.
>her subordinate could implement her own algorithm better than she could
what kind of cope is this
It's her algorithm, why would she need to be able to know how to implement it hyper efficiently? The gay code monkey can do it, she was probably there to mentor him and show him how it works, though.
horseshit. the algorithm she wrote, and in her own words in her own thesis is STARWARP
>Our proposed approach, StarWarps, reconstructs a video rather than a static image.
>StarWarps uses a multivariate Gaussian imaging regularizer for interferometric imaging
This is what her CHIRP was designed to do. Just to be absolutely clear: THIS IS NOT THE ALGORITHM THAT ANDREW WAS USING.
what algo did he use in github? show us.
I've put more than enough work into this thread to prove a point. Here's the github, have fun.
>https://github.com/achael/eht-imaging
Prove he's using his algorithim in the github.
NTA, but if you're unsatisfied with the amount of evidence he's already provided, nothing will change convince you.
It isn't good quality evidence.
He clearly didn't read the entire 250 page phd dissertation in 30 minutes. So he's not going to have a complete understanding of the topic, and he isn't going to be fully aware of the context of the details.
The details he gives are out of context crops. He also doesn't adress the principle question: he doesn't prove that the guy wrote the algorithim used in github.
>He clearly didn't read the entire 250 page phd dissertation in 30 minutes.
How much of the thesis did you read, sir?
never said I read all of it. They keypoint is that he's failing to show that andrew wrote the algorithim used in github.
he never claimed that, dip. also, when you say anon missed context, you're pretending to know what context it is he missed (which means you're implicitly claiming to have read the thesis). and don't even try to back track, or else i will drop the receipts
So, what was his claim then?
bruh. don't pretend you read the thesis (as a matter of fact, it's clear basedanon read more of it than you did, which is zero). given you've read none of the thesis, how can you claim to know what context anon missed? frick you and your dishonest shilling, b***h.
moron you do realize theres a difference between the abstract mathematical representation of an algorithm and its implementation, right? She created the algo, all that math at the beginning of her thesis. Both chael and her translated it into code, but he did a better job at that.
That's worse for her. She lead this artistic interpretation of questionable data while sucking up millions of public dollars. The implementer at least has the excuse they thought this was something real. She knows this is a huge scam that produced nothing of value. A three year old with a box of crayons would produce something as scientifically valid as what this scam artist did.
prove its questionable.
>horseshit. the algorithm she wrote, and in her own words in her own thesis is STARWARP
>>Our proposed approach, StarWarps, reconstructs a video rather than a static image.
>>StarWarps uses a multivariate Gaussian imaging regularizer for interferometric imaging
>This is what her CHIRP was designed to do. Just to be absolutely clear: THIS IS NOT THE ALGORITHM THAT ANDREW WAS USING.
So she wrote starwarp, but How come starwarp shows up in github:
https://github.com/achael/eht-imaging/search?q=starwarp&type=commits
andrew chael was using "MEMHor" in those images, but that doesn't show up in github:
https://github.com/achael/eht-imaging/search?q=memhor&type=commits
why try MEMHor and not AMP? are you even trying?
amp wasn't the name of the method, it was one of the types of data inputs of memhorizon
guess katie lied about using memhorizon then.
just what kind of point are you trying to make? that something katie claimed existed doesn't exist in her own thesis? as a defense of katie? how fricking stupid are you?
I said there weren't any results for memhor on github
What are you saying?
he's saying zippidee do da day, olay olay! hahaha cheers anon!
>guess katie lied about using memhorizon then
Where?
hey man, you're the one who says MEMhorizon doesn't exist in the code. so what does Katie mean when she cites memhorizon in her thesis? i'm just taking the logical conclusion here...
Isn't the dissertation separate from the code?
She's comparing the algorithm they are going to use with memhor.
That's a variant of an older algorithm called MEM (maximal entropy method, I think made by some Indian guys in 1980)
>going through code repositories of a project with hundreds of collaborators with zero context on how those are organized to undermine some woman’s contribution to the project
Femoid detected.
>incel buzzwords
Bouman and Chael were collaborators in MIT for image processing algorithms and in turn part of the much larger EHT project. I don’t understand why her contributions get your panties in a twist because she got a modicum of press alongside the large team
>modicum of press alongside the large tea
that "modicum" is like the literal celebration of vegana award, just because she's a woman and does science too, jazzed into "she did that whole thing on her own!" in popular media.
>going through GitHubs you have no idea how are organized in the project team’s activities because you can’t fathom the idea that Bowman made a significant contribution to the project
The point is that the GitHub mentions the algorithm that Bowman did contribute to.
Pretty sure this is just the image reconstruction method. Nobody's claiming she made the reconstruction method, just that she created the algorithm to parse the data to be fed into the image reconstruction algo.
Kek this is some embarrassing levels of cope
Read
read
Doesn't answer anything
AHAHSAHA SHE CREDITS CHAEL IN HER THESIS
Holy shit, you simps just got BTFO'd so hard.
>I want to particularly thank four people from this list: Michael Johnson, Andrew Chael, Lindy Blackburn, and Adrian Dalca
If you do a ctrl+f search for " chael" (the space before chael will make your life easier), you'll see a majority of the images in HER OWN FRICKING THESIS she credits to Chael.
Check. Fricking. Mate.
Your point?
I think he's established beyond all reasonable doubt that she committed the unforgivable crime of having her research project leader help her on her thesis which basically means she should be stripped of her credentials and sent to work at mcdonalds
>cute girl will get more attention than ugly nerd
STOP THE PRESSES!
>cute
her israelitenose is longer than m87's jet
ITT: Chud's mad.
yep.
she has a PhD in EE from MIT
chudcels are failing their calc 1 classes from their deadend community colleges.
she could do nothing and she'd still be far more impressive than pretty much everyone on this board.
Why would an EE know the first thing about astrophysics?
College? Most of them dropped out of highschool, anon. Just look at the state of this board.
This is baseless ad hominem and not a good look katie, nobody is impressed by your hole
It's still true no matter what buzzword you use, chud.
So you've elevated her to the level of a "chudcel" and still haven't justified her fame or the attention given to the group's art project. Unless she's the only person in history to earn an EE PhD from MIT, that's not a news worthy accomplishment. Neither her, nor the rest of the artist collective, deserve anything other than an extended prison sentence for fraud and misuse of public funds.
nope
Katie Bouman is a Computer Scientist
Andrew Chael is a codemonkey
Do not get the two confused.
>no evidence she did ... anything
>solid evidence he wrote the code
hmm
>no evidence she did ... anything
>literally first author on the algorithm paper
moron
Did Katie Bouman take credit for all of Andrew Chael's work?
when someone says you did something you didn't do, and you don't deny it, yeah.
What a cuck
>any priority higher than ethics
Lmao he really is a israelite
what a cuck lmao
zHow is this cucoldry?
treating women like human beings instead of mindless frickholes literally makes you a cuck moron
yeah, I'm amazed at how IQfy seems to have the exact same userbase as /misc/ (morons).
unconditionally providing to a woman when she gives nothing back to you
>unconditionally providing to a woman when she gives nothing back to you
How is that the case here?
she is taking all the attention already, and when people are congratulating him he answers pic related
. Because apparently he writes one million lines of code to give more attention to a b***h who doesn't even care about him.
How is she taking all the attention? Do you think he isn't getting paid or credit? What's wrong with what he's saying there?
if she was a man he would not have written a single of those words in that tweet. Now go simp for women outside of here, you aren't fricking anyways.
How are they simping?
She is smart enough to know that she is being patronizingly and condescendingly used to promote a cause that makes a big deal about nothing.
Its like that black team that is off to climb Everest. Spread all over the news like it was revolutionary. It might have been- in 1952. But now all it is, is patronizing bullshit. Makes me puke.
Who is doing this?
She’s not taking the attention though. She made a talk on the algorithm she made years before the EHT images came out and then she got some press from the MIT social accounts and some news media. All of the data published by the EHT project is cited and credited. You’re just assblasted because she happens to be a woman
>an attention seeking israeliteess
>a gay israelite codemonkey
It's called controlled opposition. Pick your poison.
I choose the based israelite homosexual over a hole
LOC is not a valid metric. Quality > Quantity (Or in this case, the purpose of the code itself). This website proves itself stupid every time I look at it.
Getting a picture of a black hole isn't an achievement. It's completely useless and does nothing to help the human race. The "people" who worked on it have made no worthwhile contributions to society. That we accept this type of behaviour is a sign of mental illness in our society.
it's just popscience attention seeking
This thread is genuinely pathetic. Have sex incels.
Just sex? Consent doesn't matter? Noted.
It's an incomprehensibly weird take to say "if you aren't able to get laid, you turn into an evil person."
If. as an assistant i do all the work carrying out an experiment, i dont expect the plaudits for implement the work and plans of the doctor that designed the experiment. but i do want credit.
Is it really so hard to understand that people don't want to look at some unattractive weak chinned beta male explaining science to them, they would much rather look at a moderately pleasing to look at yet attainable, 6/10 'girl next door' type, and that this leads to more interest in science, more funding for research and, ultimately, more progress?
How does it lead to "more progress" if science is replaced with a beauty pageant? You expecting particle accelerators to be built out of thongs?
Science isn't a beauty pageant moron, pop sci already is one
If you think it sucks that pop sci gives large amounts of public attention to 6/10 grad research assistants and black science man presenting lukewarm opinions to midwits instead of showing the autistic face of actual scientific research to the general public, you should not be in STEM, go be a business major or something
Scientists are modern day priests that exist to lie for the King. Maybe science was a good idea when Tesla and Einstein walked the earth, but today, it is a mixture of evil and incompetence. From gene therapy to mustard gas, science has become a satanic religion that ruthlessly propagandizes 'solutions' to problems that it solely created. It flip-flops constantly, hurting billions in the process. Then it demands trust and total subservience, which it receives, thanks to the short memories of its followers. Today's scientists cannot reproduce each other’s experiments, mostly due to incompetence, but cultural corruption too; every day in thousands of labs across the world the methods are quickly set aside for the moral high ground and social status. While the cultish followers think that the truth is paramount, it always plays third fiddle to flawed modern perceptions of morality and money. Money is the grease that allows the shit covered wheels of science to churn out garbage studies. Money creates clickbait, undeserved promotions, the foundations for corporate narratives, and above all, the means for subpar scientists to continue to breed subpar science. From the health benefits of thalidomide to cigarettes, from making and testing viruses to gene therapy, from cloning to testing chemicals on living mammals, from lead in fuel to sugar being healthier than fat, from WMDs in Iraq to feathered dinosaurs, the list goes on and on. The bottom line is, there isn't a lie you've been told, by government or corporation, that hasn't been built on corrupted science. Asbestos, clamping, circumcising, vaccinating, drug induced narcolepsy, birth defects, early onset cancer, you name it, science has done it to people just like you. And they will do it again, God knows which one of the manmade horrors gleefully shilled by science, is hurting us right this second.
It shouldn't. The scientists should. But not must. But they should be watched by whole the world. Everybody should be watched by whole the world of people and ai. Everybody's karmas should be collected into dossiers for everybody to check and comment and rate and even edit in such a way that old records are preserved like wikipedia's history, but kept on several independent servers so it would be more difficult to fake it.
So who is failing to give him credit?
Ok so he's the guy doing the grunt work while Dr. Bouman designed all the experiments and models?
Reminder that if this was a man no one would have cared
Bingo
Reminder to people who don't actually work on team based projects professionally or academically that credit isn't given to those who do the "most" amount of work. Credit is given to those who lead the team effectely and interface with the customer/public.
The guy Andrew Chael isn't the leader of the project thus he does not get the credit. However because he did most of code for the project he can put that in his resume and get himself a good six figure job or use this feats to personally lead his own team in the future.
You might not like how the situation played out but this is normal.
I'm pretty sure the actual project credits him even if random Reddit posters dont