PHYSICS FAGS BTFO
>>8035010
If I had to pick one webcomic to erase from existence XKCD would be it.
pennis and also dicke and bals
>>8035034
XD ebbbin
>>8035034
Triggered physics manchild detected
>>8035034
Holy fuck this. That "field purity" comic has done more damage to this board than any other meme, and then we get stupid comics like these. I'm not saying that some physics fags aren't cringey as fuck, they are, but responses like these are just as cringey because it means people take them seriously.
>>8035034
u mad that dis nigga has a book deal and you don't?
yeah u mad
>>8035034
I feel you.
>>8035040
I don't see how it's the comic's fault that people behave exactly like depicted. It's not inspiration, it's making fun of them. People will always misinterpret whatever they can as being in support of their idiotic egotistical view, so it's silly to pick an example and attribute responsibility to it.
>>8035068
It's worked out a lot better for him than other physics grads who go into other fields, but in his position I don't think I wouldn't feel a little depressed about making mint off webcomics without much in the way of a scientific career. Then again the money/stress ratio is probably too good to pass up.
>>8035083
>People will always misinterpret whatever they can as being in support of their idiotic egotistical view
you mean like you're doing right now?
>>8035034
Agreed. SMBC is far better anyway.
>>8035102
Idiot or bait. Need to hear more to be sure.
biology had literally nothing to do with ending much disease, most decline is before any vaccination
>>8035083
>People will always misinterpret whatever they can as being in support of their idiotic egotistical view, so it's silly to pick an example and attribute responsibility to it.
What specifically are you referring to?
>Using science to help people
i hate college students and college educated people y'all are some insecure pricks
>>8035010
>implying the decrease wasn't from electric refrigeration of foods, vacuum packing, preservative additives, sterile plastics containers, food testing and regulation, moving out of cramped cities, and improved access to clean water and chemical cleaning agents
>implying medicine hasn't been a complete failure at finding new effective drugs in any timely manner
Butthurt biofags in denial aside, Engineers and Chemists literally save the world.
>>8035247
Sticking your hand up a horse's ass won't make diseases go away.
>>8035010
biology.
isn't that the one where you just memorize a bunch of shit and play with animals?
>>8035247
It's hard to love biology on this board, the ignorance is staggering and because everyone is so deep in their respective field and biology has been thought of as a "lesser" science for so long. As a result they think because I'm good at A I must be superior at this easier B.
It's like people don't even know what insulin is.
>>8035298
It's unfair to judge all of /sci/ as complete retards because some of them dunno anything about biology or are just trolling (case in point >>8035272 or >>8035282). The thing is, the people with these dumbass views (the ones who ACTUALLY believe them) are either freshmen or highschoolers, and because of that, they tend to be vocal about their views, you know, being young, thinking you know everything and all that. I've spoken to physicsfags on this board who wanted to learn more about bio and asked legit questions in proper threads. Just because there is a very vocal minority, we shouldn't brand all of /sci/ as the same.
>>8035300
I understand what you mean but in general I have found, and mind this is just me, that the general treatment of biology on this board is stupid shit like this, what izs evulotion or cause biology then race mean nigge dumme? I understand in the good parts and good threads with clever people it is fine and a useful addition to many concepts. You cannot deny however that in /sci/ a discipline that has a class that doesn't require at least calculus or linear algebra is stupid.
>>8035330
Using mathematics is not what makes a field of study worthwhile.
>>8035010
>Nuclear weapons are somehow "more evil" than other conventional WMDs
Why would anyone think that
People who say the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are war crimes but don't care about the Firebombing of Tokyo or the Bombing of Dresden are the most hypocritical human beings on Earth.
>>8035358
*is considered by /sci/ to be stupid
no need to preach to the choir
>>8035010
Any time a Physics major talks shit, ask him about whether he died from his last bout of strept or not.
t. Biochem major
None of this would have been possible without political science. Checkmate, STEMtards.
>>8035330
>You cannot deny however that in /sci/ a discipline that has a class that doesn't require at least calculus or linear algebra is stupid.
Pretty sure linear algebra and calculus is taught in class, but it's not used as frequently throughout the discipline. The requirements are there, so I don't see why it matters so much anyway. Your statement would only ring true if, again, you considered /sci/ to be just mathfags or physicsfags, very autistic ones at that, who also lack legit opinions on the field because their exposure to it is only through highschool (this is important).
Also, if you want to do away with the usual /pol/ usage of bio, you should post more relevant threads or posts.
Anyway, I'd just like to remind that most of it is shitposting. I remember a parasitology AMA by a postdoc we had a few months ago, and there wasn't a single shitpost about biology or science and whatnot, everyone treated the thread decently and seriously, like they should, proving that most of them don't actually believe any of it. So don't take everything too seriously around here.
>>8035330
/sci/ has no idea that mathematical biology exists. Then again, it's probably because theoretical physics has overshadowed it with their hype and money whoring for entertaining plebs.
Black science man has to get 'dem dollars.
>>8035363
Not more evil, just exponentially more dangerous long-term, and most importantly, caused absolute destruction with little humanitarian incentive and more of a muscle-flexing motive in the case of Japan, in my opinion.
>>8035010
I don't get it. Bio seems really butthurt about something though. Is she one of those superstitious people or something?
Physics is everything. All fields; all the universe. Some people can't distinguish between physics and theoretical physics.
>>8035382
I think you can say the same thing about the chemical weapons we've invented- but xkdc feels no need to condemn chemists for those.
the humanitarian incentive wasn't just atoms for peace(nuclear power), but also making Japan surrender to the US and NOT to the Soviets
>>8035120
This nigga knows whats up.
>>8035389
Well, chemical weapons, while widespread and lethal, don't cause nearly as much destruction or deaths as nuclear warfare. If biologists had unleashed viruses or pests as biological warfare (potentially the most lethal WMD if treated appropriately) on the other hand, you would see a lot of people condemning biologists. Unit 731 is an example of that, although their operation was not successful if I recall. Their motives and other experiments are condemned though. Rational criticism is proportional to the consequences of an action. And I wouldn't go to xkcd for rational discussion and criticism anyway.
>the humanitarian incentive wasn't just atoms for peace(nuclear power), but also making Japan surrender to the US and NOT to the Soviets
Ok? So you agree that there was little humanitarian incentive compared to the motivation for power gain and influence as the war in Japan served as a prelude to the Cold War? Or am I misunderstanding your post?
>>8035405
Well, I think communism is evil and that fighting against its spread/growth is a humanitarian effort, so I'm probably biased when I say that waging war and improving the efficacy of waging war can be humanitarian with the right motives.
>>8035363
>>8035382
>>8035389
>>8035405
No, you guys are really off the mark here. I'll break it down neatly, starting with the C and ending with the N using US military parlance:
Chemical warfare is useless on the modern battlefield full stop, any military that would seriously expects an enemy to use this is protected against it. Want to be safe from chemical warfare? Get a mask and some thick clothing. The end. Hell, you could get by with a full-face HEPA mask and denim with some dollar store rubber gloves and it would protect you from all the most common ones like sarin, tabun, and soman.
Biological warfare is useless for similar reasons, but mostly because the forces capable of deploying it won't do so because it's a retarded course of action. Everyone who's a permanent member on the UNSC has a defensive biowarfare program in case of some terrorist-funded lab or if a rogue nation decides to commit geopolitical murder-suicide. (well attempted murder at least)
Nuclear is only viable because it accomplishes two things: destruction of target and temporarily denial of the area, even in a MOPP 4 state there isn't much you can do in an area full of radioactive fallout. Cleanup operations would delay the defending nation's forces and attending to injured or dying civilians would sap up more resources which is basically the point of a nuclear exchange. When both sides run out of nukes to lob the battlefield would be a total mess: even during the best years of the Cold War the Soviets were convinced they were absolutely fucked no matter what. Meanwhile in the USA there was an effort to prepare to outlast the Soviets who were expected to conquer as much of Europe as they could while they recovered from the exchange; performing a fighting retreat on European soil while the USSR got it's shit together.
Chemical weapons and biological weapons are basically useless on troops already suited up head to toe in NBC gear to keep out the fallout.
KEK
Bioengineering actual master race reporting
>>8035034
>implying xkcd isn't all shit
>>8035513
this, bio sci is for people too stupid to do bioengg and math bio.
>>8035488
Nice dubs.
We weren't really referring to the modern potential military uses of these weapons, but thanks for the post anyway. The discussion was mostly about civilian targets and why nuclear warfare was more 'evil' than conventional warfare. With regards to the military, what you said is true about WMDs. But for civilian targets, engineered viruses have the potential to be the deadliest IMO, if the spread is sufficiently fast. But like you said, it's a lose-lose situation for anyone except terrorists, but I highly doubt they would have capabilities of genetically engineering viruses and releasing them in adequate amounts without someone stopping them.
>>8035034
The more recent XKCDs are snarky garbage.
Earlier stuff was good.
>>8035547
>meme branches
My $80k/year job with a bachelor's and I beg to differ
>>8035551
>brags about 80k
fucking KEK
300k starting or kill yourself
>>8035559
>300k straight out of undergrad
o i am laffin
>>8035547
>actual science
>no mathematical modelling
>>8035543
>The discussion was mostly about civilian targets and why nuclear warfare was more 'evil' than conventional warfare.
Yeah I caught that when I re-read your posts so my apologies, but you're welcome for the post anyway.
>I highly doubt they would have capabilities of genetically engineering viruses and releasing them in adequate amounts without someone stopping them.
Oh you would be surprised, consider this: the only time any bust made by DHS affiliated agencies makes the news is when it doesn't compromise existing investigations or operations. "Compromise" is a very, very broad term there.
Plus the world really isn't as safe as society likes to pretend, every single major terrorist bombing carried out in the United States used homemade explosives and as far as the "gun debate" goes things get even more wild. Anyone reading this can walk into any decently-equipped hardware store in the United States with $300 dollars and walk out with enough materials to manufacture a Luty submachine gun, Sten clone, or (with a bit more effort) a MAC-10 knockoff. Full-auto weapons are far easier than select-fire or semi-automatic, and there is plenty of literature regarding barrel rifling techniques. With a thousand dollars and some experimentation a clever man could expand this operation, including more difficult designs and expanding to rifles.
In short the "someone" that's supposed to stop the bad men doing bad things mostly relies on the fact that most bad men are too stupid or ignorant to figure out a way to achieve their goals.
My advice is to avoid thinking about all of the above if you're easily excitable and value your sanity.
>>8035010
> implying biology has actually eliminated all pestilence
> implying making a really big bomb isn't more legit than curing a some disease
>>8035040
>That "field purity" comic has done more damage to this board than any other meme
Nah, the board was exactly as terrible, purity-wise, before that comic.
It's kind of funny that you think field purity was his meme, trust me that we (phys) made fun of chemists and biologists twenty years ago.
>>8035566
>Doesn't know how to do science without math
Ah yes, I can tell the "hard" sciences where everything can be neatly modelled are really difficult compared to the extreme effort it takes to get valid results in bio or, god forbid, social sciences.. Top tier bantz my man you got me and every non-"hard" field.
>>8035945
>implying soft sciences don't just need a reform
>>8035200
your inferiority complex is showing m8
>>8035561
>not being the CEO of a successful transnational company straight out of highschool
top kek
BIOFAGGOTS can't even cure rabies
when you are sick, it is your immune system that does all of the work
biology only hides symptoms
PHYSICSFAGGOTS aren't any better, their most powerful bomb can't even destroy humanity
bioweapons are actually much more deadly than nukes
>>8035940
Physicsfaggots have indeed been faggots for a long time. But this comic has given the "newer generations" the cause they needed to post lots of threads about field "purity", trying to justify the idea that only Physics or Math is worth studying because it's "purer". Doesn't stop the same faggots from capitalising on the achievements of other sciences in discussions where they need them though. True hypocrisy there.
>>8035966
Do you really think the problem in the social sciences is because they don't use math? You use math where it is convenient to use, not on anything you see, math doesn't magically turn soft scientific fields into hard sciences. Social sciences are so inaccurate because the thing they study in the first place is extremely difficult to predict. Whether you make it """computational""" or not doesn't matter (as much as you think anyway), the science doesn't seem to be viable in the first place.
>>8035034
Are you sure about that?
>>8035010
First thing i thought of
>>8035419
>Well, I think communism is evil
>>8036068
>cis people are just aware that they're normal!
I like how the author inadvertently supported the argument that trans people are aberrations, i.e. freaks of nature. I mean I don't necessarily hold that view but I did laugh pretty hard.
Also the comic also pretty much shows why trans people are usually insufferable: constant fucking attention whoring.
>>8036064
>Doesn't stop the same faggots from capitalising on the achievements of other sciences in discussions where they need them though.
This. Some people really love to shit on biology, but are so glad that evolution exists whenever they can't resist debating creationists.
>>8036467
And if you exchange "normal" with "people," it becomes an air-tight rebuttal and the entire comic loses its value.
>>8036534
Holy dragon dicks you're right, I didn't notice that.
>>8036080
because biological weapons of mass destruction don't exist or what?
And to be quite frank, i'd rather die in a nuclear explosion that whatever way these sick bio fags come up with.
>>8035382
Bioweapons are infinitely more dangerous than nukes.
>>8036552
Yes, I highlighted that exact point in my next responses. Thing is, we were referring to real life events, and in modern times, there has been no substantial biological warfare (thank god), while nuclear warfare was successfully used against Japan.
>>8036565
>there has been no substantial biological warfare (thank god), while nuclear warfare was successfully used against Japan.
What does that have anything to do with how dangerous they are?
>>8036467
I don't think you understood the comic, the "oh" was realising what she said and not supporting the argument
>>8036573
Are you kidding? Do you think governments that have access to such advanced WMDs don't make predictions or controlled tests about the results of those WMDs? A bomb is just a bomb, a controlled explosion over a designated area. They would never release engineered bioweapons as easily as they dropped nukes. The amount of usage a WMD sees is disproportional to how destructive it is, hence chems are used the most, nukes have only been used once, and engineered viruses never.
>>8036583
>I don't think you understood the comic
No, I understood the comic, you just didn't understand my post.
>>8035010
> Implying curing diseases and letting overpopulation happen is beneficial to us.
>>8036594
Diseases are a suboptimal way to combat overpopulation
>>8036565
Smallpox blankets aren't biological warfare? Tossing diseased corpses over castle walls isn't biological warfare? SARS is kind of a joke. I'd even consider chemical weapons to be biological because they are predicated on bio-mechanical action, so sarin, mustard gas, and agent orange can be included.
>>8036588
>They would never release engineered bioweapons as easily as they dropped nukes.
Only 2 nukes have EVER been used.
You make it sound like governments are somehow more open to the idea or nuking someone than using bioweapons, when in reality the criteria to employ the use of either is probably quite similar.
>>8036022
>autism
>>8035146
nice ultimatum you got there, do you also act like this irl?
>>8036608
Of course they would never just use one or the other simply, but if it absolutely had to come to one of the two, my bet is that nuclear warfare would be the "easier" choice, relatively speaking, obviously. But yes, there is a huge power level difference between chems and nukes/viruses.
>>8036607
It's good that you mention the primitive uses of biological warfare, like the Mongols used for example, but primitive biowarfare is not the deadliest it can get with our current resources. I'm comparing the potential deadliest of physics (nuclear warfare) with the potential deadliest of bio (engineered viruses).
I wouldn't say that chemical weapons are biological ones, I think the naming comes from the field that most contributes to the creation of a weapon. Mustard gas is manufactured chemically, so it would be considered a chemical weapon and so on. That's how I see it anyway.
>>8036588
>The amount of usage a WMD sees is disproportional to how destructive it is, hence chems are used the most, nukes have only been used once, and engineered viruses never.
Yeah, I pretty much covered all of this in my above post about CBRN warfare.
Chemical weapons are only used by shithole nations because they're cheap and easy, not because they're "less destructive." They would be just as ineffectual as biological weapons against an actual military since full readiness (i.e. MOPP 4) defeats both with ease.
>They would never release engineered bioweapons as easily as they dropped nukes.
Uh, deploying a bioweapon is far, far easier than deploying a nuke. There is no minimum size for weaponized anthrax (easiest) or some super strain of smallpox (hardest, arguably only found in two labs in the USA and three in the former USSR) while a small, portable nuke is going to have an abysmally small yield. Every major port and airport has teams dedicated to "sniff out" nukes by the way, any spike beyond the background radiation and the DOE and FBI immediately start investigating. DOE response teams do not fuck around either, if you expected guys with Glocks to show up you would be mistaken.
There's also mobile detection units that just drive all over the country, part of that $11 billion dollars spent annually in Nuclear Security goes to these efforts. There's other stuff too that doesn't make the news (for good reason, this is pretty serious stuff) but rest assured there's many layers of defense against nukes. Let's not discuss ICBMs, there just isn't enough room to fully illustrate the level of effort put into defending against the threat they pose.
Meanwhile a biological weapon can come in the format of a terrorist playing Typhoid Mary and trying to infect as many people as possible.
>>8035034
>XKCD
>Not sinfest
>>8036641
Oh, sorry, I meant "easily" in the context of consideration of consequences, not easily in the sense of the method of deployment. I agree 100% with what you said. The rest of the info you gave is still very interesting so thanks again.
>>8036608
Except according to Geneva convention mandates you are not allowed to make use of biological warfare, nor chemical weapons. It's the difference between a deadly microscopic self-replicating pathogen and nuclear weapons. The two that were dropped on Japan were air bursted so there was no localized fallout, they killed most, maimed few, and destroyed everything. Biological warfare is a war of attrition committed by invisible forces that are non-discriminate and can move globally.
>>8036656
So are you arguing that nukes or bio are more dangerous?
Because it sounds like you are arguing for bio.
>>8036064
>because the thing they study in the first place is extremely difficult to predict
And not using math is why they'll never be able to predict anything at all.
>Whether you make it """computational""" or not doesn't matter
Actually modelling these systems correctly matters a fuck ton and is why bioinfo has been blowing up. Everyone who isn't some gibbering moron trying to justify their place in the scientific community who barely passed calc 1 knows the value in modelling and its sought after. You no math biofags will be fossils at this rate, Your skills are only good for trivial pursuit.
>>8035395
go to bed zach
I'd say it's the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who were BTFO.
>>8036661
Bio is far more dangerous for use (Because of the Geneva Protocol), and far more dangerous deployed (which is why chemical and bio are in the Geneva Protocol)
>>8036769
>And not using math is why they'll never be able to predict anything at all.
No, the nature of their field of study is why they will never be able to predict anything at all.
>Actually modelling these systems correctly matters a fuck ton and is why bioinfo has been blowing up.
Because in bio there is something to actually model, you know, chemicals, as our understanding of cell architecture and signalling pathways expands with fundamental research. Can't do the same with sociology or psychology because there is nothing to model that will make generalised predictions more accurate.
Do you really think that the leading researchers in those fields haven't figured out ways to make their fields as accurate as possible using anything they can, but a math undergrad on /sci/ has? Give me a break.
>You no math biofags
kek, lay off /sci/ for a while m8
>>8036785
>Geneva protocol
>Signed in 1925
>Implying they didn't mention nuclear weapons because they didn't consider their use as serious as biological or chemical
>>8036787
No, you just dislike it because other people like it.
Or you are mad because you don't get the jokes.
>>8036798
Not explicitly, but after further reading there are details about not killing civilian populations indiscriminately (ironic?) and doing long lasting damage to the local environment which is worded loosely with no definition for long term.
>>8036389
rip fat black man
>>8036829
Both biological and chemical weapons are easier to clean up than fallout. You can't inactivate radiation, you can only collect and bury it.
>>8035372
This. That thread was pretty comfy.
Just remember to report /pol/ bait threads and frogshit posts.
>>8035419
Your parents must be so ashamed...
>>8036980
>Electric Retard
Banned in Germany
>>8036654
>I meant "easily" in the context of consideration of consequences
Well that's a hit or miss, depending on the context chemical weapons carry far greater consequences in that they leave victims that can be photographed.
Really any WMD use isn't going to end well for the user, that's why Assad made large efforts to avoid direct military intervention after the Ghouta attack.
>>8036980
thats fucking horrible man
>>8036064
Philosophy is the purest
You all wouldn't be shit without Plato
>>8035010
Physicists are on average fucking idiots but Biochemists came up with VX, just sayin'
>>8035241
This
>>8035010
I generally like xkcd but that one's incredibly stupid. Any science can be used for warfare.
>people getting baited to reply seriously
every time. it's like none of you knew about biological warfare or anthrax.
>>8035940
>Nah, the board was exactly as terrible, purity-wise, before that comic.
This is demonstrably false. /sci/ didn't even exist before that comic.
Where do you think you are?
>>8037146
You mean Aristotle?
>>8037637
Case in point, biomedical scanners (PET scanners, MRIs, etc.) rely on work of prominent PHYSICISTS, whereas BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS are made by the heroes of Biology.
Nuclear engineer here, where do I fit in?
>>8035010
lol, Biology
STEM minded but not intelligent enough for physics / chemistry / math ? biology is for you!
also top major for Stacy.
>>8038252
kek, haven't seen physicsfags this buttblasted in a long time. This thread might turn out better than I expected after all.
>>8038259
Topkek! Arsemongled biologist trying to turn his pain into laughter by pretending he wasn't the one getting trolled!
>>8038265
>biologist
lel
>>8038145
>This is demonstrably false. /sci/ didn't even exist before that comic.
What the actual fuck are you smoking
That comic is from 2015 you faggot
>>8035241
10-15 NCE put out every year.
we can treat nearly every disease state.
fuck off. do some process chem and get back to me.
>>8035366
THank you based undergrad.
t. biomed/chem researcher.
>>8035034
I'd do Ctrl Alt Del, then Questionable Content, THEN XKCD.
Biology hasn't eliminated anything.
That's an absurdist claim.
Physics has been involved in every technological marvel.
Meanwhile medicine kills hundreds of millions and bio-med doctors suck so bad people had to invent the term "malpractice" just to shame them.
So Bio and Biomed BTFO.
We went to the moon and beyond.
You can't even figure out the common cold.
>>8038584
>>8035366
People die from strep all the time.
Meanwhile satellite orbit the earth allowing for mass communication so that the few that survive do so because they can call some idiot with mold to shove it down their throat.
You're all still poking things with needles and the biomed labs are always tosspools of mixups.
>>8038613
The reason you exist is because some biologist eliminated smallpox. I know you love your precious physics and think you can do anything with it, and /sci/ has made that delusion even worse, but you really need to think things through before you post stuff like this.
Also, you could at least pick a better argument for the contribution of physics to the world than going to the moon.
>>8038613
>Meanwhile medicine kills hundreds of millions
[Citation needed]
>>8038613
Wow, an anti-vax nut who believes in the moon landing? I guess you really can find every sort of degenerate on 4chan.
