this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2025
1360 points (99.9% liked)

Science Memes

15221 readers
1535 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 106 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I feel like I hear about this guy once every second

[–] Hupf@feddit.org 13 points 1 day ago

Whatever you do, love Hertz

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 57 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

This post tickles a fond memory of mine. I was talking to a right-wing libertarian, and he said there should be no research done ever if it couldn't prove beforehand its practical applications. I laughed out loud because I knew how ignorant and ridiculous that statement was. He clearly had never picked up a book on the history of science, on the history of these things:

  • quantum mechanics. It would be a shame if the poor libertarian didn't have semiconductors in his phone, or if he didn't have access to lasers for his LASIK surgery (which he actually did have), both of which are technologies built by basic research that didn't have practical applications in mind.
  • electromagnetism. It would be a shame if the poor libertarian was having his LASIK surgery and the power went out without there being a generator, a technology built by basic research that didn't have practical applications in mind.
  • X-rays. It would be a shame if the poor libertarian didn't have x-rays to check the inside of his body in case something went wrong, a technology built by basic research that didn't have practical applications in mind.
  • superconductivity. It would be a shame if the poor libertarian didn't have superconductors for an MRI to check the inside of his body in case something went wrong, a technology built by basic research that didn't have practical applications in mind.
  • radio waves. It would be a shame if the poor libertarian didn't have radio waves for his phone and computer's wifi and bluetooth to run his digital business, technologies built by basic research that didn't have practical applications in mind.
[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 37 points 1 day ago (3 children)

When talking with libertarians you should keep in mind they have completely different axiomatic values. It is often the case that they understand a certain policy would be on net bad for everyone, they simply don't care. They are rarely utilitarian about those issues.

I get along much better with libertarians who justify libertarianism with values extrinsic to just "muh freedom" -- they are usually much more willing to yield ground in places where I can convince them that a libertarian policy would be net negative, and they have also moved me to be more open minded about some things I thought I would never agree with.

[–] InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

Those are much rarev in my opinion.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MyNameIsIgglePiggle@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Bullshit. Lasers have been intended to gain interplanetary superiority since the dawn of time. We just didnt know how to make them or that they could also be used to read music from a circle

[–] P00ptart@lemmy.world 46 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Was he the guy that started that rental car company?

/s

[–] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago (2 children)

His customers lamented that driving was so boring and they wished there was some magical way for the cars to play music.

Oh well. Nothing to be done there.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 129 points 1 day ago (9 children)

I mean, it would be some 25 years until the radio was invented. And Hertz' machine required a 30kV spark on a 2.5m meter long antenna with 2 solid 30cm zinc spheres, and his transmission range was something like "barely down the hall".

Not the most practical method.

[–] con_fig@programming.dev 73 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm sure someone thinks it's perfect for their use case, semi relevant xkcd:

At least physics will never get patched. The spark device with zinc spheres will always do that thing.

FCC: And get you arrested

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Fun fact: The german word for using a radio is "funken"; literally "to spark". A radioman is, or was, a "Funker". When you are talking over the radio, you are doing it "Über Funk".

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 21 hours ago (6 children)

ooh i always guessed the word "Funk" comes from function, i.e. the radio is a useful tool that has a function to whoever is using it.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Pretty much the first type of commercially viable radio transmitter was the spark-gap transmitter ("Knallfunkensender" in German). It worked by charging up some capacitors to up to 100kV and then letting them spark. This spark sent a massive banging noise on the whole radio spectrum, which could then be turned into an audible noise using a very simple receiver. That was then used to send morse codes (or similar encodings).

They went into service around 1900, and by 1920 it was illegal to use these because they would disrupt any and all other radio transmissions in the area with a massive loud bang.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

“Knallfunkensender”

Literally "Bang-Sparks-Sender".

Are you sure it's because of the radio spectrum bang? I always thought it was because of the audible bang.

If someone operated such a thing today, any guesses what the death zone for electronic devices would be?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] expatriado@lemmy.world 85 points 1 day ago (2 children)

this type of science-discovery to usefulness-realization latency is the norm, pretty sure Curie didn't envision nuclear power plants

[–] mmmm@sopuli.xyz 49 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I suppose it's like asking a biologist what type of dishes would they do with a plant species they just discovered

[–] xylol@leminal.space 36 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Is that not what drives biologists, trying to eat new discoveries before someone else

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lobut@lemmy.ca 60 points 1 day ago (2 children)

There's a good NPR podcast in the same vein as this: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/06/21/533840751/episode-779-shrimp-fight-club

It's about congressman talking about government waste and targeting the sciences. It's like, you don't get the "cool" applications without the "weird" research. I'm doing a horrible job describing it, but I thought it was a good listen.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 28 points 1 day ago (4 children)
[–] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Half of the field is viable thanks to a single algorithm: FFT

[–] Hugin@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

FFT was a DARPA project. It alone probably makes all their funding worth it.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 41 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I feel like this is a very "scientisty" thing - the theoretical aspect is so fascinating and being able to fit all the pieces into a model that is mathematically accurate is the reward.

Considering the practical application of the model and how it can benefit society (or in other words, be marketed for profit) takes a different set of skills.

[–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 30 points 1 day ago

I absolutely detest the equivocation of "benefits society" and "marked for profit".

Plenty of things have been discovered to have practical applications which can benefit society yet are shelved or have its implementation frustrated because it cannot be exploited for profit or threatens the profits of a preexisting application which it would replace.

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 43 points 1 day ago (4 children)

This may be an even better example than the positron. Originally a theoretical antimatter form of the common electron, with no practical application.

Turned out to be a vital tool for medical imaging. If you or someone you know has ever had a PET scan, now you know what the P stands for.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] pastel_de_airfryer 27 points 1 day ago

And this is why science shouldn't be beheld to the whims of politicians and capitalists

[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 20 points 1 day ago

~~Aperture~~ Science! We do what we must because we can!

[–] manxu@piefed.social 24 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I mean, why would a guy that started a car rental company know anything about radio waves?

Gotcha!

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›