Space 1999 Eagle Transporter Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • We have updated the Terms and Conditions, you will be prompted to read and agree to these next time you are active on the forum.
SPONSORED BY

But Did It Smile for The Cameras?

boatshewsd2

Alphans
:2c: :eek:

Well, we've long wondered about what a black hole might look like if we ever happened across one (looking at you, Black Sun)...

Today, we know! Or made a beginning, at least. And here it is, direct from the distant galaxy M87 - the first image of one of these "absolute monsters" - truly a tremendous achievement for astronomy!

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47873592
 

KevinD

Alphans
Not sure which is stranger, that Black Holes exist or that Einstein could work out what they do just in his head!
 

Ham Salad

Alphans


Yes, so: again,note that in the unbiased report, she isn't mentioned.

>Chael was actually the one responsible for 850,000 of the 900,000 lines of code that were written in the historic black-hole image algorithm ; and had done all of the actual work in the project.
l.<

>So apparently some (I hope very few) people online are using the fact that I am the primary developer of the eht-imaging software library<

Literally states the fact that he was responsible in the main, not her...in your own source.

It's not 'sexist' to point out who did the majority of the work, and to note that there appears to be an intentional misrepresentation of the work done.
 
Last edited:

EddieL

Alphans
Yes, so: again,note that in the unbiased report, she isn't mentioned.

Your bias here is clear. Let's have a look at the facts.

>Chael was actually the one responsible for ***8220;850,000 of the 900,000 lines of code that were written in the historic black-hole image algorithm***8221; and had done all of the actual work in the project.

Chael has responded to this specifically:
Also I did not write "850,000 lines of code" -- many of those "lines" tracked by github are in model files. There are about 68,000 lines in the current software, and I don't care how many of those I personally authored

***8220;So apparently some (I hope very few) people online are using the fact that I am the primary developer of the eht-imaging software library< Literally states the fact that he was responsible in the main, not her...in your own source.

Your quote mine does not support your position. I am the primary developer in the software that I write. This doesn't make me the most important member of the team. Without the development team, the software would never get into production.

Here is Chael's full quote:
So apparently some (I hope very few) people online are using the fact that I am the primary developer of the eht-imaging software library… to launch awful and sexist attacks on my colleague and friend Katie Bouman, Stop.

You appear to think that quantity is more important than functionality. You are demonstrably wrong. I use libraries in my software, some of which are a tiny fraction of the code base of my software, but without them my code would be useless.

It's not 'sexist' to point out who did the majority of the work, and to note that there appears to be an intentional misrepresentation of the work done.

Where did anyone say that Katie did the majority of the work? Where is the misrepresentation? Your baseless assertions are not helping your case.

More from Chael:
So while I appreciate the congratulations on a result that I worked hard on for years, if you are congratulating me because you have a sexist vendetta against Katie, please go away and reconsider your priorities in life. Otherwise, stick around -- I hope to start tweeting more about black holes and other subjects I am passionate about -- including space, being a gay astronomer, Ursula K. Le Guin, architecture, and musicals. Thanks for following me, and let me know if you have any questions about the EHT!
 

tryptych

Alphans
Nobody saw a black hole.
That's why it's black. :)
All we saw were the effects of it on surrounding gas and debris.
 

Ham Salad

Alphans
Your bias here is clear. Let's have a look at the facts.



Chael has responded to this specifically:

>So apparently some (I hope very few) people online are using the fact that I am the primary developer of the eht-imaging software library<

Literally states the fact that he was responsible in the main, not her...in your own source.


Your quote mine does not support your position.


FALSE. It completely supports my position. To make your claim requires you to completely ignore what the statement in fact states.

MY position is that is that clearly this person isn't the sole or even most important contributor. The primary developer here doesn't in fact at any point suggest that she is...just that it was a team effort. So, your claim that it doesn't support the idea that one person is being given more credit than she deserves is in fact completely false.


>I am the primary developer in the software that I write. This doesn't make me the most important member of the team.<

SO? Your opinion on this theoretical situation isn't relevant to this other situation: this is called a 'false analogy'.

Further, that's your opinion, not a fact.

How you 'feel' about how important your contribution is to your own projects is irrelevant to what is actually true, and irrelevant to the black hole imaging project.

It's just simply meaningless.


And it also doesn't state that SHE was the more important member of the team, either. So your;e assuming things that just aren't justified by anything.

This is key. If He was really supporting that she was, or if the criticism of the coverage giving her credit were really about sexism, where's his assertion and proof that this is so? There is none, because it's not true. In fact, the vague wording of the quote actually makes me suspicious of the response on his part: it reads like a statement prepared by management.


>You appear to think that quantity is more important than functionality.<

You appear to assume that the quantity doesn't' support that it might be the most important contribution. Since you have no evidence to prove either proposition, you have nothing valid to state as a claim. Your assumption it must in fact be otherwise is groundless.

>You are demonstrably wrong.<

No, in point of fact, the evidence I posted completely supports my claims...and actually, they aren't even my claims, they are a clear evidence of biased reporting.

You're demonstrably applying faulty reasoning and making claims that are either irrelevant or unsupported opinion.
Your opinion doesn't prove anything.

The only thing you've demonstrated is an opinion based on anecdotal theories, which may or may not be valid, but clearly don't apply to the situation: clearly, this person was a member of a large team, and is in no way personally reasonable for the results. All you know about the situation is what's been reported, the same as I. I'm remarking on the reportage, and the statements made by the people actually involved, and that evidence completely supports what I posted, because that's where it comes from.


Specifically, it is about biased reportage and taking credit for something that a lot of people are actually respectable for.

What's really amusing is the ironic connection with the Big Bang Theory: Even Amy Farrah Fowler got angry for people taking credit for other's work.

The assumption that any attempt to criticise biased reportage is sexist merely because it involves a woman is indicative as well.


>Where did anyone say that Katie did the majority of the work? Where is the misrepresentation?<

RIGHT HERE: In the reported news articles that imply that she was the leader of the project.

>Katie Bouman led development of a computer program that made the breakthrough image possible.< Quote from the BBC article.

It's like you made no effort at all to find out the facts, and didn't bother to read any of the articles that Boatshewed so kindly provided.

In point of fact, the article attempts to give her credit for the whole project several times...even though it ends with a quote by her stating she was just part of a team, and not personally responsible. So, considering the reporter KNEW that, the mutiple attempts to indicate that she was the leader of the project were intentional falsehoods, weren't they?

She didn't lead the team , and nothing in any of the quotes implies she did.

Game over.

If there wasn't this intentional misrepresentation, there wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

It's not an unfair assumption, either: boatshewed, because of the biased representation has clearly assumed that this minor member of a big team was responsible for its achievement...that's not by accident. This wasn't an assumption she just fantasized, it is a false representation right there in the coverage.

It's a quite reasonable assumption to make, considering: that's why you have to view news reportage as always questionable. Having been a journalist myself, I'm quite aware of this sort of thing.

There's no question that there's a clear effort in a biased media to create a heroine here inappropriately...the actual discussion should be 'why is this being done".
 
Last edited:
Top