Listen up, physics cripples
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Electrostatics and absurdities of modern physics
Next: All laws in science are based upon explanations of observations. All explanations are theoretical. Therefore laws are theories.
From: Uncle Al on 5 Jun 2010 12:11 http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/ http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/highscores/ Choose between a published physics paper title and technobabble. Make the binary choice, enjoy your running reality score. -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
From: Patok on 5 Jun 2010 12:45 Uncle Al wrote: > http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/ > http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/highscores/ > > Choose between a published physics paper title and technobabble. Make > the binary choice, enjoy your running reality score. No one can do better than random on that one. Only if one knew all papers published in the area - but that's impossible in principle. The generator is very good. -- You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone. -- Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn.
From: Jonathan Schattke on 5 Jun 2010 13:59 On 6/5/2010 11:45 AM, Patok wrote: > Uncle Al wrote: >> http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/ http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/highscores/ >> Choose between a published physics paper title and technobabble. Make >> the binary choice, enjoy your running reality score. > > No one can do better than random on that one. Only if one knew all > papers published in the area - but that's impossible in principle. The > generator is very good. > Actually, I ran 66%. Which is about right, considering I'm an undergrad with interest in the field.
From: Cwatters on 5 Jun 2010 14:20 "Jonathan Schattke" <wizwom(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:hue3aa$jgp$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On 6/5/2010 11:45 AM, Patok wrote: >> Uncle Al wrote: >>> http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/ http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/highscores/ >>> Choose between a published physics paper title and technobabble. Make >>> the binary choice, enjoy your running reality score. >> >> No one can do better than random on that one. Only if one knew all >> papers published in the area - but that's impossible in principle. The >> generator is very good. >> > > Actually, I ran 66%. Which is about right, considering I'm an undergrad > with interest in the field. I got 69% and I'm only an electronics engineer. I know very little physics.
From: Patok on 5 Jun 2010 14:32
Jonathan Schattke wrote: > On 6/5/2010 11:45 AM, Patok wrote: >> Uncle Al wrote: >>> http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/ http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/highscores/ >>> Choose between a published physics paper title and technobabble. Make >>> the binary choice, enjoy your running reality score. >> >> No one can do better than random on that one. Only if one knew all >> papers published in the area - but that's impossible in principle. The >> generator is very good. >> > > Actually, I ran 66%. Which is about right, considering I'm an undergrad > with interest in the field. But how did you do it? Did you recognize some of the real papers? I tried only 3 actually, :) because I was more interested in /how/ it works, than in the test itself. Of the three, the only one I got right was where the title of the fake one was PDFs -- hardly a real article could afford to be called that. While for the other two, even after the truth was revealed, the titles of the fake ones looked more (or at least as) authentic as the real ones. P.S. - I did 10 more of them, and got 70% this time, but still maintain that the generator is very good. -- You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone. -- Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn. |