ITT: Dumb pseudo-science terms that let you know someone is a brainlet

you're a faggot, use the word "understand" or "learn" instead you dumb hipster

I remember watching something on CNBC like 5-6 years ago where they were at a UPS facility and the journalist talked about the "logarithms" used to determine the best ways of routing packages or something like that

Those do not mean grok

Nah.
I could use "get" but it doesn't quite have the same impact or even nuance.
Above all else, I like "grok" because it allows me to accurately translate one of the most common words in my native slang.

If you don't understand the relief I felt when grok entered common usage, consider that my tongue has no real translation for "bully" and "bullying". Imagine if you could only discuss bullying by using the words "harassment" or "teasing."

lmao

in one of his books, Malcolm Gladwell talks about some scientist whose research involves "igon-vectors"

Grok means understand. If you are using it differently then you are wrong

While the Oxford English Dictionary summarizes the meaning of grok as "to understand [!]intuitively or by empathy[!], to establish rapport with" and "to empathize or communicate sympathetically (with); also, to experience enjoyment",[1] Heinlein's concept is far more nuanced, with critic Istvan Csicsery-Ronay Jr. observing that "the book's major theme can be seen as an extended definition of the term."[2]

>big data
>the cloud
>singularity
>simulation ''''theory''''
>"Sol"/"Luna"/"Terra"
>Schroedinger's cat
>golden ratio
>tau

non newtonian fluid

>internet of things

That not a science per se

>instanton
>string theory
>axion
>big bang theory
>multiverse
>theory of EVERYTHING
>god's particle

>quantum computing

Also
> pi
> numbers
> equations
> math
> gravity
> universe
> atom
> proton

>mbti

so in other words "i get what you mean, except i don't and please stop asking me questions you'll embarrass me and my fragile 1000ton ego"

>microbiome

economist.com/technology-quarterly/2017-03-09/quantum-devices

Climate change, create mass hysteria about it and watch the brainlets lose their mind

literally anything-ome

How so

this

it's basically judgement day stuff for hardcore christians, but for liberals

>math

>race

>[multiple of a thousand] millie[unit]
>"20000 millieamps"
It just fucking triggers me. It'n not even pseudo-scientific. Sorry for posting, I'm just so fucking stressed out.

Anyways
>wattage

Sounds like someone can't grok the fullness

>genes
>crisper

>real numbers

Honestly
>wattage
>voltage
>ampage
>ohmage

>infinity
>the Axiom of Completeness
>irrational number
>the length of the diagonal of a square

>neural network will achieve AI
why not?

Any mention of "Gödel" (or his theorems)
If anyone, who hasn't a background in mathematics, says anything about Gödel you can assume that everything he says is complete and utter bullshit.

Voltage is part of the common vernacular though, the other three are definitely brainlet red flags.

the earth is round :^)

The reason the internet of things is a concept is because every semiconductor company writes about it on their website and application notes. Also standards organizations like IEEE have been paying an uncalled for amount of attention to it.

It seems to me like they definitely have some goal that they aren't talking about or know we don't know that would cause the average goy like you to think "Hmm, that idea might actually work". Why would the entire industry be pushing something that seems retarded as this?

I suspect that it's a plot to give the US government 3 letter agencies control over powerful exploits that would be built into the standards/hardware. They want backdoored chips to become universal so they could pwn anybody who uses them.

This has been done before by China, so they want to match this capability. Also look at the mirai botnet: it makes me think they intentionally made it that easy to hack all of this stuff.

REEEEEEEE

Underrated post.

>Calling expressions "equations"
>Treating constants like variables
>Thinking that they can prove that 1=0
>the sum of all N doesn't converge at -1/2

>brainlet

/thread

>tell test you're X
>Test tells you you're X

OMG THIS IS SO ME!

Look at this tard who can't grok hacker slang

go back

people who fall for the "thermodynamics is hard" meme

>ohm it out
GODDAMN IT OHM IS NOT A VERB

>neural network will achieve true AI
neural networks will
deep learning wont

>MULTIVERSE
>General AI
>Higgs-Boson
>time as an illusion
>Bill Nye
>Niel Degrasse Tyson
>Chris Hitchens
>Richard Dawkins
(Inb4 christfag, loudly proclaiming your atheism is just the lowest form of pseudo-intellectual self-congratulation there is)
>Multiverse a second time
>singularity
>"our universe is a simulation/dream/illusion"

anything physics related

>quantum anything

>Nanobiology
>Nanoscience
>Nanoanything

>evolution theory -》Humanswer were apes.

Kek

>body, mind AND soul

>Kardashev scale
>Fermi Paradox
>Drake Equation

NANOMACHINES SON

>Haskell is difficult for a novice programmer
>"Java is a statically typed object-oriented language. Say what?"

all multilayered neural networks are "deep learning"

>Fermats/Fermi
>Heisenberg uncertainty principle
>Quantum Anything
>Schrödingers Cat
>Junk DNA

but what really makes me rage:

>Quantum Chromodynamics (Quarks, Antiquarks, Muons, Gluons, Mesons, Leptons, Pions etc…)

who came up with this completely retarded names? 'Quark'!? Come on man...

What do you call the recently discovered particle that was predicted by Higgs?

Yeah ikr like i was so triggered when uni wanted to teach me "quantum" mechanics or "quantum" numbers.

won't even comment

Wtf is wrong with you people? You can't just pick random words from the scientific area of knowledge and be triggered

>not working with nanotechnology

Weeeewwwwww

>"driverless cars are less than a decade away"

Quantum Chromodynamics is Feynman. Feynman is smarter than you.
is right, most of these are pretty standard

The real issue is when people who don't know shit start throwing around scientific words. In this thread there are a lot of popsci phrases that scientists would never use, but then there are also a lot of scientific phrases that normies like to bandy about.

Physics major asks "What is that little inequality in the corner of the board?" Classmate says "Oh he just means the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle"

vs.

Nerd Girl (TM) says "Well Godel showed that math isn't real as a consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle"

Autopilot is old hat already, the main obstacle is regulations and making the cars practical, safe and economically viable to use on most roads. Robots and indeed autonomous cars are perfectly capable of performing all "complex" maneuvers like parking. Almost all accidents involving self-driving cars were caused by the driver taking control or other drivers, the rest are typically caused by both car and driver failing to detect an obstacle (for example "neither autopilot nor the driver noticed the white side of the tractor-trailer against a brightly lit sky, so the brake was not applied")

"Less than a decade away"? That's what they were predicting 5 years ago, I give them 3 years if the legislative obstacles are removed.

...

Dumb popsci faggot

We already have self-driving cars that can function at the highest level of autonomy, we're now busy splitting hairs on whether you can call them "driverless cars" since it's still marginally safer to have a driver ready to take control just in case.
Literally every self-driving car model that hasn't been retired is already safer than the senile old farts with heart conditions that we irresponsibly allow on our roads, it's pure human chauvinism.

nothing in this world triggers me harder than someone thinking that bill nye is an authority on any science

pretty sure my man bill just reads the headlines of the science and technology section of salon.com

nanofluidics is honorable

>We already have self-driving cars that can function at the highest level of autonomy
Objectively false, it's not even close
Dumb popsci faggot

Right. I'm going to stop replying to you now.

Good. You don't belong on this board. Dumb popsci faggot.

>it's not even close
wrong
It's close.

lmao driverless cars by 2020? kill yourself

1. No one is going to spend more than +10% on a car for a driverless feature (at least when first introduced)

2. who gets sued when they inevitably crash? why take on all that extra risk when its not like people will start buying more cars once they have driverless option

3. i like driving

>It's close.
Are you saying that because they can handle the conditions X% of the time, with X being close to 100? Because I hope you see how that would be a pretty dumb statement to make.

youtube.com/watch?v=GMvgtPN2IBU

>No one is going to spend more than +10% on a car for a driverless feature
I wouldn't think anyone would spend +10% on all the stupid fucking shit that people with too much disposable income want on their cars, but here we are.

>who gets sued when they inevitably crash?
Legal considerations have little incidence on whether something is pseudoscience. I guess nukes and bioweapons are pseudoscience because WMDs are banned.

>i like driving
I don't, and I've avoided having a car for the longest time until a change in commute made public transportation unusable, and taxi services are regrettably overpriced here. I still don't drive if I can help it, and I would still be going by bus or train now except it feels like a waste not to use the car rusting in front of the home now.

Here are your arguments applied to cloning or test tube babies in general.
1. No one is going to spend more than +10% on a child for it to be genetically similar
2. [legal or religious objections] Why bother dealing with this, it's not like people will start having more children once they have this option.
3. I like having sex.

Electric cars are doing pretty well despite being grossly impractical.

You're stupid af. Stop believing every clickbait article you see. Driverless cars today instantly fail in bad weather. They won't be widespread until 2040 and that's being generous.

>Driverless cars today instantly fail in bad weather.
Actually, no, they fail when the road (not the markings, the road shape itself) is not discernible or the sensors are caked with thick mud.
"Can drive by itself except in catastrophic conditions" is pretty good already. Technically human drivers shouldn't be driving in those conditions either, they're simply too pigheaded to recognize that and give up. Driverless cars are in fact better in some weather conditions where their sensors provide a clear advantage over human eyeballs.

>Whomst

>life

oh allah it's true, haha oh wow

("igon value problem" yall wanna look it up)

does he get abused in pop stuff?

>the
>I
>a
>think
Brainlet stuff!
Me smarter look at me

>the laws of entropy

>hurr it's a psuedoscience because I don't know what it means
I'll agree that many people who use certain buzzwords frequently typically aren't that smart as they use it for the purposes of handwaving, but it doesn't make the actual thing they are referring to a psuedoscience at all.

>uncertainty principle
>curved space
>virtual particles
>borrowing from the vacuum
>backwards causality
>entanglement
>symmetry breaking
>quark color and flavor
>quantum tunneling
>renormalization
>hidden variables
>asymptotic freedom
>observer-causes-collapse