cuck doubling down douchebaggery empathy deficit entitled babies harassment incels irony alert men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny reddit

Black Hole of Misogyny: Reddit trolls just can’t stop attacking Dr. Katie Bouman for her crime of doing nothing wrong

Katie Bouman and her critics

By David Futrelle

Reddit’s worst misogynists just can’t stop attacking Katie Bouman, the 29-year-old MIT researcher who has inadvertently become their newest Woman to Hate on the Internet.

Her crime? Literally nothing beyond having her picture taken at a happy moment in her life.

She was one of the researchers who worked on developing the algorithms used to capture the first ever image of a black hole, and a photo of her reacting with delight to her team’s success circulated alongside the actual image of the black hole earlier this week. The photo of her inspired a brief burst of coverage about her role in the project, with some in the media crediting her as the person who’d written the code that enabled her team to generate the black hole image.

And that’s when the misogynists lost their shit, on Reddit and elsewhere, blaming her for stealing credit from the men on her team.

On Reddit, a thread in the UnpopularOpinions subreddit declaring that Katie Bouman should not be getting credit for the picture if [sic] the black hole turned out to be not-so-unpopular after all, garnering more than twelve thousand upvotes and generating nearly four thousand comments.

Countless other threads popped up in vast array of other subreddits, ranging from r/space to r/dankmemes, many of them contrasting her supposedly paltry work on the project with that of the man who allegedly “contributed 850,000 out of 900,000 lines of code” used to generate the image of the black hole.

Never mind that she never tried to take credit for anyone else’s work and in a Facebook post noted that “no one algorithm or person made this image, it required the amazing talent of a team of scientists from around the globe and years of hard work.”

Never mind that Andrew Chael, the guy the misogynists credited with doing the lion’s share of the work, quickly went on Twitter to denounce their attacks on Bouman and note that the algorithm they ultimately used “would have never worked without her contributions.” (He added that no, he had not in fact written nearly a million lines of code.)

Yet the misogynists just can’t stop talking shit about her, a woman who literally did nothing to them or the world other than doing her job well.

On Reddit’s worst hives of misogyny the reaction has been extreme, even by Reddit’s-worst-hives-of-misogyny standards.

On the Braincels subreddit, Reddit’s main forum for incels, I found more than thirty separate topics devoted to denouncing Bouman, with titles ranging from “Katie Bouman is a FRAUD: WOMAN TAKES CREDIT FOR BLACK HOLEALGORITHM” to “Fuck this women [sic].” She was described, variously, as a “bitch,” “the black hole c*nt” and simply as “a hole.”

After Chael stood up to defend her, Reddit’s incels were quick to denounce him as a “cuck” and a “numale” buttering her up in a desperate attempt to get laid. (In fact, as he pointed out in the very Twitter thread defending her, he’s gay.)

Over on the Men Going Their Own Way subreddit, the men who like to loudly insist that they simply don’t care about women at all any more also devoted something like thirty topics to the “black hole chick,” (I may not have found them all) including “Hi my name is Katie Bouman and I’m a fraud,” and “A woman wanting sole credit for the work of over 200.” And yes, they also denounced Chael as a “beta simp” and “probably a cuck virgin hoping that if he’s nice enough Katie will touch his pee pee” after he defended her on Twitter.

Normally for a post like this I would go through at least some of these threads in detail and extract some of the most revealing comments. But today, I just don’t have the patience. It’s Friday. Fuck it. I’ve browsed through a bunch of the threads and, well, it’s more or less the same old bullshit you’d expect from these reactionary assholes, only a lot more of it this time. Let them yell into the void this time. I’m fucking done right now.

And people wonder why women are reluctant to go into STEM fields.

EDITED TO ADD: There are so many topics on l’affaire Bouman in the Braincels and MGTOW subreddits alone that, well, here’s one browser window’s worth of the tabs I opened up for this piece, minus a bunch I’ve already closed. I have a bunch more tabs related to this post opened up in several other windows as well.

FWIW. I have nine separate windows open in Chrome right now and most of them have nearly this many tabs open in them. Even with most of the tabs suspended by a browser extension, I’m using 86% of my memory and went over 90% several times doing this post. I have a little bit of a tab problem.

We Hunted the Mammoth is independent and ad-free, and relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!

86 replies on “Black Hole of Misogyny: Reddit trolls just can’t stop attacking Dr. Katie Bouman for her crime of doing nothing wrong”

This reminds me of the crap someone I follow on YouTube, the Chinese maker Naomi “SexyCyborg” Wu, gets because she is a woman, though with added helpings of orientalism and slut-shaming thrown in for good measure in Wu’s case because she has breast implants– something she is upfront about and was the topic of one of her most recent videos:

I first heard about her through the XBox hacker Bunny Huang’s blog who called out the abuse Wu was getting for her appearance. She was very shabbily treated by VICE magazine (there’s a surprise 🙄) last year who interviewed her and ignored requests from her to stay out of aspects of her private life that might get her into trouble with the PRC authorities… which were ignored because white people, I guess 🙄🙄

she didn’t contribute much its already been said by her colleagues you can find it pretty easily

At least She’s getting noticed for doing something actually related to the project . NASA mohawk guy Bobak Ferdowsi wasn’t the only member of the Curiosity Mars rover team but became a celebrity just for having cool hair.

Bouman gave a talk recently about the work:

Basically the hard parts she was involved in were:
– how do you use a telescope that isn’t well calibrated
– how do you verify your image isn’t just wishful thinking
– how do you automate some parameter choices

And I’m sure getting a dozen institutions to work together isn’t a walk in the park either.

So let me sum this up:

1) a photo was published of a scientist looking happy about something cool she helped accomplish

2) some articles were published that generalized her role in the project, as can happen when the general media is covering specialized fields

3) misogynists throw a tantrum, because apparently being a woman = UNFAIRLY TAKING ALL THE CREDIT even if that didn’t actually happen

Is that it? And, good grief, can’t people just be happy about the event horizon photo? Or joke about it not being “aesthetically pleasing“?

Reading Bouman’s papers, i see why CalTech offered her a position. It’s really cool stuff, for years in a row, in various fields only vaguely related to each other.

There’s the black hole work. But there’s also taking video of fabric blowing in the wind and figuring what kind of material it is. And there’s taking video of a room and guessing what’s around the corner based on changes in light. And taking a single image of a 2D sprite in a game and guessing the animation it’s doing.

She is in a STEM field. No woman can have the right brain for that, so obviously she is there thanks to evil feminist quotas and takes away the job of a deserving dude

I work for a woman who graduated from Imperial with a first in biochemistry. Her daughter is showing strong science and maths abilities. Her son is not!

Both kids will do great I am sure as the parents are so committed to them, but it just shows…

This nonsensical perceived oppression right here is the victimhood complex that the right loves to project.

Also, if Roosh accomplished anything noteworthy during his brief career in science, we’d never hear the end of it. This is pure envy. He wouldn’t be worthy of being her assistant

Nthing the fact that lines of code are not a sensible metric for % contribution.

My first professonal job was as a programmer. I made one program run about 20% faster by moving lines of code about, but I didn’t write new stuff.

[For geeks: it was interpretive BASIC. If you split a DO loop over lines 500 and 501 it goes:
Read line 500 and execute it
Read line 501 and execute it
Read lines 1-499
over and over (I think this was about 400 times)

If you put it all on one line it goes:
Read line 500 and execute it 400 times

So I did that with all the DO loops. Plus a few other bits.]

Then I got promoted to Software engineer, where I designed algorithms and flow charts and what should go into a subroutine. I wrote a lot less code and I was considered more valuable.

But then this freakout has nothing to do with how much people contributed, has it?

Remember, these are the same CHUDs that threw a fit when women pointed out that one of the Rosetta scientist’s shirt was kinda tacky and sexist. Now they want to give this scientist grief because of a single facial expression.

I realize that accusations of hypocrisy are meaningless these days, but I’ll still point it out for posterity.

Wow, they just…can’t be happy about anything, can they? The first ever picture of a black hole, and they fixate on the fact that a woman was on the team. If they claim to love science and innovation, I can’t find any evidence of it.

i think that a lot of them were triggered by a post (that now seems to be gone) by the popular Occupy Democrats that was giving her sole credit for the entire thing. Yeah, people took offense to that. And then some idiots took it even further, burying themselves in a pit of moron stew.


Please don’t make fun of triggers. As someone with ptsd the word trigger means something very specific and to use it like that is disrespectful and harmful.

Hi, beware, although negative generalized claim about a nation can be not serious depending on context, maybe meaning their government and the people they represent, but taken alone they might contribute to dehumanization, with no more truth than “muslims are misogynists”, which would rightly not be well received 🙂 . I don’t meant to concern troll, with this.
Yes, pretty much, such people got riled up to be suspecting of women and minorities as result of liberal quotas and affirmative action, which is supposedly at fault for something that actually affect most people of not affluent classes, like economic hardship and difficulty in finding a job.
It’s perfect if a strong propaganda permeating medias and especially internet “screams” that they should direct the anger to other equally and often even more victimized people as obstacle, instead of an injust system that favours exploitation and stratification.
It’s no trivial job unpriming such toxic conditioning, which went viral and almost accepted, with even a “rebel” badge vibe. The subtext of course is that yeah, women can’t possibly excel like men, same for black people’s preposterous IQ score statistics and the liberal marxist cultural et al bingo elite*, has been an intricate plot to hide this inconvenient truth.
*Could be my next user name ? 😀

Notable is the use of powerful pseudofactuality and factoids in this case, although it’s a bit uncanny how they collectively get the same meme (but they accuse liberalSjwetc. of the same, of course) and reproduce it with such conviction, browsing reddit via the downvoted “Chuds” on ChapoTrapHouse, i walk in topics of that kinds where they repeat the same for Boumann, as they do for the 13% people 50% crime for black people.
They find something to be quantified to which reduce the work, lines of code, find out, she contributed to less than Andrew Chael in that regard, -> claim she received undue credit due to nazifem cultural marxist globalist media pushin women at the expense of men because Idpol and affirmative action gone made et al. Victimize a guy without even verify if that was the case, and if he doesn’t agree on being a victim of male bashing, he’s of course a beta orbiter, white knight cuck, very intellectual discourse!

As far as I can understand the whole development was a team effort to learn about this black hole. There were great males and females working together on this. Dr Bouer did her contribution, I am sure that others did too. The problem is that the feminist media used the black hole topic as an excuse to point out “we females were also contributing. Hello, do you see me? Hello, females are here, attention please!”. This is were a lot of people (like me) got ticked off. I am not discrediting Dr Bouer for her work, but let’s be real, she was not the only contributor here. The feminists have turned a great science discovery into a poor gender war display, as usual.

First, it is not Dr. Bouer, it is Dr. Katie Bouman – so your ability to follow the facts is already called into question.
Second, the media chose someone as a member of one of the teams that wrote the algorithm which put together the images into a coherent whole. No surprise that they chose someone who was designated leader, and no surprise that the leader pointed out that the whole team made it happen.
Third, sadly, also no surprise that some people lost their shit all over the internet because the person the media chose to focus on is female. Oh the horror. How dast they. Yawn, here we go again.
Fourth, why?! What is the big deal about picking the leader of an algorithm team to talk about? The media routinely holds up a human on stories of this type for general reporting, and sometimes one of the standout performers is a female (I’ve seen comments that Dr. Bouman was the PI – Primary Investigator – which would make failure to mention her especially stupid, but I cannot now find this information in the blizzard of stupid controversy about this – and I am not willing to wast the time on searching for this. Someone else might confirm or deny, but I’m moving on.)

@Better safe than sorry

Sugar why don’t you go your own way and leave the rest of us alone.

Hi, Better safe than sorry, interesting, can I call you Bsts ?
Your curiousity might be in good faith as the talking points are driven home with such conviction and with a sort of invested aggressivity to insinuate the doubt, I also happened to balk, like “hey this might be a reasonable think to ask, but why all the mysoginy. Yeah mea culpa, liberals made so many mistake, I’m not even liberal, don’t associate me”, but of course that’s not rational, it’s a sort of defence response to that gaslighting narrative.
I noticed, though, you used the “bingo checkbox” “feminist media”, which means you validated some of their narrative apparently, but use it wisely ;). You might think, it’s up to us to prove you wrong, yeah, ok.
Ok, I want to assume you took all the precautions to not let the toxic part of this narrative convince you, and you were like “it’s feminist media and their communication which elicit this”, the first reaction is assume they have a point and grain of truth with 99% unnecessary hate built on top of it, because they act so damn aggressive sure in their posture, like they are using stone cold rationality. Do you know, on Braincel, I stumbled on the idea of being “logic raped”, like owned with logic, dominated and humiliated, that’s how a part of them, not called out on their language see the world, the same people who might deny rape culture. Of course there was hardly any logic on their post, just hate, it was a post stating “there are no girls on interned, you don’t get pussy pass, tits or gtfo”
Why do you assume it’s about a gender war to celebrate a stem woman, in a world where women disposition to math is called on question continuously and lots more posts on reddit about women inferiority, women being child and inherently so, awalt, than feminists doing nowhere near the same in feminist subs? Transphobic terfs, a minority fringe which actually hate men shares more with the manosphere in a Venn diagram, than most feminists.

The point however was, that this discovery was not so much on the amount of lines of code, which btw, echoes the leitmotif “learn to code” as solution to work and employment problems and such. Also correctly stated here, they realize a team effort is reduced to a person just if this person is a woman. She’s been very modest and gave due credit to the whole team.
Sorry for the length again

This is the full author list of the main paper for the black hole picture (with numbers for affiliation, sorry, not worth cleaning that up). It’s kind of long. The other five papers appear to have the same list of authors.

The norm is to list in order of contribution, and within a set of authors with equal contribution, you list in alphabetical order. Here, the authors are one giant set going from A to Z, then a second giant set going from A to Z. So you’d normally read Bouman as equal with Akiyama and Zhu, whereas Algaba to Ziurys would be less contributing.

I’m not particularly seeing evidence of Bouman leading the effort. She probably led some part of the effort.

The Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Kazunori Akiyama1,2,3,4, Antxon Alberdi5, Walter Alef6, Keiichi Asada7, Rebecca Azulay8,9,6, Anne-Kathrin Baczko6, David Ball10, Mislav Baloković4,11, John Barrett2, Dan Bintley12, Lindy Blackburn4,11, Wilfred Boland13, Katherine L. Bouman4,11,14, Geoffrey C. Bower15, Michael Bremer16, Christiaan D. Brinkerink17, Roger Brissenden4,11, Silke Britzen6, Avery E. Broderick18,19,20, Dominique Broguiere16, Thomas Bronzwaer17, Do-Young Byun21,22, John E. Carlstrom23,24,25,26, Andrew Chael4,11, Chi-kwan Chan10,27, Shami Chatterjee28, Koushik Chatterjee29, Ming-Tang Chen15, Yongjun Chen (陈永军)30,31, Ilje Cho21,22, Pierre Christian10,11, John E. Conway32, James M. Cordes28, Geoffrey B. Crew2, Yuzhu Cui33,34, Jordy Davelaar17, Mariafelicia De Laurentis35,36,37, Roger Deane38,39, Jessica Dempsey12, Gregory Desvignes6, Jason Dexter40, Sheperd S. Doeleman4,11, Ralph P. Eatough6, Heino Falcke17, Vincent L. Fish2, Ed Fomalont1, Raquel Fraga-Encinas17, William T. Freeman41,42, Per Friberg12, Christian M. Fromm36, José L. Gómez5, Peter Galison4,43,44, Charles F. Gammie45,46, Roberto García16, Olivier Gentaz16, Boris Georgiev19,20, Ciriaco Goddi17,47, Roman Gold36, Minfeng Gu (顾敏峰)30,48, Mark Gurwell11, Kazuhiro Hada33,34, Michael H. Hecht2, Ronald Hesper49, Luis C. Ho (何子山)50,51, Paul Ho7, Mareki Honma33,34, Chih-Wei L. Huang7, Lei Huang (黄磊)30,48, David H. Hughes52, Shiro Ikeda3,53,54,55, Makoto Inoue7, Sara Issaoun17, David J. James4,11, Buell T. Jannuzi10, Michael Janssen17, Britton Jeter19,20, Wu Jiang (江悟)30, Michael D. Johnson4,11, Svetlana Jorstad56,57, Taehyun Jung21,22, Mansour Karami18,19, Ramesh Karuppusamy6, Tomohisa Kawashima3, Garrett K. Keating11, Mark Kettenis58, Jae-Young Kim6, Junhan Kim10, Jongsoo Kim21, Motoki Kino3,59, Jun Yi Koay7, Patrick M. Koch7, Shoko Koyama7, Michael Kramer6, Carsten Kramer16, Thomas P. Krichbaum6, Cheng-Yu Kuo60, Tod R. Lauer61, Sang-Sung Lee21, Yan-Rong Li (李彦荣)62, Zhiyuan Li (李志远)63,64, Michael Lindqvist32, Kuo Liu6, Elisabetta Liuzzo65, Wen-Ping Lo7,66, Andrei P. Lobanov6, Laurent Loinard67,68, Colin Lonsdale2, Ru-Sen Lu (路如森)30,6, Nicholas R. MacDonald6, Jirong Mao (毛基荣)69,70,71, Sera Markoff29,72, Daniel P. Marrone10, Alan P. Marscher56, Iván Martí-Vidal32,73, Satoki Matsushita7, Lynn D. Matthews2, Lia Medeiros10,74, Karl M. Menten6, Yosuke Mizuno36, Izumi Mizuno12, James M. Moran4,11, Kotaro Moriyama33,2, Monika Moscibrodzka17, Cornelia Müller6,17, Hiroshi Nagai3,34, Neil M. Nagar75, Masanori Nakamura7, Ramesh Narayan4,11, Gopal Narayanan76, Iniyan Natarajan39, Roberto Neri16, Chunchong Ni19,20, Aristeidis Noutsos6, Hiroki Okino33,77, Héctor Olivares36, Gisela N. Ortiz-León6, Tomoaki Oyama33, Feryal Özel10, Daniel C. M. Palumbo4,11, Nimesh Patel11, Ue-Li Pen18,78,79,80, Dominic W. Pesce4,11, Vincent Piétu16, Richard Plambeck81, Aleksandar PopStefanija76, Oliver Porth29,36, Ben Prather45, Jorge A. Preciado-López18, Dimitrios Psaltis10, Hung-Yi Pu18, Venkatessh Ramakrishnan75, Ramprasad Rao15, Mark G. Rawlings12, Alexander W. Raymond4,11, Luciano Rezzolla36, Bart Ripperda36, Freek Roelofs17, Alan Rogers2, Eduardo Ros6, Mel Rose10, Arash Roshanineshat10, Helge Rottmann6, Alan L. Roy6, Chet Ruszczyk2, Benjamin R. Ryan82,83, Kazi L. J. Rygl65, Salvador Sánchez84, David Sánchez-Arguelles52,85, Mahito Sasada33,86, Tuomas Savolainen6,87,88, F. Peter Schloerb76, Karl-Friedrich Schuster16, Lijing Shao6,51, Zhiqiang Shen (沈志强)30,31, Des Small58, Bong Won Sohn21,22,89, Jason SooHoo2, Fumie Tazaki33, Paul Tiede19,20, Remo P. J. Tilanus17,47,90, Michael Titus2, Kenji Toma91,92, Pablo Torne6,84, Tyler Trent10, Sascha Trippe93, Shuichiro Tsuda33, Ilse van Bemmel58, Huib Jan van Langevelde58,94, Daniel R. van Rossum17, Jan Wagner6, John Wardle95, Jonathan Weintroub4,11, Norbert Wex6, Robert Wharton6, Maciek Wielgus4,11, George N. Wong45, Qingwen Wu (吴庆文)96, Ken Young11, André Young17, Ziri Younsi97,36, Feng Yuan (袁峰)30,48,98, Ye-Fei Yuan (袁业飞)99, J. Anton Zensus6, Guangyao Zhao21, Shan-Shan Zhao17,63, Ziyan Zhu44, Juan-Carlos Algaba7,100, Alexander Allardi101, Rodrigo Amestica102, Jadyn Anczarski103, Uwe Bach6, Frederick K. Baganoff104, Christopher Beaudoin2, Bradford A. Benson26,24, Ryan Berthold12, Jay M. Blanchard75,58, Ray Blundell11, Sandra Bustamente105, Roger Cappallo2, Edgar Castillo-Domínguez105,106, Chih-Cheng Chang7,107, Shu-Hao Chang7, Song-Chu Chang107, Chung-Chen Chen7, Ryan Chilson15, Tim C. Chuter12, Rodrigo Córdova Rosado4,11, Iain M. Coulson12, Thomas M. Crawford24,25, Joseph Crowley108, John David84, Mark Derome2, Matthew Dexter109, Sven Dornbusch6, Kevin A. Dudevoir2,144, Sergio A. Dzib6, Andreas Eckart6,110, Chris Eckert2, Neal R. Erickson76, Wendeline B. Everett111, Aaron Faber112, Joseph R. Farah4,11,113, Vernon Fath76, Thomas W. Folkers10, David C. Forbes10, Robert Freund10, Arturo I. Gómez-Ruiz105,106, David M. Gale105, Feng Gao30,40, Gertie Geertsema114, David A. Graham6, Christopher H. Greer10, Ronald Grosslein76, Frédéric Gueth16, Daryl Haggard115,116,117, Nils W. Halverson118, Chih-Chiang Han7, Kuo-Chang Han107, Jinchi Hao107, Yutaka Hasegawa7, Jason W. Henning23,119, Antonio Hernández-Gómez67,120, Rubén Herrero-Illana121, Stefan Heyminck6, Akihiko Hirota3,7, James Hoge12, Yau-De Huang7, C. M. Violette Impellizzeri7,1, Homin Jiang7, Atish Kamble4,11, Ryan Keisler25, Kimihiro Kimura7, Yusuke Kono3, Derek Kubo122, John Kuroda12, Richard Lacasse102, Robert A. Laing123, Erik M. Leitch23, Chao-Te Li7, Lupin C.-C. Lin7,124, Ching-Tang Liu107, Kuan-Yu Liu7, Li-Ming Lu107, Ralph G. Marson125, Pierre L. Martin-Cocher7, Kyle D. Massingill10, Callie Matulonis12, Martin P. McColl10, Stephen R. McWhirter2, Hugo Messias121,126, Zheng Meyer-Zhao7,127, Daniel Michalik128,129, Alfredo Montaña105,106, William Montgomerie12, Matias Mora-Klein102, Dirk Muders6, Andrew Nadolski46, Santiago Navarro84, Joseph Neilsen103, Chi H. Nguyen10,130, Hiroaki Nishioka7, Timothy Norton11, Michael A. Nowak131, George Nystrom15, Hideo Ogawa132, Peter Oshiro15, Tomoaki Oyama133, Harriet Parsons12, Scott N. Paine11, Juan Peñalver84, Neil M. Phillips121,126, Michael Poirier2, Nicolas Pradel7, Rurik A. Primiani134, Philippe A. Raffin15, Alexandra S. Rahlin23,135, George Reiland10, Christopher Risacher16, Ignacio Ruiz84, Alejandro F. Sáez-Madaín102,126, Remi Sassella16, Pim Schellart17,136, Paul Shaw7, Kevin M. Silva12, Hotaka Shiokawa11, David R. Smith137,138, William Snow15, Kamal Souccar76, Don Sousa2, T. K. Sridharan11, Ranjani Srinivasan15, William Stahm12, Anthony A. Stark11, Kyle Story139, Sjoerd T. Timmer17, Laura Vertatschitsch11,134, Craig Walther12, Ta-Shun Wei7, Nathan Whitehorn140, Alan R. Whitney2, David P. Woody141, Jan G. A. Wouterloot12, Melvin Wright142, Paul Yamaguchi11, Chen-Yu Yu7, Milagros Zeballos105,143, Shuo Zhang104, and Lucy Ziurys10

(Oh hey I just recognized a couple names in there from a former life!)


The problem is that the feminist media used the black hole topic as an excuse to point out “we females were also contributing. Hello, do you see me? Hello, females are here, attention please!”. This is were a lot of people (like me) got ticked off.


If you and others were really pissed off at “the feminist media” then the harassment would be directed at the journalists who wrote stories highlighting Dr. Bouman’s contributions.

Is that what happened? NOPE.

This is where a lot of people (like you?) slagged on Dr. Bouman. If her behavior was actually fine, AND IT WAS, then all the twitter rage about disproportionate shares of credit would be directed at specific articles, outlets or authors, BUT NOT HER.


Hmm. Your bullshit excuse for misogyny holds as much water as a solid steel sphere.


Awesome video, thanks!

She speculated a bunch about why not Sgr A*, but everything I’ve seen is that it’s because Sgr A* rotates too fast. It’s critical that the earth have time to rotate in order to fill in the gaps. With more telescopes they don’t need the earth to rotate as much to get equally good data, so they get better temporal resolution, but they didn’t have many in 2017.

My goodness, so many remarks to my post. Ah well.
@MDavis: Bouer or Bouman, who cares, you know whom I was talking about.
@Laini. Why don’t you just leave it up to me to decide what to do? Bye!
@Numerosis. Interesting article indeed!

I remain of the opinion that it was more of a team effort than one single person who has done the brunt of the work. I am absolutely certain that if it was a male who has done most of the work, for sure it would not have gained the same attention. But since SHE has written the algorithm, gender was put into focus here. If you fail to recognize that, fine. I am sticking with my opinion and I am glad I am not alone in that. Thank you.

@Better safe than sorry

Because sugar, you apparently decided to come onto a feminist space and shit on the carpet. Go your own way if you don’t want anything to do with women. It’s not that hard.

“we females were also contributing. Hello, do you see me? Hello, females are here, attention please!”.

This is definitely an accurate representation of how we feeemales talk.

Why do reactionaries never understand how parody (or satire or any other kind of humor) works? If you’re going to do an exaggerated version of how feminists talk, you need to understand how we talk, imitate it, and add hyperbole. What you did was just talk like a misogynistic man talking about women.

It just doesn’t work.

Do better at humor please.

@weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

Because their dumb. That’s the basic of it. They interact with women so little, that they only have a made up version of what a woman is. So then they try to make an exaggeration from their already fantasy version of a woman. Then they end up sounding like one of Lewis Binford’s papers, which by the way is gonna make me drink myself into an early grave.

@ numerobis

it’s because Sgr A* rotates too fast.

Hmm, now you’ve reminded me of something. There was that gas cloud/(broken up star?) orbiting our black hole, that was predicted could be accreted any time soon. Do you know if anything came of that?

Also, speaking of spinning
fast and astronomy; it’s not uncommon for people to ask why Hubble isn’t used for earth observation. There’s a bunch of reasons; but primarily it’s because the earth rotates too quickly, relatively speaking. To the extent that they use the blur to calibrate the white balance.

But I found out, just this year, that the KH-11 keyhole spy satellites are just Hubble telescopes, but pointing down.

So the better question, I think, is why not the use those to look outwards. There’s plenty of opportunity for that when there’s no operational necessity for surveillance; and imagine the resolution possibilities if you synched a few of them up!

I believe you are making a fatal assumption that the vast majority of the trolls aren’t bots. Predominately Russian bots. They are effective at riling up a country’s emotions against each other, not just the US. When a country’s peoples’ opinions are ‘balkanized’, they are distracted and unable to coalesce into a functional power. Emotionalized people (who are coming from their lizard brain) are the easiest to manipulate. Our online world is becoming ever more bot polluted, but we are not realizing it. They are not being stopped by the media corps nor the government. The bigger picture in our face is the healthy demand to evolve our functioning heart wisdom over our emotional stress brain reactions. Beware our reactions. Beware balkanization manipulations. Do we rank and demonize, or do we get effective at sharing our core values and know how to move to harmonize with each other?

Cornychips pointed out on another thread that BSTS is a sock for a troll who was banned a few months ago. He got his ass kicked from Lake Bikal all the way to Vladivostok and apparently thinks things will go differently this time.

I’ve forgotten his name, but he had an inflatable wife and kept nattering on about how he’d only leave if MR FUTRELLE told him to – which David did.

Do we rank and demonize, or do we get effective at sharing our core values and know how to move to harmonize with each other?

Take your concern trolling elsewhere, asshat.

Hippodameia, that sounds like Desperate Ambrose!

I remember him! All verbose and kinda snooty until he got called out and then BAM: “You Harpies!”

And his weird insistence on only talking to/engaging with commenters he assumed were male. Other than the “You rude witches don’t own this blog, Mr. Futrelle does!”

That bannhammer moment was kind of cathartic. 🙂

I’m not sure that BSTS is an Ambrose sock, to be honest. But he might have been, maybe.

Some trolls are indeed professional trolls from Russia or a bot. Some aren’t. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t push back against what they say. They’re effective because they’re saying what a lot of people are really thinking. I can’t know right away whether a specific troll is a bot or a misogynist for hire or whatever, but what I do know is that “ignore the trolls” has been spectacularly ineffective in combating them. Until social media platforms make a real effort to ban trolls (and for that matter, actual Nazis), the only thing we can do is show why they’re wrong.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.